Yea or nay

[Bob Owens]

well reread again because i am voting no. all this t/a is doing is splitting the union. hell we already have aa against x twa now they are wanting flight line a&ps against hangar a&ps. all i was stating is that all these people who think that $4000 dollars is great better step back and see the whole picture.

This tentative agreement is not just splitting the union, its fracturing it, splitting Title I between line and base, base between A&P and OSM, Title II from Title I, Title II line from base, those over 50 vs those under 50, there are so many I'm sure I missed a few.

I agree that the members need to step back, what they think is a feast is just crumbs. We should not reward the company for stalling for two years, we gave so much they didnt know what to ask for. Anything less than 3% per year is an additional paycut on top of our 2003 concessions.This deal is offering 6% over 5 years, it falls 9 percent short of keeping us flat.This is clearly another long term (5 years) concessionary deal.

I also do not think the base is getting a better deal because of the lump, but I do think that the line premium must remain, what we need to do is get more structural raises from our last amendable date, restore our vaction, sick time, IOD time and Holidays and no concessions.

One of the things I said at negotiations was that for the last 20 years we've been burning the furniture to heat the house, theres nothing left, we cant approach negotiations with the mindset that we have to give up something that was fought for years ago and retains value despite inflation to get increases in wages, because those wages will be eroded by inflation, we have to negotiate from the mindset that OUR LABOR has value, that that value covers not only our wages but our benifits as well.

Then the vote was taken and passed. It was if I didnt say anything at all. Hopefully you will share this with your coworkers and they will value their labor more than the majority of the committee does.

 

[Bob Owens]

They came back with a concessionary deal, Steve Luis seconded the motion for a Roll Call, and they abandoned their "Credible" table position and accepted the companys offer without even making counter offers.



bob who called for the roll call vote and do you have info on how they voted


also what is the deal about these letters of confidentiality at iec

Todd Woodward called for a "Published Roll Call Vote" and it passed.
The International ruled that members of the Negotiations Committee at American Airlines had to sign a letter of Confidentiality.

 

[Bob Owens]

We are "doomed" only if we allow ourselves to be "doomed".

We have the power to vote NO.

Of course the Int. can always accept the contract on our behalf, but that is another topic.

I doubt the International will impose this agreement on us. If anything it may cause some problems for Jim Little who has worked hard at building relations with the IBT. Clearly if this agreement passes, or if he imposed it, the IBT would have a much harder time achieving its objectives at CAL/UAL and UPS. That could put them at risk for decertification at CAL/UAL. The IBT has a history of raiding unions who undercut them within the same industry in order to protect their members interests. The AFL-CIO even sanctioned it.

Soon the choice will be in the members hands, a Yes vote is not vindication for the Yes voters on the Negotiations (Witness) Committee, but more likely resignation, not the expressed will of the membership but a reflection of their confidence in their leaders. A No vote, by a sizable majority tells the company and the mediator that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, we will not quietly sink deeper and deeper as AMRs revenues soar. We will not continue to burn our furniture to heat the house, we will not cower to their threats and we will demand a fair price for the labor we provide. SWA used to make less than us. Their real wage hasnt increased, it merely kept pretty much up with inflation, their current contract, opened after ours and already settled puts them $11/hour ahead of us, now some call that "Pie in the sky". Hawiian aircraft mechanics just got a 15% increase. CAL is going for $43, with a better pension, more benifits, more Vacation, more sick time and higher Holiday pay than us. So if you dont think that we should settle for an inferior deal compared to other mechanics whose companies operate in the same economic enviornment we do then VOTE NO and give those of us on the committee who voted NO already the chance to prove to the Yes voters that they dont need to print up T-shirts with footprints across the back, that our members aren't Scabs willing to settle for whatever the company throws at them but they are willing to do what is needed to get a fair deal that will allow them to live comfortable lives, send their kids to college and retire someday.

While its true that we cant issue commands to our members that doesnt mean we cant lead. In order to lead you have to take a position and give others something to follow. This is a concessionary deal. There's no denying that. It leaves us below industry standards on nearly every count. If we consider ourselves to be leaders we cant sit on the fence on such an important issue, we must provide a direction, then the members can make the right choice. We must educate and inform our members, listen to and address their concerns, and make a recommendation based upon all the information that we seek out and find, not simply the filtered biased information thats given to us by the company and others who will not have to work under the terms of this concessionary deal.

My recommendation is ;
VOTE NO

 

[Hopeful]

This tentative agreement is not just splitting the union, its fracturing it, splitting Title I between line and base, base between A&P and OSM, Title II from Title I, Title II line from base, those over 50 vs those under 50, there are so many I'm sure I missed a few.

I agree that the members need to step back, what they think is a feast is just crumbs. We should not reward the company for stalling for two years, we gave so much they didnt know what to ask for. Anything less than 3% per year is an additional paycut on top of our 2003 concessions.This deal is offering 6% over 5 years, it falls 9 percent short of keeping us flat.This is clearly another long term (5 years) concessionary deal.

I also do not think the base is getting a better deal because of the lump, but I do think that the line premium must remain, what we need to do is get more structural raises from our last amendable date, restore our vaction, sick time, IOD time and Holidays and no concessions.

One of the things I said at negotiations was that for the last 20 years we've been burning the furniture to heat the house, theres nothing left, we cant approach negotiations with the mindset that we have to give up something that was fought for years ago and retains value despite inflation to get increases in wages, because those wages will be eroded by inflation, we have to negotiate from the mindset that OUR LABOR has value, that that value covers not only our wages but our benifits as well.

Then the vote was taken and passed. It was if I didnt say anything at all. Hopefully you will share this with your members and they will value their labor more than the majority of the committee does.

Excellent post, Bob...
Unfortunately, I'm already hearing on the floor that some guys are fearful if they turn this down, we're gonna get worse...
The fear factor is alive and well.

 

[Bob Owens]

Excellent post, Bob...
Unfortunately, I'm already hearing on the floor that some guys are fearful if they turn this down, we're gonna get worse...
The fear factor is alive and well.

Well, people who make their decisions based on fear will always lose. We have to do our best not to let them drag us down with them.

 

[The Goose]

Well, people who make their decisions based on fear will always lose. We have to do our best not to let them drag us down with them.

Question - since these "agreements" were obtained with the "assistance" of a mediator, how possible is it for the company to crawfish/backtrack without angering the mediator, ie, pulling the agreements from the table if voted on and not ratified, (assuming Conley doesn't act in our best interests - ala Little Jimmy, 2003)?

 

[paul1]

International Executive Board what does it mean to be part of this club, are some of them not acting in are best interest of us, only so they can strike better deals down the road for themselfs

how did it affect the T/A

 

[eolesen]

Question - since these "agreements" were obtained with the "assistance" of a mediator, how possible is it for the company to crawfish/backtrack without angering the mediator, ie, pulling the agreements from the table if voted on and not ratified, (assuming Conley doesn't act in our best interests - ala Little Jimmy, 2003)?

Interesting choice of words, Goose... do you think that the company is the only one who has to move, or can anger the mediator? Do you think the mediator is going to respond any better when the union throws up their hands and said "sorry, we tried. Time to let us strike" if the vote fails?

Seriously, if this is the best that could be agreed to with a mediator's help, I wouldn't expect the grass to get too much greener.

Perhaps the TWU can come back with four or five "must fix" items to sweeten the pot, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to see a new TA with wildly different terms.

Likewise if it comes to a PEB, which it will if there's an impasse declared. You can thank DL and UA for that -- with all the consolidation, there's no way that NMB or the White House will risk DL or UA coming to the point of an impasse and taking out 20% of the domestic air market without there being a few recent precedent cases...

Has anyone compared the TA to some of the previous offers on the table? What areas have stayed the same thru negotiations, and which actually saw movement?

 

[The Goose]

Interesting choice of words, Goose... do you think that the company is the only one who has to move, or can anger the mediator? Do you think the mediator is going to respond any better when the union throws up their hands and said "sorry, we tried. Time to let us strike" if the vote fails?

Seriously, if this is the best that could be agreed to with a mediator's help, I wouldn't expect the grass to get too much greener.

Perhaps the TWU can come back with four or five "must fix" items to sweeten the pot, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to see a new TA with wildly different terms.

Likewise if it comes to a PEB, which it will if there's an impasse declared. You can thank DL and UA for that -- with all the consolidation, there's no way that NMB or the White House will risk DL or UA coming to the point of an impasse and taking out 20% of the domestic air market without there being a few recent precedent cases...

Has anyone compared the TA to some of the previous offers on the table? What areas have stayed the same thru negotiations, and which actually saw movement?

My intent, E, was to ask if this is turned down, how likely is it the company will remove its table position without seeming as a group of spoiled brats?

It's my understanding (perhaps wrong) the TWU '"negotiating team" made no counteroffer or any other attempt to move items around after Ream made good on his so-called "promise".

 

[Texasdomer]

The company proposal that is now in front us is a collaboration of both union and company. It’s hard to tell anymore where the company ends and the union starts. A movie quote comes to mind “ you’re standing awful close Gus I don’t know if it’s your toes I’m feeling or mine.”

It can be no surprise that when the company brings a proposal to the table, that they are going to try and get the most work for the least amount of money spent. It is up to the union, to impress upon the company that certain items we are committed to and will be considered non-starters as a way of setting the bar at the higher end. We have no business doing the company’s job of setting the bar so low that we have no chance of a member friendly contract. It is also a must, that our union presidents know what their members want out of a contract and not to bring one back until that it is done. If you are able to read Bob Zimmerman’s recent letter to the membership about this, he basically states that he didn’t want to vote yes, but felt he had to. He does feel bad about it though. If you need to get a hold of good time Bob, he can now be reached at the international. SURPRISE!!

This contract could not be a better definition of stick and carrot. You have to wonder why they announced the base closures so early? This contract takes dead aim at that. With the way it is structured, if you are in your sixties and can retire and don’t want to move, there is just enough money there so the act is not completely dry. If you can’t retire or move there is payout for you to. You can take your turn in the dry line after those who can retire. There will be no $12,500 for most folks in STL or MCI the system protection was not reset low enough. For the folks in the other stations such as SFO the carrot is the $12,500. Working it just enough to appeal to groups for a yes vote.

Here is something else to think about, how much of the money that the company is offering will they recoup this fall when they raise our health insurance again? This contract also has the conquer and divide portion of it. The line will be pitted against the bases. While everybody is watching the right hand the left hand is at work keeping things off balance and in disarray. Here is a thought! Our union works off of dues collection. If as a group, we could agree to all go to hand pay and not quite pay on time, and then pay with pennies. How fast do you think that the international would be up in arms! The squeaky wheel gets the grease! Just a thought, make sure you work safe and smart.

VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[comatose]

This was Bob's quote back in Jan.
"An impasse is not something I take lightly, as it could very well end in a strike or some other type of self help," Zimmerman wrote. "But at this point in our careers we may have to choose between continuing down the path of career destruction, or to take a stand."

Nice to see he chose the path of career destruction.

 

[TWU informer]

Interesting APA Hotline message from May 5th 2010

APA INFORMATION HOTLINE
This is APA Communications Deputy Chairman First Officer Scott Shankland with the APA Information Hotline for Wednesday, May 5.
AMR REPORTS AGREEMENT ON A NEW TWU CONTRACT: AMR management reported today that a tentative agreement has been reached on a new contract for TWU-represented "mechanic and related" workers. AMR acknowledged that both sides are still "finishing details." In media reports, a TWU spokesman stated that the airline's announcement concerning an agreement was "premature."

APA is gathering further information regarding the reported tentative agreement. We will distribute more detailed information as it becomes available.

 

[Tex-Mech]

This was Bob's quote back in Jan.
"An impasse is not something I take lightly, as it could very well end in a strike or some other type of self help," Zimmerman wrote. "But at this point in our careers we may have to choose between continuing down the path of career destruction, or to take a stand."

Nice to see he chose the path of career destruction.

This one is a bit of a surprise considering the rather positive things I've heard about Zimmerman from those who work at DFW. The international gig is also surprising.

Bob O. any insight? Also when did these appointments happen? Recently, or back at the convention?

 

[notbuyingit]

This one is a bit of a surprise considering the rather positive things I've heard about Zimmerman from those who work at DFW. The international gig is also surprising.

Bob O. any insight? Also when did these appointments happen? Recently, or back at the convention?

I for one would like to Know When Steve louis was appointed an International VP was it before or after he used his role call vote to sell out his member by using his roll call vote to bring back a internationally negotiated concession contract to a vote. Who do you work for Steve and how long before the good old boys at the international send you back to try and explain your actions to your friends trying to keep there head above water and you just pissed on.

 

[Hopeful]

Does everyone NOT see the pattern here?
A concessionary contract is always followed by some local president getting moved up the international...

What does that say to everyone?

TWU MUST GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!