Aircraft maint issues

[Buck]

I'd assume you'd also agree to no have the obligation to represent those that choose not to participate in dues payment. Correct?

Right to Work isn't being used as a vehicle for choice being that the unions are still obligated to represent those that do not want to pay dues. That mechanism is only there to try and bankrupt or at least financially diminish the ability for the organization to be effective.

Where are you guys getting the ability to work at American with the TWU as your representative and not pay dues?

ARTICLE 38 – UNION SECURITY (a) All employees covered by this Agreement will, as a condition of employment, maintain membership in the Union so long as this Agreement remains in effect, to the extent of paying an initiation fee and membership dues (not including fines and penalties), or agency fees in accordance with applicable law. An employee may have his membership dues deducted from his earnings by signing the form "Assignment and Authorization for Check-Off of Union Dues", also referred to as “Check-Off Form” or, if no such authorization is in effect, he must pay his initiation fee and membership dues directly to the Union.

 

[swamt]

Too me a status meeting is both parties must show up and the individuals who show up on both sides are in a position to make decisions on behalf of their respective negotiating committee.
What will come out of it remains to be seen. So stand by for another update from our lovely association. Until then just do your job and stop worrying about things you have no control over.

No decision makers will be there from the co. side. This meeting (to me) is simply to see if "both" sides are willing to actually nego and move towards a new agreement. If no movement, then no future dates and everyone will be on long term ice, and probably until some time next year.
Pretty sure the mediators will be leaning more towards the asso. moving than the co. Co. has shown movement in the past, asso. not so much if any movement. The asso. has been holding hard core with medical, retirement, as well as outsourcing. I do think if the asso is willing to move a bit on some of these issues they will get somewhere. If not, I see NMB walking out and no need to meet with the co. side except to tell them that the asso. refuses to move and therefore they are setting them on long term ice for a possibility of 6 months and/or longer. They did it to us for 5-6 months.

 

[AANOTOK]

No decision makers will be there from the co. side. This meeting (to me) is simply to see if "both" sides are willing to actually nego and move towards a new agreement. If no movement, then no future dates and everyone will be on long term ice, and probably until some time next year.
Pretty sure the mediators will be leaning more towards the asso. moving than the co. Co. has shown movement in the past, asso. not so much if any movement. The asso. has been holding hard core with medical, retirement, as well as outsourcing. I do think if the asso is willing to move a bit on some of these issues they will get somewhere. If not, I see NMB walking out and no need to meet with the co. side except to tell them that the asso. refuses to move and therefore they are setting them on long term ice for a possibility of 6 months and/or longer. They did it to us for 5-6 months.

There will be movement, there will be a vote (not endorsed)...the Association does not want to be sued out of existence...pretty simple.

 

[chilokie1]

There will be movement, there will be a vote (not endorsed)...the Association does not want to be sued out of existence...pretty simple.

It is the only endgame! The ASS is a disaster that was spawned for all the wrong reasons by fools & big labor who put
the membership's interests & needs on the "Hind Tit".

 

[NYer]

Yes NYer, I would say I agree with that assessment. The UNION should absolutely not be obligated to represent those that are not paying members. I am a big believer in "you get what you pay for".

If you want to speak to effectiveness sir I would submit that closed shop UNIONs lack the motivation to satisfy their captive customer base. The membership being the customer base.

That being said, I agree with you that the current implementation of the law is unjust as the UNION and more to the point the UNION membership should not be obligated to bear the cost of representation for those that would deny dues to the organization.

However the UNION is a socialist entity and socialism always breeds opportunistic parasites looking to benefit off other people's labor without any meaningful contribution. Just consider it TWU welfare. I guess you have to take the good with the bad.

I am not telling you anything you don't know. I am sure in your career you have encountered lazy, unproductive, and incompetent employees that contribute next to nothing (or actually inhibit production) but make the same amount you do while basically living off your day to day labor.

I said all that to say this, from my perspective it does not matter if I work in a closed shop being forced to fund representation for the lazy, unproductive, and incompetent, or if people are catching a free ride off others paying UNION dues. In the end my fellow employees are still screwing me. It only matters to the UNION's bottom line. A UNION by the way that misappropriates money all the time anyway for political agendas that have nothing to do with labor.

I don't expect you to agree with anything I said, I just thought I would show you another perspective on the matter.

All that is systemic to any and all organizations. You have people that take advantage in all political systems.

That being the case, the Right to Work movement isn't about fairness as some like to express. It's about making a once formidable opponent extinct.

None of the Right to Work legislation has ever included the ability to represent only those that oat their dues. It has been about not paying the dues, but still obligating the organization to represent.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

All that is systemic to any and all organizations. You have people that take advantage in all political systems.

Agreed. However, when they are taking BLATANT advantage and you have to "work" shoulder to shoulder with them every single day over time that can cause a lot of resentment. I know I had a hell of a lot of resentment during my last 2 years with the company. That is why I decided to go to school, take a chance, and move on despite American Airlines being one of the top paying employers in my low cost of living area. See NYer for me it was not the company that was causing me stress at work it was my fellow employees. I can't tell you how many times half the crew did not even show up on the dock, did very low quality work, day shift signed off on work that was not done, or people just clocked in, left, then came back and clocked out at the end of the day (before the fence). It was only later after I left the company I came to the realization that these problems were mostly caused by weak management. However I can't deny that UNION membership gave these people a certain sense of entitlement to come to work and do nothing. I have actually heard people state their intention was to do very little work because "that is what UNION jobs are for". The fact that other UNION members have to do they work they do not do is of little to no consideration. That is why I made the comparative of UNION membership to welfare lifers.

That being the case, the Right to Work movement isn't about fairness as some like to express. It's about making a once formidable opponent extinct.

Some may be trying to weaponize Right to Work but that is not my agenda. I truly believe having compulsory dues impacts UNION effectiveness in a negative way. I truly believe that an entity should have to earn it's money. Forcing me to fund something that I feel is not representative of my goals is abhorrent.

When I pay my dues I expect that money to go toward contract negotiation, enforcement, and labor law. I do not expect it to go to some Democrat pushing a liberal agenda that has NOTHING to do with labor.

To me UNIONs have become too politicized and that was the beginning of the end of true UNIONism. They are more concerned about playing politics than representing the membership. I think even the most die hard UNION member would agree with that.

People accuse Republicans of not supporting UNIONs but the truth is the UNIONs made themselves a target when they started almost exclusively funding Democrats on topics not related to labor law.

You know that is true NYer.

None of the Right to Work legislation has ever included the ability to represent only those that oat their dues. It has been about not paying the dues, but still obligating the organization to represent.

I have already shared my opinion on that subject. You get what you pay for. If people decline UNION dues then they decline UNION services. That SHOULD be the way it is. In this we are in total agreement.

 

[NYer]

Some may be trying to weaponize Right to Work but that is not my agenda. I truly believe having compulsory dues impacts UNION effectiveness in a negative way. I truly believe that an entity should have to earn it's money. Forcing me to fund something that I feel is not representative of my goals is abhorrent.

Unionism isn't about YOUR goal. It's about the collective.

The effectiveness of a union isn't going to be enhanced because of dues. Optional uniondues could be very detrimental as companies can give non-dues paying members the same benefits and pay as the unionized workers. That being the case, they could also cause more people to rescind their dues while getting the same outcome. (and it would have nothing to do with politics) Union members that support such things are also inadvertantly supporting an agenda meant to make unions extinct.

 

[NYer]

When I pay my dues I expect that money to go toward contract negotiation, enforcement, and labor law. I do not expect it to go to some Democrat pushing a liberal agenda that has NOTHING to do with labor.

To me UNIONs have become too politicized and that was the beginning of the end of true UNIONism. They are more concerned about playing politics than representing the membership. I think even the most die hard UNION member would agree with that.

People accuse Republicans of not supporting UNIONs but the truth is the UNIONs made themselves a target when they started almost exclusively funding Democrats on topics not related to labor law.

You know that is true NYer.

I have already shared my opinion on that subject. You get what you pay for. If people decline UNION dues then they decline UNION services. That SHOULD be the way it is. In this we are in total agreement.

Unions and politics go hand in hand. The advantages gained by Labor over the decades have come at the hand of legislation.

The same is true at the disadvantages, derived from legislation.

In general, the Democratic party has been friendlier to Labor causes, while the Republicans lean to the businesses.

Has been and still is.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Unionism isn't about YOUR goal. It's about the collective.

We were not talking about UNIONism we were talking about Right to Work. I realize they go hand in hand but you are trying to shift the focal point.

The effectiveness of a union isn't going to be enhanced because of dues.

If you truly believe that then why have compulsory dues?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Unions and politics go hand in hand. The advantages gained by Labor over the decades have come at the hand of legislation.

The same is true at the disadvantages, derived from legislation.

In general, the Democratic party has been friendlier to Labor causes, while the Republicans lean to the businesses.

Has been and still is.

All one has to do is take a look at the detrimental impact of the teachers UNION to see what a mistake that is.

 

[NYer]

We were not talking about UNIONism we were talking about Right to Work. I realize they go hand in hand but you are trying to shift the focal point.

If you truly believe that then why have compulsory dues?

Not shifting at all. As you say, they hand in hand.

Historically, the Democratic party has been friendlier to Labor issues and had helped with positive legislation. Your conflict with the unions supporting the party that better supports Labor is a conflict with your personal beliefs. Unfortunately, unionism and their attempt to gain support is contradicted in your choice of Party support.

Really can't a robust union climate without legislative support. Unfortunately that support is in conflict with your choice of Party. Either you want a strong union foundation or you want your Party. Can't really have those two things thriving at the same time.

 

[NYer]

If you truly believe that then why have compulsory dues?

The dues obligation goes hand in hand with the representational obligation and the fact everyone under a CBA benefits from that representation.

 

[NYer]

All one has to do is take a look at the detrimental impact of the teachers UNION to see what a mistake that is.

Unions aren't detrimental. There may be done representatives or negotiated rules that have become a negative but the problem isn't unions as a whole.

If you thought that, then you should be advocating "no union" rather than merely changing unions.

 

[Kev3188]

... I would submit that closed shop UNIONs lack the motivation to satisfy their captive customer base. The membership being the customer base.

I think the better way to fix that is to abolish the "no raid" clause, rather than push for RTW laws.

 

[1AA]

At this point with my seniority I want my money. My increased 401k match and contribution. I want to get my catch up started again in my 401k. I don't care anymore about the third party outsourcing and the layoffs because it is going to happen and none of us have a say.
Don't tell me by voting no it wont happen because it will pass if it is presented to the membership. The greediness of the two unions under the association scam is now going to kick them in the butt. We had our chances over the last 30 years to make a change but too many knuckleheads in Tulsa, title 2 and line stations over several drives have now led us all to this point. So my advice is for all to clam up and vote yes if it benefits you. If it doesn't benefit you too bad because it will pass anyway.

And to be fair it was also the bases in Kansas City and Alliance that at one time or another were against the line stations or each other.
So if you noticed my point here is we are still to this day divided. Now you add the IAM guys and we have a supersize CF!