Why do we have a Union?
Do we have a Union so that in the best of times we might get a raise? Well nonunion people usually get raises when times are good and they dont have to pay dues to get that raise.
Do we have a union so we can screw off and not do our job properly and not get fired? Well some might but the majority of Union workers are willing to give the company a fair shake and produce.
Do we have a union to that seeks to insure the survival of the company at ANY expense? No the company should have management that tries to do that.
Do we have a union so we can foot the bill of a function that the company would incuur as Human Resources? I would hope not but that is what our unions appear to be doing.
Threats of take it or leave it and if you dont take this you will be out of a job or we will go bankrupt and get rid of all of you are not new to the field of union/management relations. These threats are constant and ever present. Sometimes these threats are enacted or they attempt to enact then but are thwarted by the solidarity of the workers. Labors failures are remembered more so than the victories,victories like when the APFA beat Crandall when he told them that he would replace all of them, he couldnt are not brought up as often as Lorenzos ''victories at Continental. At Continental the workers lost because they were all willing to cross each others picket lines, thinking that Lorenzo would spare them. EAL is sometimes cited as another victory for the company side, however that whole deal was not quite that simple and at best it was a draw. Lorenzo had an airline to transfer EAL asetts to but lots of people other than the employees lost a lot of money on that whole mess and is regarded as a textbook example of poor management. Where would AA transfer their assets?
What is new to labor/management relations is that Unions, supposedly real unions, not company sponsored emploee representation groups, are not fighting against such threats but rather accepting whatever the company tells them and being all to eager to set workers back decades in working conditions,benifits and pay. Where is the fight? Where is the strength in numbers? If the company is simply going to impose its will then why do we need a union? If the union is not only powerless to fight this but also agreeeable to lock us in until the end of the decade where is the benifit derived from paying dues? Why did we seek System protection if as soon as it would be of any real use, we abondon it? Why isnt the Union acting like a Union? Shouldnt the Union be telling the company, hey, maybe you are in trouble and maybe we could help you out but we are not going to committ to six years of concessions when we will likely be out of this next year and if you do get to abrogate the contractand impose new terms we will strike. That is how its done. That is how its always been done. They make their threats and we make ours back. The concept of, oh they said this if we dont do that, we had better do as they say, no matter how unreasonable is typical of a non-union shop.The rhetoric of the company and the union are the same. If our union can not provide us a counterpoint to setting our conditions back to the 50s and cuuting our income by nearly 40% without a fight of what use are they really? If you come to work and do your job right why should you pay dues to a Union that says that they can not protect you pay and benifits? One that does not even try?
Do we have a Union so that in the best of times we might get a raise? Well nonunion people usually get raises when times are good and they dont have to pay dues to get that raise.
Do we have a union so we can screw off and not do our job properly and not get fired? Well some might but the majority of Union workers are willing to give the company a fair shake and produce.
Do we have a union to that seeks to insure the survival of the company at ANY expense? No the company should have management that tries to do that.
Do we have a union so we can foot the bill of a function that the company would incuur as Human Resources? I would hope not but that is what our unions appear to be doing.
Threats of take it or leave it and if you dont take this you will be out of a job or we will go bankrupt and get rid of all of you are not new to the field of union/management relations. These threats are constant and ever present. Sometimes these threats are enacted or they attempt to enact then but are thwarted by the solidarity of the workers. Labors failures are remembered more so than the victories,victories like when the APFA beat Crandall when he told them that he would replace all of them, he couldnt are not brought up as often as Lorenzos ''victories at Continental. At Continental the workers lost because they were all willing to cross each others picket lines, thinking that Lorenzo would spare them. EAL is sometimes cited as another victory for the company side, however that whole deal was not quite that simple and at best it was a draw. Lorenzo had an airline to transfer EAL asetts to but lots of people other than the employees lost a lot of money on that whole mess and is regarded as a textbook example of poor management. Where would AA transfer their assets?
What is new to labor/management relations is that Unions, supposedly real unions, not company sponsored emploee representation groups, are not fighting against such threats but rather accepting whatever the company tells them and being all to eager to set workers back decades in working conditions,benifits and pay. Where is the fight? Where is the strength in numbers? If the company is simply going to impose its will then why do we need a union? If the union is not only powerless to fight this but also agreeeable to lock us in until the end of the decade where is the benifit derived from paying dues? Why did we seek System protection if as soon as it would be of any real use, we abondon it? Why isnt the Union acting like a Union? Shouldnt the Union be telling the company, hey, maybe you are in trouble and maybe we could help you out but we are not going to committ to six years of concessions when we will likely be out of this next year and if you do get to abrogate the contractand impose new terms we will strike. That is how its done. That is how its always been done. They make their threats and we make ours back. The concept of, oh they said this if we dont do that, we had better do as they say, no matter how unreasonable is typical of a non-union shop.The rhetoric of the company and the union are the same. If our union can not provide us a counterpoint to setting our conditions back to the 50s and cuuting our income by nearly 40% without a fight of what use are they really? If you come to work and do your job right why should you pay dues to a Union that says that they can not protect you pay and benifits? One that does not even try?
