Where Is The Afl-cio?

[MCI transplant]

I do not know where you heard that the TWU would pull out of the AFL-CIO, but I seriously doubt that bluff was ever pushed forward. The TWU has at least a twenty year history of rolling over whenever American Airlines say to. I cannot see where the big and mighty AFL-CIO would feel threaten by such a timid internal entity such as the TWU.

[post="269663"][/post]​

<_< I have to agree with Buck on that one. This is the first I heard that the AFL/CIO even acknowledged that there was a problem! That's not saying it couldn't have happened. I just hadn't heard it before!!

 

[aafsc]

:angry: aa----- Wrong again! The AFL/CIO had nothing to do with it! As for this thing about signing away our scope. It 's getting a little old! We signed them away under "duress"! We had a gun put to our heads! Carty threatened to request our "total" contract be stricken under 1113a, if we didn't! The same way United is now in court! We worked a year as TWA LLC under our old contract! Can you imagine doing that with no contract at all under an aa management??? I personaly feel, aa, and the TWU had an agenda worked out long before this so called buy out came to be, and it didn't include the employees of TWA!!! In fact I feel, with ever passing day, it's more than obvious! :angry:

[post="269635"][/post]​

You are right about Carty abrogating your entire agreement if you did not agree to sign away your LPPs. But I was told by a shop steward that the AFL-CIO constitution mandates binding arbitration between two AFL-CIO afiliated unions. Then why else would have the TWU went to binding arbitration? Their position was a pure staple since the TWAers waived the LPPs in bankruptcy court. And if you feel that there is a conspiracy to get rid of the TWAers, then why did AA just sign a 25 year lease deal for the MCI base?

 

[AMFAMAN]

You are right about Carty abrogating your entire agreement if you did not agree to sign away your LPPs. But I was told by a shop steward that the AFL-CIO constitution mandates binding arbitration between two AFL-CIO afiliated unions. Then why else would have the TWU went to binding arbitration? Their position was a pure staple since the TWAers waived the LPPs in bankruptcy court. And if you feel that there is a conspiracy to get rid of the TWAers, then why did AA just sign a 25 year lease deal for the MCI base?

[post="269754"][/post]​

aafsc,


Prior to the 2001 AA/twu agreement, the only merger language was a LOA which called for seniority to be determined in accordance with C.A.B.(not exact language, don't have an old contract on hand). The CAB part is correct and became defunct in the early 80's. Despite no less than 5 negotiated contracts, each with proposals for merger language, only after the TWA merger was completed did the twu put forth, rather accepted the compAAny proposal for merger language in June 2001.(This is fact, straight from the table) The difference in this merger language was that not only are we protecting the membership, we are also protecting the incoming TWAers by dictating that the seniority issue go to arbritration. We can all disagree over the Kasher decision but without this post-merger new language put forth by the company and if the IAM didn't wave their merger protection language, TWAers would have been the only ones with merger protection. In my personal opinion, the company was covering its tracks against a lawsuit because of the IAM waiver and always has a excuse for the seniority issue by saying, it was the arbritaitor that did this, not us. The interesting thing about this new language is if we are to buy another airline, the same rules would apply again per the contract and who knows what the result would be.

Now I have read the AFL-CIO constitution and have seen nothing about seniority intergration. Below is a link to it.
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/about/co...ution/index.cfm

 

[aafsc]

aafsc,
Prior to the 2001 AA/twu agreement, the only merger language was a LOA which called for seniority to be determined in accordance with C.A.B.(not exact language, don't have an old contract on hand). The CAB part is correct and became defunct in the early 80's. Despite no less than 5 negotiated contracts, each with proposals for merger language, only after the TWA merger was completed did the twu put forth, rather accepted the compAAny proposal for merger language in June 2001.(This is fact, straight from the table) The difference in this merger language was that not only are we protecting the membership, we are also protecting the incoming TWAers by dictating that the seniority issue go to arbritration. We can all disagree over the Kasher decision but without this post-merger new language put forth by the company and if the IAM didn't wave their merger protection language, TWAers would have been the only ones with merger protection. In my personal opinion, the company was covering its tracks against a lawsuit because of the IAM waiver and always has a excuse for the seniority issue by saying, it was the arbritaitor that did this, not us. The interesting thing about this new language is if we are to buy another airline, the same rules would apply again per the contract and who knows what the result would be.

Now I have read the AFL-CIO constitution and have seen nothing about seniority intergration. Below is a link to it.
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/about/co...ution/index.cfm

[post="269776"][/post]​

Then that shop steward was spreading false information.

 

[Buck]

Then that shop steward was spreading false information.

[post="269800"][/post]​

That would be a TWU Shop Steward right?

 

[MCI transplant]

You are right about Carty abrogating your entire agreement if you did not agree to sign away your LPPs. But I was told by a shop steward that the AFL-CIO constitution mandates binding arbitration between two AFL-CIO afiliated unions. Then why else would have the TWU went to binding arbitration? Their position was a pure staple since the TWAers waived the LPPs in bankruptcy court. And if you feel that there is a conspiracy to get rid of the TWAers, then why did AA just sign a 25 year lease deal for the MCI base?

[post="269754"][/post]​

<_< aa---Good question! Why did they sign a 25 year lease? I've been asking myself this also! If I was to guess, I'de say they're looking for posible future expansion! At the moment, they're getting reed of as many "Old Timers" as posible, and will back fill with younger "nAAtives" if something should come up to warrent it. Although TUL and AFW not totally maxed out, they alone could not support the needs of aa should United, Delta, and, or US/American West, go under! At first, I truely believe a.a. was only playing lip service to third party work here at MCI, but now that they've taken a closer look, believe with our lowered labor costs, could make money for them, not only here, but at TUL, and AFW also! All of this could be part of the answer! Or none of it!!! What do you think???

 

[Buck]

<_< aa---Good question! Why did they sign a 25 year lease? We've been asking myself this also! If I was to guess, I'de say they're looking for posible future expansion! At the moment, they're getting reed of as many "Old Timers" as posible, and will back fill with younger "nAAtives" if something should come up to warrent it. Although TUL and AFW not totally maxed out, they alone could not support the needs of aa should United, Delta, and, or US/American West, go under! At first, I truely believe a.a. was only playing lip service to third party work here at MCI, but now that they've taken a closer look, believe with our lowered labor costs, could make money for them, not only here, but at TUL, and AFW also! All of this could be part of the anseer! Or none of it!!! What do you think???

[post="269883"][/post]​

If they rid themselves of the "old timers" then they could backfill with OSM's.

Why would they want to do that?

 

[MCI transplant]

If they rid themselves of the "old timers" then they could backfill with OSM's.

Why would they want to do that?

[post="269884"][/post]​

<_< I don't know about that one Buck? Remmber, we've set a presedant here! No OSM's! I really don't know!

 

[Buck]

<_< I don't know about that one Buck? Remmber, we've set a presedant here! No OSM's! I really don't know!

[post="269886"][/post]​

It won't be long before either the Letter of Agreement is created to change what you have. Let us see what June brings.....

 

[Bob Owens]

mike7867,May 15 2005, 03:36 PM]
well from what i understand with the twa/aa seniority deal is that the afl cio wanted to step in until the twu said they would pull out of the oranization if they did. so the afl cio backed off.

Doubtful. First of all the IAM had over 700,000 members compared to the TWUs 100,000 members. So if the choice was between pissing off the IAM or the TWU who do you think they would have chosen?

 

[proAMFA]

Correct me if I am wrong but I was under impression that the reason the Alleghany-Mohawk language was added to the contract was to insure that the merger of the two employee groups could, if required, in up in a binding arbitration process rather than going through a lengthy and expensive legal battle. No one I know put in a proposal to have this language added to the contract, however, there it was and DB was selling it in Tulsa. DB explained that the language was designed to protect the membership. I believe to this day that the idea more than likely came from Art Luby.

 

[aafsc]

<_< aa---Good question! Why did they sign a 25 year lease? I've been asking myself this also! If I was to guess, I'de say they're looking for posible future expansion! At the moment, they're getting reed of as many "Old Timers" as posible, and will back fill with younger "nAAtives" if something should come up to warrent it. Although TUL and AFW not totally maxed out, they alone could not support the needs of aa should United, Delta, and, or US/American West, go under! At first, I truely believe a.a. was only playing lip service to third party work here at MCI, but now that they've taken a closer look, believe with our lowered labor costs, could make money for them, not only here, but at TUL, and AFW also! All of this could be part of the answer! Or none of it!!! What do you think???

[post="269883"][/post]​

In my opinion, they kept it open in case one of our competitors went under. And if that did not happen then they could do third party work; just like the Capital 767s and the Air Canada 767 (with more posible). Also I read where the Air Force KC-135 (?)mx is coming up for bid. According to your own local leadership, if AA bids and wins this contract, then that would fill up the entire MCI base. But this process will take a couple of years. So in the short run things are bad. But in the long run they could be better. I think that they will try to get OSMs in MCI to lower the costs even further and then they will bring in much more work. Then when MCI, TUL, and AFW have enough third party work in addition to AA's planes, they could sell or spin off the three bases for a good chunk of change. Of course, all this is speculation on my part.

 

[MCI transplant]

Correct me if I am wrong but I was under impression that the reason the Alleghany-Mohawk language was added to the contract was to insure that the merger of the two employee groups could, if required, in up in a binding arbitration process rather than going through a lengthy and expensive legal battle. No one I know put in a proposal  to have this language added to the contract, however, there it was and DB was selling it in Tulsa. DB explained that the language was designed to protect the membership. I believe to this day that the idea more than likely came from Art Luby.

[post="269981"][/post]​

<_< Art Luby? I don't think so! What is really a dig, is that from what I heard, that language was almost word for word of that which Carty had us strick from our IAM conrtact!!!So why wasn't it in your previous contracts? Learn something from the IAM did you? :angry:

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< As for the OSM thing, first you have to have enough shops to warrent them. As of now, we don't! :down:A lot of what you are doing in the shops, we are doing right on the dock floor!

 

[Buck]

<_< As for the OSM thing, first you have to have enough shops to warrent them. As of now, we don't! :down:A lot of what you are doing in the shops, we are doing right on the dock floor!

[post="269991"][/post]​

The Letter of Agreement ink is still wet!

Rid MCI of as many old timers as possible through attrition and then throw in some fear about the global unemployment coming, deflect the issues by saying anything about Bush, fuel the fuel issue and yank the pensions. It is only a matter of time.