who gives a sh*t anymore?

[WeAAsles]

Working 70 hours a week trying to make ends meet im a little tired for motivation...

70 hours a week is rough. I'm guessing that you didn't decide to live beyond your means right? (unless you're paying child support)

 

[1AA]

70 hours a week is rough. I'm guessing that you didn't decide to live beyond your means right? (unless you're paying child support)

Living in NY, how can you live beyond your means on our salary?
No difference in Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego or lets just include all of California.

 

[Bob Owens]

The union, not the worker, negotiated wages and guarantees jobs.

I thought "You (the workers) ARE the UNION".

The only thing that can guarantee a job is a contract. Unions tend to get better ones for most people than they can get as individuals.

Blaming the workers for the failures of the labor movement is pointless.

I disagree that we join Unions to make sure we keep our jobs, I never had a problem finding a job, most of my life I've had two or more at the same time, I want a union so we can collectively increase our leverage to secure the best terms possible, to level the arena with the employer, once that has been achieved maximum productivity enables the company to continue to meet the terms you fought for. I do not object to accountability. Quid-pro quo. I never expected a union to take the place of my parents and I'm not a child. The worst thing that can happen to a Union and its members is for leaders of the Union to lose respect and gain contempt for the people they are supposed to be representing. Serving as a Union official is a privilege.

 

[WeAAsles]

Living in NY, how can you live beyond your means on our salary?
No difference in Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego or lets just include all of California.

You're right. You can't. Speaking for myself having grown and lived in NYC for 32 years I made what I considered to be the sensible choice to improve my quality of life working at a job that gave me the opportunity. I moved away.

 

[WeAAsles]

I thought "You (the workers) ARE the UNION".

The only thing that can guarantee a job is a contract. Unions tend to get better ones for most people than they can get as individuals.

Blaming the workers for the failures of the labor movement is pointless.

I disagree that we join Unions to make sure we keep our jobs, I never had a problem finding a job, most of my life I've had two or more at the same time, I want a union so we can collectively increase our leverage to secure the best terms possible, to level the arena with the employer, once that has been achieved maximum productivity enables the company to continue to meet the terms you fought for. I do not object to accountability. Quid-pro quo. I never expected a union to take the place of my parents and I'm not a child. The worst thing that can happen to a Union and its members is for leaders of the Union to lose respect and gain contempt for the people they are supposed to be representing. Serving as a Union official is a privilege.

So if you are not a part of what it seems like is the average, everyday, what's in it for me crowd Bob you should be extremely proud of yourself. But taking yourself out of the equation then and reading the blog post in full, I have to agree with the writer that you're part of the minority today that doesn't fit the equation. Look at the thread topic and the first post. Easy for everyone to point fingers everywhere else except their own mirrors.

I don't like my lot in life so I guess I'll just skate my way through it. What a great way to view one's own self pride. And your damn right I blame the workers for the failures in the labor movement. Too many people still walking around through life wanting to suck on their momma's nipples instead of standing proud on their own two feet and wiping their own noses. The labor movement isn't filled with men anymore. It's filled with whiney babies who want to be coddled to and told how mean and horrible the world has become all around them rather than doing ANYTHING to actually try and change it. 

If you think some of your leaders have contempt for you, maybe you might want to ask yourselves why?

 

[Bob Owens]

So if you are not a part of what it seems like is the average, everyday, what's in it for me crowd Bob you should be extremely proud of yourself. But taking yourself out of the equation then and reading the blog post in full, I have to agree with the writer that you're part of the minority today that doesn't fit the equation. Look at the thread topic and the first post. Easy for everyone to point fingers everywhere else except their own mirrors.

I don't like my lot in life so I guess I'll just skate my way through it. What a great way to view one's own self pride. And your damn right I blame the workers for the failures in the labor movement. Too many people still walking around through life wanting to suck on their momma's nipples instead of standing proud on their own two feet and wiping their own noses. The labor movement isn't filled with men anymore. It's filled with whiney babies who want to be coddled to and told how mean and horrible the world has become all around them rather than doing ANYTHING to actually try and change it. 

If you think some of your leaders have contempt for you, maybe you might want to ask yourselves why?

What you are saying is that somehow in just the matter of a few short years workers have devolved into a never maturing pathetic creature. I don't believe that, I think there is very little difference between us and the creatures that were writing on the walls of caves thousands of years ago, we adapt and there are various examples and versions of us, and yes some are immature and pathetic, but they have always been around, but as a species or taken as a group we are no different than the generation who built the labor movement and won the things we gave away. What has changed is too many of today's "leaders" are not willing to engage in the tactics and develop tools that the generation of leaders who helped lead workers into the middle class were willing to develop and use. Small changes in a small body will have a much more profound effect than the same changes to a large body. A couple of "bad apples" among the leadership ranks will have a much more devastating effect than a couple of bad apples among the membership. As a whole todays "membership" is no different than it was 75 years ago. We recently had very bad leaders that did a lot of damage. Whereas they had Mike Quill, we had Jim Little. 
 
"Whats in it for me" has always been a base instinct, as much as I dislike Anne Rand she did have some valid opinions on the human psyche. We are all motivated by selfish aims. She maintained that even people such as "Mother Teresa" did what they did because they gained something from it, in her case it would be an inner peace by helping others, she wasn't doing things she didn't want to do and what she did met her needs. What the labor movement is supposed to do is help those who are disadvantaged gain equilibrium at the very least with their opponent through collective action. Its what drove people to form tribes thousands of years ago, and it works, the sum of collective action exceeded the sum of individual action. Unions need to teach workers that collective action will be more effective at meeting their self-driven goals than attempting to take on the more powerful and better situated employer on their own. By doing whats good for the collective we all benefit, that's "Whats in it for me". Sometimes it requires some sacrifice but in the end the group as a whole should see better results than they could achieve through individual negotiations.   For us on the line we have gotten to the point where financially non-union does better than we do where we are. Sure we have the protection of "Just Cause", the immature minority are the primary beneficiary of that, but for the majority of my coworkers who are mature and willing to work they have been disadvantaged by this association, and the leaders at the time encouraged and helped incorporate this undeniable disadvantage. That's why many members feel the way they do. The challenge for any leader will be to win back the confidence of the membership, blaming them and chastising them accomplishes nothing other than giving leaders an excuse to sit back and enjoy the perks of leadership without the challenge of leading.  

 

[WeAAsles]

What you are saying is that somehow in just the matter of a few short years workers have devolved into a never maturing pathetic creature. I don't believe that, I think there is very little difference between us and the creatures that were writing on the walls of caves thousands of years ago, we adapt and there are various examples and versions of us, and yes some are immature and pathetic, but they have always been around, but as a species or taken as a group we are no different than the generation who built the labor movement and won the things we gave away.

You just said it yourself how different we are. "The things we gave away" So that tells me exactly how different we are. We here in America are nothing like that post WW2 generation. We are far too comfortable and lazy and other Countries workers are proving that every day. Especially within our workforces education level which is sickening and deplorable. Check out the site "Ranking America"


What has changed is too many of today's "leaders" are not willing to engage in the tactics and develop tools that the generation of leaders who helped lead workers into the middle class were willing to develop and use. Small changes in a small body will have a much more profound effect than the same changes to a large body. A couple of "bad apples" among the leadership ranks will have a much more devastating effect than a couple of bad apples among the membership. As a whole todays "membership" is no different than it was 75 years ago. We recently had very bad leaders that did a lot of damage. Whereas they had Mike Quill, we had Jim Little.

If Mike Quill were around today he probably wouldn't even be elected much less have any affect on the mindset of the average member who feels that leaders should do all the fighting for them because they have better things to do with their time. "I have to get home because the big game is on" "A rally? Aw man I was taking my kids to the beach today"  
 
"Whats in it for me" has always been a base instinct, as much as I dislike Ayn Rand she did have some valid opinions on the human psyche. We are all motivated by selfish aims. She maintained that even people such as "Mother Teresa" did what they did because they gained something from it, in her case it would be an inner peace by helping others, she wasn't doing things she didn't want to do and what she did met her needs. What the labor movement is supposed to do is help those who are disadvantaged gain equilibrium at the very least with their opponent through collective action. Its what drove people to form tribes thousands of years ago, and it works, the sum of collective action exceeded the sum of individual action.

Agreed.

Unions need to teach workers that collective action will be more effective at meeting their self-driven goals than attempting to take on the more powerful and better situated employer on their own. By doing whats good for the collective we all benefit, that's "Whats in it for me". Sometimes it requires some sacrifice but in the end the group as a whole should see better results than they could achieve through individual negotiations.

And how do you propose they do that if the members truly believe that since they pay for a product then everything should be done for them for that cost? Do you have any new ideas because so far I've seen just about everything tried that I can think of and none of it has worked? There are no playbooks against apathy.

For us on the line we have gotten to the point where financially non-union does better than we do where we are.

Totally untrue. The BLS reports don't lie if you consider EVERYONE in the US who does our jobs. Payscale.com also shows what the average makes. We can't compare ourselves to just one or two other companies without considering the whole.

Sure we have the protection of "Just Cause", the immature minority are the primary beneficiary of that, but for the majority of my coworkers who are mature and willing to work they have been disadvantaged by this association, and the leaders at the time encouraged and helped incorporate this undeniable disadvantage. That's why many members feel the way they do. The challenge for any leader will be to win back the confidence of the membership, blaming them and chastising them accomplishes nothing other than giving leaders an excuse to sit back and enjoy the perks of leadership without the challenge of leading.

I think the problem with today's leaders is because of wanting to protect their position or as I call it "The Leather Chair" they're too afraid to call out the member and chastise them for their inactions in life. You're really going to try and tell me that a man should take no responsibility for the life he leads and whether or not he should stand on his own two feet? A man needs to learn to look in a mirror once in awhile and stop pointing fingers everywhere else. The real leader that you're looking for is the one who will get in your face first and ask "What are YOU going to do" 

 

[Bob Owens]

What you are saying is that somehow in just the matter of a few short years workers have devolved into a never maturing pathetic creature. I don't believe that, I think there is very little difference between us and the creatures that were writing on the walls of caves thousands of years ago, we adapt and there are various examples and versions of us, and yes some are immature and pathetic, but they have always been around, but as a species or taken as a group we are no different than the generation who built the labor movement and won the things we gave away.You just said it yourself how different we are. "The things we gave away" So that tells me exactly how different we are. We here in America are nothing like that post WW2 generation. We are far too comfortable and lazy and other Countries workers are proving that every day. Especially within our workforces education level which is sickening and deplorable. Check out the site "Ranking America"
What has changed is too many of today's "leaders" are not willing to engage in the tactics and develop tools that the generation of leaders who helped lead workers into the middle class were willing to develop and use. Small changes in a small body will have a much more profound effect than the same changes to a large body. A couple of "bad apples" among the leadership ranks will have a much more devastating effect than a couple of bad apples among the membership. As a whole todays "membership" is no different than it was 75 years ago. We recently had very bad leaders that did a lot of damage. Whereas they had Mike Quill, we had Jim Little.If Mike Quill were around today he probably wouldn't even be elected much less have any affect on the mindset of the average member who feels that leaders should do all the fighting for them because they have better things to do with their time. "I have to get home because the big game is on" "A rally? Aw man I was taking my kids to the beach today"  
 
"Whats in it for me" has always been a base instinct, as much as I dislike Ayn Rand she did have some valid opinions on the human psyche. We are all motivated by selfish aims. She maintained that even people such as "Mother Teresa" did what they did because they gained something from it, in her case it would be an inner peace by helping others, she wasn't doing things she didn't want to do and what she did met her needs. What the labor movement is supposed to do is help those who are disadvantaged gain equilibrium at the very least with their opponent through collective action. Its what drove people to form tribes thousands of years ago, and it works, the sum of collective action exceeded the sum of individual action.Agreed.
Unions need to teach workers that collective action will be more effective at meeting their self-driven goals than attempting to take on the more powerful and better situated employer on their own. By doing whats good for the collective we all benefit, that's "Whats in it for me". Sometimes it requires some sacrifice but in the end the group as a whole should see better results than they could achieve through individual negotiations.And how do you propose they do that if the members truly believe that since they pay for a product then everything should be done for them for that cost? Do you have any new ideas because so far I've seen just about everything tried that I can think of and none of it has worked? There are no playbooks against apathy.
For us on the line we have gotten to the point where financially non-union does better than we do where we are.Totally untrue. The BLS reports don't lie if you consider EVERYONE in the US who does our jobs. Payscale.com also shows what the average makes. We can't compare ourselves to just one or two other companies without considering the whole.
Sure we have the protection of "Just Cause", the immature minority are the primary beneficiary of that, but for the majority of my coworkers who are mature and willing to work they have been disadvantaged by this association, and the leaders at the time encouraged and helped incorporate this undeniable disadvantage. That's why many members feel the way they do. The challenge for any leader will be to win back the confidence of the membership, blaming them and chastising them accomplishes nothing other than giving leaders an excuse to sit back and enjoy the perks of leadership without the challenge of leading.I think the problem with today's leaders is because of wanting to protect their position or as I call it "The Leather Chair" they're too afraid to call out the member and chastise them for their inactions in life. You're really going to try and tell me that a man should take no responsibility for the life he leads and whether or not he should stand on his own two feet? A man needs to learn to look in a mirror once in awhile and stop pointing fingers everywhere else. The real leader that you're looking for is the one who will get in your face first and ask "What are YOU going to do" 

Leaders should lead not ask what are you going to do. There are good leaders out there. John Samuels is one example. He bucked the trend and was able to secure a TA wiith some significant gains while other unions were agreeing to concessions. The behavior you are describing is that of an administrator not a leader.

 

[Overspeed]

Leaders should lead not ask what are you going to do. There are good leaders out there. John Samuels is one example. He bucked the trend and was able to secure a TA wiith some significant gains while other unions were agreeing to concessions. The behavior you are describing is that of an administrator not a leader.

 
8% over 5 years...I thought you were pissed the 2010 TA at AA getting 9% over three years? Did I read the TA right? Local 100 members are out of the MTA dental plan? John did a good job yet did terrible compared to the 2010 AA TWU TA. I guess you have to pay back political favors to the Lombardo ticket.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The problem with a lot of UNIONS is they tend to attract parasites. A person's job should not be secure just because they are in a UNION and have seniority. How many of you have had to put up with stupid, irresponsible, lazy, incompetent, unmotivated people over the years simply because they carried a UNION card? How many of you have had to work under one of these people simply because they had the time (but not the qualifications) to fill a crew chief position.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]It should never be a UNION’s position to defend repetitive stupidity and incompetence. I would say 90 percent of the time a UNION has to defend someone it is most likely the same people over and over and has nothing to do with anything contractual. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]I believe these are the people that vote for concessionary contracts. This is a fundamental reason why UNION membership is so weak. The lazy, incompetent crowd is being bought off by undeserved job protection (or rather the promise of).  It is OK to take a concessionary contract when you contribute less than nothing and could not hold a job outside of a UNION. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]If you want to have a strong membership again the UNION needs to stop defending idiots that are in the office over and over and over and over and over again for non-contractual issues due to laziness, incompetence, and stupidity.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]Think about it. [/SIZE]

 

[Bob Owens]

 
8% over 5 years...I thought you were pissed the 2010 TA at AA getting 9% over three years? Did I read the TA right? Local 100 members are out of the MTA dental plan? John did a good job yet did terrible compared to the 2010 AA TWU TA. I guess you have to pay back political favors to the Lombardo ticket.

You lie again, it was 6% over 5 years (2008-2013). Using your math where the years without a deal simply "disappear"-no retro, then they got 8% over two years, along with the transportation pay, better Dental and vision plans, increased death benefits etc. In reality you have to count those years.   Below is an excerpt from the Highlights that was put out. The 2010 deal didn't even bring us back to what we were making in 2003, MTA workers retrieved increases every year and never took a pay cut. They may not be making huge gains but they are treading water while others are sinking. 
 
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]rticle 4 - Compensation[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]• All Title 1 and Title 2 members will receive: [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]o [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]3% structural increase effective May 5, 2010 [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]o [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]1.5% structural increase effective May 5, 2011 [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]o [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]1.5% structural increase effective May 5, 2012[/SIZE]
 

 
What was left out was;
Zero percent in 2008
Zero percent in 2009 and huge increases in out of pocket costs for Medical Insurance both years and the loss of Supplimental Medical where the company pocketed $70 million in members funds. 
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
So as the self proclaimed "savior from the line", what would Tulsa be at today had they accepted that deal? You are aware that even the company said the 2010 deal was a "zero cost offer". So the 20% ask that you advocated we accept would have come from somewhere. 
 
Is it great? No, But they never took a 25% pay cut and without tickets they earn more than we do and there are some pretty big gains, such as free transportation.  That alone could be worth several hundred a month depending on where you live. Maybe not as good as Don's International gig where they get him a car in his home base for personal use and pay for the gas and insurance but better than what we have. They pay zero copays and zero deductibles on health benefits, have a pension that's far superior to the one we lost, maybe not as good as Dons pension based on his Union pay from AA and the TWU pension but a lot better than anything we ever had. They have Holidays and a lot more paid vacation over their careers with full pension after 25 years(they dont lose 3% a year for retiring before 60). They also kept their job security provisions.
 
Angelo Ragucci, a 20 year employee and E-board member quit AA last year and went with the MTA. All the other state workers had agreed to zeros and big concessions on the medical, They did give a little on the medical, I think they pay 2% vs our 20% which when you add in all the deductibles, copays etc is more like 50% or more for most of us.
 
Considering the environment they are in its a good deal and it shows how when you have elected leaders running the Union instead of appointed management lackeys even in tough times you don't have to give away the store "to save jobs" or get a contract. In their case, as with our Pilots, FAs, Fleet service and stores it made sense to kick the can down the road, they all went into bankruptcy as Tom Roth put it "fat" whereas we went in at the bottom of the industry. But when you are at the bottom you want to get to the end game as soon as possible. 

 

[MetalMover]

 
They did give a little on the medical, I think they pay 2% vs our 20% 
 

Ah yes. This is how it all begins. 2% now, then more next contract, then more the following one, etc etc etc. 

 

[Kev3188]

The problem with a lot of UNIONS is they tend to attract parasites. A person's job should not be secure just because they are in a UNION and have seniority. How many of you have had to put up with stupid, irresponsible, lazy, incompetent, unmotivated people over the years simply because they carried a UNION card? How many of you have had to work under one of these people simply because they had the time (but not the qualifications) to fill a crew chief position.[/size]

Not for nothing, I'm currently non-union, and have to deal with more of those people now than I ever did while under a CBA.

I should also add that most of the "defending" I had to do as a union rep was a result of mgmt. shooting first and then asking questions, or a lack of due process.

I get what you're saying, though.

Like I always say, if you want to be treated like a professional, you have to act like one...

 

[Bob Owens]

 

What you are saying is that somehow in just the matter of a few short years workers have devolved into a never maturing pathetic creature. I don't believe that, I think there is very little difference between us and the creatures that were writing on the walls of caves thousands of years ago, we adapt and there are various examples and versions of us, and yes some are immature and pathetic, but they have always been around, but as a species or taken as a group we are no different than the generation who built the labor movement and won the things we gave away.

You just said it yourself how different we are. "The things we gave away" So that tells me exactly how different we are. We here in America are nothing like that post WW2 generation. We are far too comfortable and lazy and other Countries workers are proving that every day. Especially within our workforces education level which is sickening and deplorable. Check out the site "Ranking America"
 
No, the leaders, or the structures are different, people don't change that much. When is the last time you saw where the Union sent out a concessionary deal, and told their members they should reject it and fight for more that the members instead chose to accept it? Even in the AMFA case that gets brought up the leaders of AMFA said to stay on the job, do not walk out, they made that choice. Everything we gave away was with the support and encouragement of our leaders "W'e'll get them next time", "Live to fight another day", that never came from the floor, it came from the top. 

What has changed is too many of today's "leaders" are not willing to engage in the tactics and develop tools that the generation of leaders who helped lead workers into the middle class were willing to develop and use. Small changes in a small body will have a much more profound effect than the same changes to a large body. A couple of "bad apples" among the leadership ranks will have a much more devastating effect than a couple of bad apples among the membership. As a whole todays "membership" is no different than it was 75 years ago. We recently had very bad leaders that did a lot of damage. Whereas they had Mike Quill, we had Jim Little.

If Mike Quill were around today he probably wouldn't even be elected much less have any affect on the mindset of the average member who feels that leaders should do all the fighting for them because they have better things to do with their time. "I have to get home because the big game is on" "A rally? Aw man I was taking my kids to the beach today"  
 
Of coarse he would, they elected John Samuelson didnt they? 
Unions need to teach workers that collective action will be more effective at meeting their self-driven goals than attempting to take on the more powerful and better situated employer on their own. By doing whats good for the collective we all benefit, that's "Whats in it for me". Sometimes it requires some sacrifice but in the end the group as a whole should see better results than they could achieve through individual negotiations.

And how do you propose they do that if the members truly believe that since they pay for a product then everything should be done for them for that cost? Do you have any new ideas because so far I've seen just about everything tried that I can think of and none of it has worked? 
 
I do but you don't like them. What other industry has jobs that are nearly identical to yours? Longshoremen, you need to do to the airports what Longshoremen have done with seaports. That means one union for all FSC, but the leadership of FSC locals aren't even willing to give up their own individual silos in just AA let alone across the industry. Face it, the structure you have is inefficient and ineffective, you may have fared well among this fractured industry but you have still lost at least half your real earnings. What you have is what preceded Local 100 in the NYC transit industry. Look at how well Plowman does for his guys, a six month course and they make a hell of a lot more than mechanics do, same with Jim Fudge and the Sim techs. While in 591 we still have huge obstacles look at what the line mechanics have accomplished in just one year with consolidation. The five locals that were merged into 591 existed for a dozen years, they went from zero to a total of around $900,000 in assetts over that dozen years, one year after being combined 591 has $2 million in cash, and as Overspeed points out that's with raising everyones pay from the President to the steward. We have 80 to 90% participation on votes on motions which we do on line. We socked away more cash in one year than we were able to save in 12 years as smaller locals. Cash means resources. We have challenged the company on their HIPA violations that the International condoned for years and they are rewriting their policies. The company knows that we have the money and will use it to defend ourselves. 
 
For us on the line we have gotten to the point where financially non-union does better than we do where we are.

Totally untrue. The BLS reports don't lie if you consider EVERYONE in the US who does our jobs. Payscale.com also shows what the average makes. We can't compare ourselves to just one or two other companies without considering the whole.
 
It is true, by "us on the line" I meant A&P mechanics as opposed to OH in Tulsa. Our deal is worse than non-union Delta, Non-union Jetblue and non-union FED Ex all of whom employ line mechanics with the exact same skillsets as "us". We have less paid time off (VC, HO, SK) and lower hourly wages than all of them and on top of that pay $700 a year in Union dues. That is fact.  

 

 

 

[WeAAsles]

 

 


What you are saying is that somehow in just the matter of a few short years workers have devolved into a never maturing pathetic creature. I don't believe that, I think there is very little difference between us and the creatures that were writing on the walls of caves thousands of years ago, we adapt and there are various examples and versions of us, and yes some are immature and pathetic, but they have always been around, but as a species or taken as a group we are no different than the generation who built the labor movement and won the things we gave away.

You just said it yourself how different we are. "The things we gave away" So that tells me exactly how different we are. We here in America are nothing like that post WW2 generation. We are far too comfortable and lazy and other Countries workers are proving that every day. Especially within our workforces education level which is sickening and deplorable. Check out the site "Ranking America"
 
No, the leaders, or the structures are different, people don't change that much. When is the last time you saw where the Union sent out a concessionary deal, and told their members they should reject it and fight for more that the members instead chose to accept it? Even in the AMFA case that gets brought up the leaders of AMFA said to stay on the job, do not walk out, they made that choice. Everything we gave away was with the support and encouragement of our leaders "W'e'll get them next time", "Live to fight another day", that never came from the floor, it came from the top. 

No one ever seems to buy into whether or not the company you work for is really turning a profit to support the improvements you want? They merely say "That's not my problem' you figure it out" They can open the books to anyone you want to look at them for you and it still doesn't matter. They can sell almost every asset they have and that still doesn't matter. You know very well that at least since Sept 11 and the global economic collapse that everyone has basically been living a nightmare.

Your wife wants you to buy her a new car. You tell her that you can't afford it but she says "I don't care, I want one anyway" What do you do? Plant the money tree seeds? No you have to unfortunately tell your wife she has to make due with that older car and make the necessary repairs, or you can be in debt up to your eyeballs.

That's the reality that I've seen since the day those planes hit those towers that so many others can't get through their heads.

NOW finally I believe we're on the right path for the US Airline industry. Let's see where it goes?

t has changed is too many of today's "leaders" are not willing to engage in the tactics and develop tools that the generation of leaders who helped lead workers into the middle class were willing to develop and use. Small changes in a small body will have a much more profound effect than the same changes to a large body. A couple of "bad apples" among the leadership ranks will have a much more devastating effect than a couple of bad apples among the membership. As a whole todays "membership" is no different than it was 75 years ago. We recently had very bad leaders that did a lot of damage. Whereas they had Mike Quill, we had Jim Little.

If Mike Quill were around today he probably wouldn't even be elected much less have any affect on the mindset of the average member who feels that leaders should do all the fighting for them because they have better things to do with their time. "I have to get home because the big game is on" "A rally? Aw man I was taking my kids to the beach today"  
 
Of coarse he would, they elected John Samuelson didnt they? 

The city of NY is a different beast entirely when it comes to comparisons. My friends that I grew up with that have city Union jobs are doing fantastic. The rest are dying a slow financial death. All the city has to do is raise fares which is a constant there to support the Union workers. Great for them, horrible for everyone else.

I don't know Samuelsen so I can't say what kind of leader he is? All I know is the real leaders I've met in my career who should be in office never get the votes because they tell the members the biggest thing they don't want to hear.    The truth.
 
Unions need to teach workers that collective action will be more effective at meeting their self-driven goals than attempting to take on the more powerful and better situated employer on their own. By doing whats good for the collective we all benefit, that's "Whats in it for me". Sometimes it requires some sacrifice but in the end the group as a whole should see better results than they could achieve through individual negotiations.

And how do you propose they do that if the members truly believe that since they pay for a product then everything should be done for them for that cost? Do you have any new ideas because so far I've seen just about everything tried that I can think of and none of it has worked? 
 
I do but you don't like them. What other industry has jobs that are nearly identical to yours? Longshoremen, you need to do to the airports what Longshoremen have done with seaports. That means one union for all FSC, but the leadership of FSC locals aren't even willing to give up their own individual silos in just AA let alone across the industry. Face it, the structure you have is inefficient and ineffective, you may have fared well among this fractured industry but you have still lost at least half your real earnings. What you have is what preceded Local 100 in the NYC transit industry. Look at how well Plowman does for his guys, a six month course and they make a hell of a lot more than mechanics do, same with Jim Fudge and the Sim techs. While in 591 we still have huge obstacles look at what the line mechanics have accomplished in just one year with consolidation. The five locals that were merged into 591 existed for a dozen years, they went from zero to a total of around $900,000 in assetts over that dozen years, one year after being combined 591 has $2 million in cash, and as Overspeed points out that's with raising everyones pay from the President to the steward. We have 80 to 90% participation on votes on motions which we do on line. We socked away more cash in one year than we were able to save in 12 years as smaller locals. Cash means resources. We have challenged the company on their HIPA violations that the International condoned for years and they are rewriting their policies. The company knows that we have the money and will use it to defend ourselves.

I agree 100% with consolidation. You and I are on the same page there. At one point the TWU represented all the workers at AA from Pilots on down. but were back to that "Leather Chair" thing again. No one seems to be able to accept being in that subordinate role. Nope have to be at the top of their own totem pole. The TWU and CWA almost merged but NO ONE in positions liked it because they might lose thieir's. So POOF gone!  Now we have an alliance with the IAM that's not very popular either.

Consolidation and alliances are the key to the survival of the labor movement but the personal greed will never let it happen. Not enough chairs for all those phony leaders out there.
 
 
For us on the line we have gotten to the point where financially non-union does better than we do where we are.

Totally untrue. The BLS reports don't lie if you consider EVERYONE in the US who does our jobs. Payscale.com also shows what the average makes. We can't compare ourselves to just one or two other companies without considering the whole.
 
It is true, by "us on the line" I meant A&P mechanics as opposed to OH in Tulsa. Our deal is worse than non-union Delta, Non-union Jetblue and non-union FED Ex all of whom employ line mechanics with the exact same skillsets as "us". We have less paid time off (VC, HO, SK) and lower hourly wages than all of them and on top of that pay $700 a year in Union dues. That is fact.

Bob an honest comparison has to take into account EVERYONE in the US who does your job. Not just those in the majors but the minors as well. And the little chop shops out there as well. Since we're talking about airplanes here that can fly anywhere in the world to be repaired we could even compare the rates in other Countries as well. What would that look like? And I think it's beyond horrible to exclude your Brothers and Sisters in OH as a comparison. That's no different then me not giving a crap about small stations because I work in a hub. Divide and conquer is the Corporate mantra.