ch53D
Senior
- Jan 21, 2007
- 260
- 3
Sounds like a Don V. Idea to me.
TWU negotiations.........what?
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
Sounds like a Don V. Idea to me.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #48
<_< ----- Bear, I hate the outcome of that vote as much as anyone! But weather the threat to shut down MCIE was true,or not, the majority of people here believed it was! Were we afraid of bankruptcy? Hell no! Unlike the rest of AA, we've been through it twice before! The position AA ,and the TWU, put the majority of workers here was that we have little, or no, seniority system wide, because of Kasher's decision, to bid anywhere! As I've stated, these are older workers with families! Now if you, or anyone else can't understand that, well that's just too bad!!!!
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
What good is a Super Line President up against a Super International Appointee?
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #50
<_< -----If you, or anyone else in AA, expected us (exTWA) people here in MCIE, to put our necks, and the well being of our families, on the chopping block for those same people that had just got done screwing us?------ Now talk about hypocrisy!!!--Oh, we can look at this thing in a lot of differant ways!!!! :angry:<_< ----- Bear, I hate the outcome of that vote as much as anyone! But weather the threat to shut down MCIE was true,or not, the majority of people here believed it was! Were we afraid of bankruptcy? Hell no! Unlike the rest of AA, we've been through it twice before! The position AA ,and the TWU, put the majority of workers here in, was that we have little, or no, seniority system wide, because of the Kasher's decision to bid anywhere! As I've stated, these are older workers with families! Now if you, or anyone else can't understand that, well that's just too bad!!!!
ch53D
Senior
- Jan 21, 2007
- 260
- 3
As you know I’m 100% the TWA side on this issue.
It wasn’t the membership that screwed you. If the (ME) membership had a chance to vote, it would have been the (ME) membership screwing TWA. It was the International that filed the 29D grievance. The International took it upon themselves to screw TWA with out the (ME) membership approval.
Hackman
Veteran
- Sep 30, 2003
- 3,997
- 892
- Banned
- #52
As much as I dislike what happened to the exTWA employees because of greedy Uncle carl and friends. I still fail to grasp after 6 years of whinning, bitching and lawsuits, how MCIE and exTWA employees in general were "screwed"????
Do you mean morons like don cAArty who had to spend billions to buy a the whole failed bankrupt TWA fiasco and it's ungrateful employees???
Again I ask, how were exTWA employees "screwed" by AA?? The twu screwed you by lying to you, that's a fact. Would you have rather let the airline go down in bankruptcy and then have someone else buy the chopped-up pieces at the liquidation fire sale??? Do you think the employees of TWA would have been part of the sale??? How many exTWA employees would still be working at higher wages and benefits today than they previously were???
The exTWA seniority subject has gotten far beyond the point of irritation. You people didn't work for AA. Your airline was bankrupt...again. Your airline was bought outright, not merged. Full seniority not granted, and rightly so.
AA foolishly buying bankrupt TWA was the biggest mistake in AA's airline history.....bar none. :down:
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
All the while the TWU International was using the TWA Mechanics to prevent a NMB vote between AMFA and TWU, at the same time, screwing them out of their seniority, and using FEAR to get what they wanted. Meanwhile, the TWA mechanics refused to listen to the membership with years of experience in TWU shaftings, and thus got what they deserved for failing to take required action to leave the TWU.
Kev3188
Veteran
Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Apr 21, 2003
- 1,626
- 12
Succinct and accurate.
Also, don't forget to give full credit to the IAM for their part in the seniority debacle.
Asking to consolidate power into one individual without the right to see the structure prior to doing so is just plain dumb.
If the infamous, "they", want us to vote for, "them", "they" need to explain the mechanics and reasoning behind the vote PRIOR to the vote.
In the 2001 Negotiations "Training", the Line forwarded a proposal for SCOPE. It required that both the Company and the Union sign off on:
1) the intent of the article;
2) the language of each article prior to ratification;
3) the arbitrability of the article;
4) the penalty for breach by the Company, self disclosed; and,
5) the penalty for breach by the Company, arbitrated.
Following the train wreck at the end-game of the 2001 Negotiations; the Line Presidents met in DFW for a debrief of the events culminating in the ramrodding of the negotiations phase into a TA: we eventually determined that the TWU International had programmed the negotiations into a defined period during which only pre-determined segments would be discussed. The range of values for the remainder of the contract were determined prior to calling the Negotiations "Teams" into session.
This negotiations paradigm was to repeat during the 2003 fiasco.
After the 2003 debacle, and during the lawsuit by 562, et al.,...the TWU claimed that allowing the membership to actually vote on any agreement after the intitial contract was not required by the RLA: the Federal Judge AGREED with the position of the TWU INTERNATIONAL.
With several TWU Line Locals: we have several opportunities to check the power of any one wayward TWU Local Line President.
With one TWU Line Local, one TWU Line President, and no real recall power under the TWU Constitution: we have even less power.
We already have a dictatorship over the TWU Membership and Line by Overhaul: do not give the TWU and Overhaul "lebensraum" over the Line by the creation of "the strong man".
Voting for the "the strong man" is an abdication of democratic ideals and the protection of the dissenting vote through the consolidation of power.
If the infamous, "they", want us to vote for, "them", "they" need to explain the mechanics and reasoning behind the vote PRIOR to the vote.
In the 2001 Negotiations "Training", the Line forwarded a proposal for SCOPE. It required that both the Company and the Union sign off on:
1) the intent of the article;
2) the language of each article prior to ratification;
3) the arbitrability of the article;
4) the penalty for breach by the Company, self disclosed; and,
5) the penalty for breach by the Company, arbitrated.
Following the train wreck at the end-game of the 2001 Negotiations; the Line Presidents met in DFW for a debrief of the events culminating in the ramrodding of the negotiations phase into a TA: we eventually determined that the TWU International had programmed the negotiations into a defined period during which only pre-determined segments would be discussed. The range of values for the remainder of the contract were determined prior to calling the Negotiations "Teams" into session.
This negotiations paradigm was to repeat during the 2003 fiasco.
After the 2003 debacle, and during the lawsuit by 562, et al.,...the TWU claimed that allowing the membership to actually vote on any agreement after the intitial contract was not required by the RLA: the Federal Judge AGREED with the position of the TWU INTERNATIONAL.
With several TWU Line Locals: we have several opportunities to check the power of any one wayward TWU Local Line President.
With one TWU Line Local, one TWU Line President, and no real recall power under the TWU Constitution: we have even less power.
We already have a dictatorship over the TWU Membership and Line by Overhaul: do not give the TWU and Overhaul "lebensraum" over the Line by the creation of "the strong man".
Voting for the "the strong man" is an abdication of democratic ideals and the protection of the dissenting vote through the consolidation of power.
Well the structure of Locals tend to be common, sure there are differences but there is little doubt that consolidation could not be any worse than what we have now. At the very least we would end up with a better financed Local. One of the problems with the current structure is that there is no one that can be held responsible. A powerless Local President could reasonably claim that he had fought for what the members wanted but other locals were not on board, in fact they all could make the same claim without any means available for verification by the members.
Consolidation, if it continued through the contract group could lead to ownership of the contract by that singular Local, like most other Locals have. If everyone under the contract was in one Local there would no longer be a need for International ownership of the contract.
Fair enough, but I think that two very different concepts are behing discussed here. One is an International conspired deal of a singular voice from the line chosen by the Presidents of the five Locals. That I disagree with, the other is to merge the line locals into one local, One president and one E-board. That I favor, as long as they go with an electronic local.
I remember it well.
Thats because the law makes the assumption that the person or persons making that decision will ultimately be held accountable during an election, as is the norm. While it is very common to have one Local that has several contracts its much less common to have twenty Locals under one contract. This is the main source of our problems. The structure keeps the members divided and powerless while the International has immunity from electoral accountability from the members at AA.
You cant check what isnt there. As the lawsuit pointed out none of these locals are party to the agreement.All that having several line locals does is dilute the financial resources of line local members by having the expense of five locals, all under one contract where none of them are party to it.
When the issue of recall was brought up at the 2001 Convention Sonny Hall tstified that any Local that wanted to put recall provisions in their bylaws was free to do so, I believe that some already have them. So under one Local we could have recall.
Well actually the dictaorship lies with the International. However in their attempt to construct the illusion of democracy they allow Tulsa to weild a roll call vote at Presidents council meetings. This practice allows the President from Tulsa to totally ignore the needs of any other workgroup. The only thing that having 5 line locals does is give line mechs " five witnesses". The fact is line mechs would have more of a say in things if we were all included in Local 514.
You may find that incredible but let me illustarate a point.
One of the most critical stations for anyone running for office at Local 562 is SJU. SJU?? They only have 50 guys compared to 400 at JFK and 100 at LGA. Why is SJU so critical? Because they vote and because they usually vote the same. SJU can not be ignored by anyone seeking an "at large" position in Local 562.
Lets say we were all in Local 514, sure the President would most likely be someone from Tulsa(Just as every President from Local 562 has been from JFK) but in order to win no candidate could afford to ignore 4000 line workers, especially if they have a high turnout. (Typically, local 514 Presidents get into office with less than one third of the memberships vote)
The fact is we know that what we have now is totally ineffective. We have an unaccountable International that owns the contract. We have 5 small, financially strapped, powerless locals that are unable to challenge the International.Sure it provides a good gig for the few that can escape the floor and pick up an extra twenty grand or so but it doesnt do anything for the majority of members. Having a more consolidated but just as accountable local can put us in a better position than where we are now, at its worst we could end up with what we have now.
OP
Chuck Schalk
Veteran
- Nov 17, 2006
- 1,042
- 1,149
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #58
The company is:
buying airplanes and hangars
Upgrading aircraft interiors
paying down long term debt......
They are literally spending billions. Does anyone think they would do this if they did not have solid cooperation for the contract early next year? If there was real labor strife they would be cautious on spending until the contract is completed. In my opinion, I think the company is pretty confident on this one. What do you think?
buying airplanes and hangars
Upgrading aircraft interiors
paying down long term debt......
They are literally spending billions. Does anyone think they would do this if they did not have solid cooperation for the contract early next year? If there was real labor strife they would be cautious on spending until the contract is completed. In my opinion, I think the company is pretty confident on this one. What do you think?
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Well Chuck, from an AMT standpoint, they "KNOW" that the upcoming contract will be..."NO PROBLEMO", because of TUL(Are you COWARDS in TUL, reading this ??).
From a FSC prospective, DFW has NEVER voted NO, so no problem there. As for ORD, and MIA, they can count on enough YES votes, coupled with the DFW votes.....and again..."NO PROBLEMO" !!!
AA/TWU(same ####) know, going in to new contract votes, that FSC locals like 501(NY), and 507(BOS) are always going to tell them to STUFF IT !!
It's like the "Electoral college" in politics, all they need is the magic # (50% +1).
As you guys in NY know, THAT is THE main reason AA moved their HDQ(and the TWU moved theirs as well) from NY to Tex-ass !!!
NH/BB's
I don't think the two are related. The airline is generating more cash than it's burning, so debt gets paid down, regardless of the status of contract negotiations.
New airplanes? So far, a handful of 738s. With the fuel economy savings over MD-80s, they'll pay for themselves quickly.
New aircraft interiors? Pocket change, not billions. New interiors will draw higher revenue, and the desire for higher revenue doesn't depend on a contract with the TWU.
The new hangar? Few million a year. Rounding error for a company with $24 billion of annual revenue.
I'd agree with you if AA had announced a huge order for 787s - like perhaps 100 or more of them. And hundreds of 190/195s and hundreds of 738s. THAT kind of spending would signify management confidence in its labor situation.
Don't get me wrong - AMR Management may in fact be confident it has a sweet deal already lined up with the worthless union leadership - my disagreement is that any of the company's current actions are evidence of that confidence. All I see is cautious, conservative spending - it really isn't "billions" as you mentioned.
