You seem to think that there is a set amount the company has for the workers an thats it. That if we reduced the amount of workers that the company would make the extra money available to those that remain howver thats not, and never was the case.
From 2001 to 2010 the company cut around 40,000 jobs, over 4000 in Title 1 alone. Their labor costs plummetted. Over that same period of time their Revenue increased by billions of dollars, so we have a lot less employees and a lot more money coming in but the company is insisting on a Zero cost contract.
You missed my point, Bob.
What I had said was the company has a dollar amount they will pay for aircraft maintenance labor. Say, f'r'instance, it's $10 (just to keep the zeros at bay). That amount, as defined by our friendly neighborhood bean counters, is set in stone. The amount is then given to the bargaining agent (an extremely loose reference to the TWU).
Suppose that only one person is really necessary to accomplish the particular maintenance tasks - that individual could be paid that $10 figure or, more than likely, less if the company is particularly good at playing poker with the lives of others.
Now, suppose that while that so-called "bargaining agent" has no problem with the dollar amount, it's quite evident one individual won't be paying more than thew 2 hours pay per month in dues. This can be offset by the agent demanding additional personnel which in all truth are not necessary for the maintenance function but certainly contribute dues to the agent.
One individual making $10 (paying 2 hours pay per month in dues) or four individuals making $2.50 and all paying the same 2 hours pay in dues. The agent has every incentive to increase the population for the benefit of his pocket and since finances aren't the best for many companies, AMR included, in steps the concessionary contract. The company holds the line on their amount paid for maintenance, and the agent's charges are happy that their buddies are being brought back into the fold from RIF status - and nobody questions the ulterior motives of the supposed "representation".
Until that agent crosses the line (which I personally believe has finally happened), all will coninue to be fat and happy, bad mouthing the company for not giving away what the agent's charges expect, and a resounding chorus of "We'll get 'em next time" will be heard throughout the facility.
I cannot speak for your group and the line maintenance as I'm not there. I can speak for the TULE maintenance facility, however. From what I see (with few exceptions), 50% of the represented personnel could be RIFed, assuming the remainder would do something productive during their daily tour for 5 to 6 hours of an eight hour shift.
Now, to your question.
No - I am not under any impression the company would give us a damned thing re: pay and benefits but I do believe with the professional negotiators that I keep hearing about doing their job and producing facts and figures to support the union's people, much better could be had than this mess referred to as a TA we're voting on now. That's the function of the negotiator.
We simply cannot maintain the people number we have and expect to rake in in wage and benefit gains we want when the money pool is a finite amount.
This attitude is to our benefit and the benefit of those who might be RIFed as a result of actually running American like a real for-profit business instead of a union and corporate piggy bank. Those laid off would eventually have a good job to return to and retire from rather than what is in place today.
As I said before in another post - I am not taking the company's side, rather, I am taking OUR side - the side of those who work for wages.
