We're screwd

[Bob Owens]

With the July issue of the TWU Express if there were any doubts that the TWU was a company union the July issue should put it to rest.

Page 2 is where Little the liar announces his support for Barack Obama for President. Ok, that comes as no suprise, even a company friendly unionist has to make an effort to appear to be for workers economic interests. Clearly McCain is anti worker and anti-labor. His S1327 would strip unions of any right to bargain for fair wages and it would make unions useless. What caught my eye was where Jim Little, who is supposed to be a "Labor " leader cited "Ronald Reagan" as "the right person for America" "in 1980".

Right person for America? The same Reagan who presided over the destruction of the labor movement? Reagan who fired air-traffic controllers? Reagan who sat by as the courts allowed companies to get out of union contracts by declaring BK? Reagan who glorified the transfer of wealth from working people to the rich, Reagan who cut taxes for the rich while raising taxes on working people by eliminating write offs that working people used and raising our Social security payments instead of removing the cap?

Such as statement by a union leader is unbelievable. That would be like a Rabbi saying that Hitler was the right man for Germany in 1930. Obviously Hitler was never the right man, especially for Jews and Reagan was not the right man for working Americans.

It just goes to show the mindset of a person like Jim Little. Reagan policies devasted unions and workers and made the rich wealthier at the expense of workers. Workers have never recovered. Maybe he forgot what happened when Reagan was in office, or maybe at the time he was in management at AA and as a member of AA management looked at things from managements perspective.

How could we expect someone who looks at things the way he does (Reagan, termination of strikers, breaking of contracts, B-scale, wage and benifits cut, tax cuts for the rich, higher taxes for everyone else, deregulation of the banks, laissez faire economics as "the right person for America), someone who says "we" as he speaks about sacrifices that he never made (his wages have doubled since 2003 while ours were cut 25%) as someone who is the right person to represent workers at AA?

Jim Little, Burchette, Conley, Gless, Yingst, with a crew like this we havent got a chance of ever getting back what we should because they are all getting more than they should, and we are footing the bill.

 

[eolesen]

Compared to Carter, there's no question Reagan was the right choice for America at the time, Bob.

Carter unleashed deregulation on the airlines, railroads, and trucking industry. He did little to offset the problems that the steel and auto industry were facing from foreign competition. The secondary effects of those actions (or inactions) were the very things you accuse Reagan of doing -- union contracts being stripped of all the perks they had been used to under regulation, and companies having to find ways to compete with foreign competition and start-ups who didn't have the same cost overhead.

There's no saying what Carter would have dismantled given another four years.

As far as foreign policy goes, another four years of Carter could have been disasterous. The USSR truly feared Reagan. I don't think they would have pulled any punches against Carter.

 

[BillLumbergh]

BTW, this should not stray into the general political realm, or it will be moved to the general convo forum....

 

[eolesen]

Which party a largely AA union supports seems to be pretty specific to AA, but do what you think you have to...

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Reagan stabbed the labor movement in the back,especially when it came to PATCO. The so called labor "leaders" in the AFL-CIO failed to fight back and Reagan with the assistance of the SCAB pilot "union's" in this country helped destroy the labor unions of this country. Of course when you have the EVIL TWU selling out it's AA members in 1983, that didn't help the labor movement much either.

 

[Bob Owens]

Compared to Carter, there's no question Reagan was the right choice for America at the time, Bob.

I guess you would use the same arguement about Hindenberg.I'm sure that as bad as things looked in Germany of 1930, it looked better than Germany of 1945.

Carter unleashed deregulation on the airlines, railroads, and trucking industry. He did little to offset the problems that the steel and auto industry were facing from foreign competition. The secondary effects of those actions (or inactions) were the very things you accuse Reagan of doing -- union contracts being stripped of all the perks they had been used to under regulation, and companies having to find ways to compete with foreign competition and start-ups who didn't have the same cost overhead.

Well deregulation came in 1978, the unions really didnt start to collapse until after Reagan fired PATCO and they allowed Lorenzo to use BK as a scheme to get out of labor contracts. Some like to try and say deregulation has been the cause of our woes and while its a factor its certainly not the main cause. The main cause has been government interference, on behalf of the airlines at every step. When labor is in a position to make gains the government steps in and prevents the unions from taking action (such as when the NMB directed AMFA to lower their demands under the threat of never releasing them from mediation) however then when the company makes even more extrodinary demands the government does whatever the company asks(Continental, Eastern, Northwest). Couple that with weak labor leaders who with their six figure salaries, comfortable relations with management and lack of accountability and you have the complete recipie for disaster.

Whatever Carter may have, could have, would have done is irrelevant, even you admit that the negative effects of Carters actions/inactions were secondary,(Kennedy also favored deregulation and has repeatedly expressed his remorse for supporting it) Reagans actions were primarily attacks upon labor. There is a difference between inadvertant and deliberate. For the President of a Labor Union to say that Reagan was the "right man for America" is nothing short of treason. He is endorsing what Reagan did to American labor. Littles favorable opinion towards Reagan is not suprising, given the fact that we already know that he is a patsy for American Airlines, whats suprising is his revelation of his feelings about Reagan especially since he sits on the board of the AFL-CIO. But then again the majority of those on the AFL-CIO board are also people who have been un-or positively affected by the upward redistribution of wealth. Perhaps the pro Reagan union busting sentiment is more prevelent among union leaders than most dues payers realize.

 

[getreal]

Keep voting Republican folks! :angry:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-0...rzenegger_N.htm

 

[tkelly911]

Keep voting Republican folks! :angry:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-0...rzenegger_N.htm

Yes, this would be for the same Republicans blocking a huge tax increase proposed by the Democratic majority, who have granted illegal immigrants in-state tuition and free access to state medical care, all balanced on the backs of robot like union members who drink the Kool-Aid and vote the same socialists back into office so their union wages can be distributed to our "guest workers."

 

[eolesen]

Well, Bob, there you go again....

It's a cold, hard fact that Federal law prevented unionized government employees from striking.

PATCO was made up of government workers, and was a union, therefore any strike by PATCO would be illegal under Federal law.

There's no arguing that.

Federal employees also had to sign the following oath as a condition of Federal employment in a unionized position:

"I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof."

Press conference, morning of the walkout:

Question: Mr. President, why have you taken such strong action as your first action? Why not some lesser action at this point?

Reagan: "What lesser action can there be? The law is very explicit. They are violating the law. And as I say, we called this to the attention of their leadership. Whether this was conveyed to the membership before they voted to strike, I don't know. But this is one of the reasons why there can be no further negotiation while this situation continues. You can't sit and negotiate with a union that's in violation of the law. And their oath."

From "An American Life", Reagan's memoirs:

"I supported unions and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, but no president could tolerate an illegal strike by Federal employees."

This was the same Reagan that lead the SAG out on one of their first strikes, and was a life member of the AFL-CIO.

So was he a union buster, or just someone who knew right from wrong, and sided with the law???

And where were the airline unions during all this? Working. They didn't honor the PATCO picket lines. If you were an airline employee in 1981 carrying a union card, you are more guilty of union busting than Reagan was. By most unionists definition, crossing a picket line or touching struck work would qualify you as a scab. I don't think there's any question that an aircraft movement during a controllers strike would qualify as struck work...

But please, do blame Reagan for this.


Oh, and while you're on your tirade against the TWU for supporting Reagan over Carter, perhaps you could also mention that ALPA, and ironically, PATCO, all endorsed Reagan over Carter. They obviously thought that he'd be better than Mr. Peanut.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

And where were the airline unions during all this? Working. They didn't honor the PATCO picket lines. If you were an airline employee in 1981 carrying a union card, you are more guilty of union busting than Reagan was.

I do not remember Lindner's position on working on the planes, but I most definitely know I did not cross ANY picket line. Never even saw one.

 

[Bob Owens]

Well, Bob, there you go again....

It's a cold, hard fact that Federal law prevented unionized government employees from striking.

Its a cold hard fact that owning people was once legal, our laws still have a ways to go. Most free countries dont have such broad prohibitions against the rights of workers. Such laws are reminders that fascism has never really died.

This was the same Reagan that lead the SAG out on one of their first strikes, and was a life member of the AFL-CIO.

And Hitler was an Alter boy and Stalin was a seminarian, even Benidict Arnold was a one time a Patriot.

So was he a union buster, or just someone who knew right from wrong, and sided with the law???

He was a union buster.

And where were the airline unions during all this? Working. They didn't honor the PATCO picket lines. If you were an airline employee in 1981 carrying a union card, you are more guilty of union busting than Reagan was. By most unionists definition, crossing a picket line or touching struck work would qualify you as a scab. I don't think there's any question that an aircraft movement during a controllers strike would qualify as struck work...

Our union leaders were either afraid of or in sympathy with Reagan, their inaction was inexcusable but that doesnt mitigate what Reagan did.

Oh, and while you're on your tirade against the TWU for supporting Reagan over Carter, perhaps you could also mention that ALPA, and ironically, PATCO, all endorsed Reagan over Carter. They obviously thought that he'd be better than Mr. Peanut.

Thats right, because Reagan had promised Patco that he was sympathetic to their grievances and would help them once he was in office. reagan then stabbed them in the back. ALPA saw what Reagan did , realized they made a mistake and did not support Reagan in 1984. I voted for Reagan in 1980 but in hindsite I realize that I made a big mistake. For Jim Little, a union leader, to look back and still say he was the right man for America, to not acknowledge what damage Reagan has done to labor either shows his lack of judgement or true feelings towrds the cause of labor.

 

[Tim Nelson]

With the July issue of the TWU Express if there were any doubts that the TWU was a company union the July issue should put it to rest.

Page 2 is where Little the liar announces his support for Barack Obama for President. Ok, that comes as no suprise, even a company friendly unionist has to make an effort to appear to be for workers economic interests. Clearly McCain is anti worker and anti-labor. His S1327 would strip unions of any right to bargain for fair wages and it would make unions useless. What caught my eye was where Jim Little, who is supposed to be a "Labor " leader cited "Ronald Reagan" as "the right person for America" "in 1980".

Right person for America? The same Reagan who presided over the destruction of the labor movement? Reagan who fired air-traffic controllers? Reagan who sat by as the courts allowed companies to get out of union contracts by declaring BK? Reagan who glorified the transfer of wealth from working people to the rich, Reagan who cut taxes for the rich while raising taxes on working people by eliminating write offs that working people used and raising our Social security payments instead of removing the cap?

Such as statement by a union leader is unbelievable. That would be like a Rabbi saying that Hitler was the right man for Germany in 1930. Obviously Hitler was never the right man, especially for Jews and Reagan was not the right man for working Americans.

It just goes to show the mindset of a person like Jim Little. Reagan policies devasted unions and workers and made the rich wealthier at the expense of workers. Workers have never recovered. Maybe he forgot what happened when Reagan was in office, or maybe at the time he was in management at AA and as a member of AA management looked at things from managements perspective.

How could we expect someone who looks at things the way he does (Reagan, termination of strikers, breaking of contracts, B-scale, wage and benifits cut, tax cuts for the rich, higher taxes for everyone else, deregulation of the banks, laissez faire economics as "the right person for America), someone who says "we" as he speaks about sacrifices that he never made (his wages have doubled since 2003 while ours were cut 25%) as someone who is the right person to represent workers at AA?

Jim Little, Burchette, Conley, Gless, Yingst, with a crew like this we havent got a chance of ever getting back what we should because they are all getting more than they should, and we are footing the bill.

Why don't you guys vote Little out? With the internet, we have found out that coordinating various locals are a breeze. We voted out each District officer in 141 that was up for election since they were all the same as your misleader Little. It might be worth a shot to get in touch with some NYC transportation people and some AA mechanics and rampers and coordinate a way to vote out Little and crew.

regards

 

[The Goose]

Why don't you guys vote Little out? With the internet, we have found out that coordinating various locals are a breeze. We voted out each District officer in 141 that was up for election since they were all the same as your misleader Little. It might be worth a shot to get in touch with some NYC transportation people and some AA mechanics and rampers and coordinate a way to vote out Little and crew.

regards

Somehow, in years past, TWU officers became appointed and not elected - Little does not stand for election but is appointed in a political manner similar to that of the USSR years ago. Hell's bells - it's almost impossible to recall a local officer.

Believe me - if it were possible even the sheeple at American would have voted him out because of his management ties. Our only way out is to replace the TWU but there's nothing out there that's not willing to bed down with whatever company they're associated with and/or their enemies to ensure their own survival as AMFA did recently after losing United to the teamsters, trying to "educate" the scabs at NWA (the very people who replaced their former membership) and get them to begin paying dues.

 

[eolesen]

Its a cold hard fact that owning people was once legal, our laws still have a ways to go. Most free countries dont have such broad prohibitions against the rights of workers. Such laws are reminders that fascism has never really died.

And Hitler was an Alter boy and Stalin was a seminarian, even Benidict Arnold was a one time a Patriot.

So now we're comparing the right to strike as being on par with fascism, slavery and genocide?

This type of crap is why the unionista rallying cry rings so hollow with more and more people, Bob. That's a laughable comparison. If you'd have said prohibition, perhaps it would be a little more reasonable.

Thats right, because Reagan had promised Patco that he was sympathetic to their grievances and would help them once he was in office. reagan then stabbed them in the back.

You mean they expected preferential treatment?... So did the Teamsters (who also backed Reagan). They still wound up in the DOJ's crosshairs.

Had PATCO remained on the job, Reagan could have continued to be an ally. By walking off the job and violating the "no strike no lockout" law, PATCO backed Reagan into a corner from which there was only one legal way out, which was upholding the law first and foremost.

I find it funny the lengths you will go to at times to justify unethical behavior like sick abuse. Since you defended attempted and thwarted theft by your co-workers at LGA, I'm not at all surprised you would be advocating illegal behavior.

Like it or not, PATCO leadership knew the consequences a strike would bring on the membership. They were given fair warning. After the walkout, the members (and the nation) were given fair warning of what would happen if they stayed off the job. They rolled the dice and lost.

For Jim Little, a union leader, to look back and still say he was the right man for America, to not acknowledge what damage Reagan has done to labor either shows his lack of judgement or true feelings towrds the cause of labor.

In your tiny sliver of domestic called labor relations, you have a point. When you look at all the other aspects that have to be considered when you look at a particular candidate being fit to lead the nation, e.g. foreign policy, economics, defense, there's no question who was the better candidate.

I didn't think Bush II was the right choice in 2000, and I didn't vote for him. But I look back on 9/11 and know he was the right man for the country. Gore would have gone off and bought some carbon credits to offset WTC's smoke, and that would have been the extent of our response...

Maybe endorsing nobody would have been the better option. Sort of like voting "Present" instead of taking a stance...

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

This leaflet was distributed by some of the PATCO locals back in 1981. I guess you could say it was: RIGHT ON TARGET.