What the deal AMP

[The Janitor]

Typical, Start pointing out what you think the flaws are with the AMP constitution and completely ignore the fact that the constitution is based directly off the pilots constitution and they have had no probltms with minority rights or using professionals in the past then throw in Kevin Mcormack {AMFA} and try to tye us to him. Lets all try to remember that this constitution as flawed as you may think it is stands as the only allternative we have right now to the TWU and compared to them its gold.We could have wriitten one from scratch and folks would have found problems with it to we decide to go with tried and trued winner and still the questions remain ok, keep the TWU see how that works for you!

We already know how the TWU is working out. The AMP constitution is fairly impressive, I was only pointing out a personal preference, albeit a minor one. What's takin?

 

[odie01]

By not having professionals in neg the company would be able to hood wink the neg team. Me personally I would prefer having the professionals in neg do to the fact they do that daily and would be a lot sharper at it than I or anybodyelse woulld be that does somthing every few years. As far as their laptops and Kevin McCormick goes I don't think that the NWA mechanics and related would have gotten the raise that they did in 2001 if not for having professsionals in neg and therefor we would not have recieved the raise that we had gotten in 2001. The company has professionals in neg and that is why they kick our asses all the time along with the fact that the twu sells us out so that they can put the 30 pieces of silver in their pockets. Neg the old fshion way as you put it is exactly what AMP is all about,allowing the membership to be in control. Having prof neg in the discussions with the company along with your elected officials doees not mean that the membership is not in control. It means that we have guidance unlike we have now. You answered your own question about why we should be having prof in neg by making the statement that it would not hurt to have some people in neg with more than a high school education. If we were noligable about the econemy,negotiations and had a education higher than high school we would not be mechanics and need their assistance, we would be professional negotiators. I think odie just answered your question about recall. I agree with you that AMP allows the membership to have more of the power than the twu. Oh and if we as membership decide not to have professionals in neg that will be our decision as a membership by having a vote and not having the elected officers make that decision for us. I hope this helps you understand why we have prof in neg. If you have any other questions please ask.

I agree 767, we've been getting our ass kicked, we have enough money in dues to hire experts to overlook negotiations, or would you rather have calenders and T-shirts?

 

[eolesen]

Also, the recall language in the constitution creates a mess since any officer can be recalled by 30%. That's horrible because it can be triggered by something less than the majority. Therefore, cliques can potentially be big enough to stir division.

If you think 30% of the membership is a bad idea, then you may need to move because lower percentages might be usurping the election process for your state and local officials.


In Montana, depending on the office, 10 to 15% of the voters from the last election can petition for a recall election.

California is out, too. There, between 12% and 20% of the number of voters for that office from the last election can trigger a recall.

So are Georgia, Oregon & Rhode Island. 15% of the number of ballots cast for that office in the last general election (in Oregon, 15% of those voting for governor)

No go on Idaho. 20%.

Pass on Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, & Wisconsin. 25%.

Washington State? They range between 25% and 35% depending on the office.

Kansas might be more your speed -- 40%


About half the states with recall provisions have time limits, in that you can't be a sore loser and petition for recall until after the winner has had a chance to prove themselves.

Wisconsin & New Jersey don't allow recall until after the person has been in office for one year, while Alaska, Arizona, and Nevada allow it after 6 months. Michigan doesn't allow recall during the first or last six months of an incumbent's term. North Dakota requires recall to be part of a general election, which also limits a "poor loser" recall attempts.


And half the states have "for cause" restrictions on recall.

Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Washington State and Montana permit recall only if there has been malfeasance or violation of oath of office. In Rhode Island, recall is only permitted if the person commits a misdemeanor or felony.


Properly crafted, recall language is a good thing. I like the "no cause" concept better than requiring malfeasance, but fully support having "sore loser" thresholds to allow someone duly elected the chance to proce themselves.

 

[tech2101]

because NWA hired security goons at EVERY Scab Air station to monitor/harass the strikers

Not true. I was on strike at IAH and there were no security hired there. It was us few who were still in town during the strike (many commuters at that station then after all the bumping). We did have SWA AMT's come walk the line with us on several occasions.

 

[Bob Owens]

If you think 30% of the membership is a bad idea, then you may need to move because lower percentages might be usurping the election process for your state and local officials.


In Montana, depending on the office, 10 to 15% of the voters from the last election can petition for a recall election.

California is out, too. There, between 12% and 20% of the number of voters for that office from the last election can trigger a recall.

So are Georgia, Oregon & Rhode Island. 15% of the number of ballots cast for that office in the last general election (in Oregon, 15% of those voting for governor)

No go on Idaho. 20%.

Pass on Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, & Wisconsin. 25%.

Washington State? They range between 25% and 35% depending on the office.

Kansas might be more your speed -- 40%


About half the states with recall provisions have time limits, in that you can't be a sore loser and petition for recall until after the winner has had a chance to prove themselves.

Wisconsin & New Jersey don't allow recall until after the person has been in office for one year, while Alaska, Arizona, and Nevada allow it after 6 months. Michigan doesn't allow recall during the first or last six months of an incumbent's term. North Dakota requires recall to be part of a general election, which also limits a "poor loser" recall attempts.


And half the states have "for cause" restrictions on recall.

Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Washington State and Montana permit recall only if there has been malfeasance or violation of oath of office. In Rhode Island, recall is only permitted if the person commits a misdemeanor or felony.


Properly crafted, recall language is a good thing. I like the "no cause" concept better than requiring malfeasance, but fully support having "sore loser" thresholds to allow someone duly elected the chance to proce themselves.

Uh huh, and you just happened to have all those figures in yourhead so you could pound them out in your typical 10 minutes a day you spend here right?

That said I agree with recall provisions and 50% plus 1 of the membership is sound policy, we have it in our Bylaws. Malfeasance should not have to be proven because the nature of the job is that those elected must have the confidence of the electorate to properly lead. If the majority has expressed that they have no confidence and they dont want that person in there they should be allowed to remove them on that basis alone. I also believe in run-offs until a candidate gets a majority of the ballotts cast.

The margins required for recall with states is and should be lower due to the fact that the electorate is spread out over the entire state and initiatiing a recall is a huge and expensive undertaking, in a union recall, where all the voters congregate at the same location on a daily basis its not as big of an undertaking.The problem I see with state recalls is that recalls driven purely by citizens is unlikely, while less costly than requiring 50% its still too costly for most , except of course large corporations which shouldnt in reality have any say whatsoever in the political process because although they are legally persons, they are not citizens. I find it ironic that we have all these people who run around complaining about illegal aliens who want to become citizens yet say nothing about the hundreds of "legal persons" in this country, that in fact control this country, from what you read to what you see to what you hear to what you eat, what you can buy, how much you pay and even your access to health care, and its all controlled by non-citizens acting not in the interest of the nation, but in the selfish interests of its owners, who could just as likely be relatives or supporters of Osama Bin Laden or Warren Buffett( enemies of our nation or successful US citizen, corporations dont care who own them. they have no loyalty to any nation or system of government, only their own quest for ever increasing profits).

 

[TWU informer]

Some real data to look at would be how often is recall actually used within those unions or the states that have it.

For all the fear generated by those unions leaders that do not have it, I suspect the truth is that recall happens very little.

It is not the arguement regarding the percentages or the fairness of numbers that is relevant.
Just having the option available is enough to change the direction of the union.

This is what the run amuck union leaders fear the most...Accountability, and Change.
It is not the actual recall they fear, it is the accountability potential that recall brings that will change their ways.

Arguements directed towards fairness and political correctness are a complete waste.
Just having the control lever in the membership hands is enough to effect real change within the union.

Percentages and rules rarely come into play once implemented so why bother to argue. Another point would be that if the membership controls the union, and serious degrading issues arise because of the rules or percentages, the members will take the required action to change those that are in error. We have all been subjected to undemocratic unions for so long, we argue points that would become moot if the union became membership controlled. We really do not even know that how to properly discuss and debate real democratic unionism because we have never enjoyed that.

 

[737823]

We have all been subjected to undemocratic unions for so long, we argue points that would become moot if the union became membership controlled. We really do not even know that how to properly discuss and debate real democratic unionism because we have never enjoyed that.

That's exactly the problem I have with unions is thatany are corrupt and out of touch with what the membership wants. Anyone remember the scandal at APFA with Juan Barrera and "paying back money for no wrong doing to put membership concerns to rest"

I can't tell if you are serious or not, and its most interesting (and revealing) that you are posting here as an official union representative.

Josh

 

[700UW]

Guess you never heard of Enron, WorldComm and Bernie Madoff.

Please show us how every union is corrupt?

And you dont work for a company that is unionized, if others choose to do so, who are you tell them thats wrong?

 

[FWAAA]

I'm not having the slightest problem understanding the AMP constitution. Odie is the one who misquoted me.
I simply do not like the fact that a minority can trigger a recall. I believe that once the majority speaks in officer elections, it should naturally follow that the elected officer should have the full authority for the entire term. Giving the minority a trigger makes no sense at all. For instance, officer B loses his election but has 30% of the vote. Therefore, for political gain, Officer B, gets his minority to trigger a recall. OTOH, if a union insists on recalls, then I would appeal for a 50% trigger, not a 30%.

So you want the constitution to require that a recall petition be signed by a majority of the membership as a prerequisite to a memberhsip vote on recall? That doesn't make any sense. I stand by my assertion that you don't appear to understand it.

The members of the TWU have been laboring under concessions for going on eight years now and have been unable/unwilling to produce a majority of the members' signatures in a card drive to replace the TWU and yet you want to require a majority of the members to simply call for a recall election? You really believe that 30% of the membership would sign a recall petition after an election simply for kicks? That doesn't pass the laugh test.

If anything, the 30% requirement might be a little too restrictive; perhaps a 20% or 25% threshhold would be effective.

 

[Frank Szabo]

So you want the constitution to require that a recall petition be signed by a majority of the membership as a prerequisite to a memberhsip vote on recall? That doesn't make any sense. I stand by my assertion that you don't appear to understand it.

The members of the TWU have been laboring under concessions for going on eight years now and have been unable/unwilling to produce a majority of the members' signatures in a card drive to replace the TWU and yet you want to require a majority of the members to simply call for a recall election? You really believe that 30% of the membership would sign a recall petition after an election simply for kicks? That doesn't pass the laugh test.

If anything, the 30% requirement might be a little too restrictive; perhaps a 20% or 25% threshhold would be effective.

A 15-20% threshhold would certainly keep the boys higher on the food chain on the straight and narrow - that wouldn't allow them the time to buy the friendships needed to remain as now.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

I agree - the potential for a recall drive would be a very effective check on those in power. Some of the things that have come to light about TWU International's leadership are very, very ugly - especially the nepotism. Just goes to show what people will do when they think there are no consequences.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

I agree - the potential for a recall drive would be a very effective check on those in power. Some of the things that have come to light about TWU International's leadership are very, very ugly - especially the nepotism. Just goes to show what people will do when they think there are no consequences.

Hence the creation of AMP.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

AMP will be fielding a team of AMTs in the Maintenance Skills Competition next month in Las Vegas. The MSC is a competition where AMT/AMEs show first hand just some of the responsibilities that are carried by all AMT/AMEs. Thank you AMP for believing in our craft & class enough to field a team. Good luck to all those who will be competing.


GO AMP!

 

[High Speed Steel]

AMP will be fielding a team of AMTs in the Maintenance Skills Competition next month in Las Vegas. The MSC is a competition where AMT/AMEs show first hand just some of the responsibilities that are carried by all AMT/AMEs. Thank you AMP for believing in our craft & class enough to field a team. Good luck to all those who will be competing.


GO AMP!

Are you and AMP planning to have Team Tulsa compete as an MRO again Ken? I noticed last year that was how they competed. I was un-aware the American Airlines Maintenance and Engineering Center here in Tulsa was an MRO. I thought, "What the hell is this", when I seen the competition video on Local 514's website...Hmmm, I wonder if this is where the company got the idea for SMA's in the rejected TA since the Maintenance skills competition pimped Tulsa M&E as an MRO....

My take from last years video was a very bold showing of separation of Base and Line Maintenance, sponsored by your Maintenance Skills competition....What is AMP's position on the matter, do they consider Tulsa M&E an MRO?

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Are you and AMP planning to have Team Tulsa compete as an MRO again Ken? I noticed last year that was how they competed. I was un-aware the American Airlines Maintenance and Engineering Center here in Tulsa was an MRO. I thought, "What the hell is this", when I seen the competition video on Local 514's website...Hmmm, I wonder if this is where the company got the idea for SMA's in the rejected TA since the Maintenance skills competition pimped Tulsa M&E as an MRO....

My take from last years video was a very bold showing of separation of Base and Line Maintenance, sponsored by your Maintenance Skills competition....What is AMP's position on the matter, do they consider Tulsa M&E an MRO?

Team Tulsa was an AA sponsored team. But you knew this. AA has indicated that they are NOT sponsoring any team at the corporate level so you might want to use your contacts regarding a Team Tulsa. Team Tulsa did compete in the MRO/OEM Category last year. If you think the company got the idea for SMAs from the MSC you truly are an imbecile of unmeasureable proportions. (Please stay behind your alias.)

The MSC did not "pimp" anything. There are 5 different categories to be competed in. (Now I know that you, cio and other twu tools can NOT read AND comprehend. I know it can be confusing what with "words" getting in the way.) Try getting someone to explain to you the content of the MSC and the reason for the competition itself.

But if you wish to continue to post from behind the shadows and attempt to belittle something positive for our craft & class knock yourself out.