Amfa Has Contract

Today, I received communication from United Mechanics wanting to decert AMFA but not to go back to the MIA. The AGW has not considered a raid on AMFA before and it is premature at this point to speculate on one, options are open.

But FWIW,
This contract/enema is not equitable and should be flushed down the john. Dell's statement of 'gun to the head' is IAMism. In fact I think he may have got it from the IAM loyalist when they told the US AIRWAYS members that the company had a 'gun to the head and a knife in the back' and another good one was 'we got the best of the worst'. Further, Dell's manufactured framework of your choice is pathetic. He says, "Our choice is to either consent to concessions from the company or risk even worse..." does harm to justice since since it doesn't recognize the outcome seemingly outside his framework that REAL negotiations may allow for the opportunity to get snapbacks, etc in the latter part of the contract as opposed to a 'permanent' condition that will shake the profession for years to come.

The simple fact is that the mechanics have a gun too and the only REAL negotiations will be when ANY union has enough balls to stand up to corporate greed and place that gun at a Corporation head also. Does this make sense to any of you? I mean, what happens in real life if someone puts a gun to your head yet you have a gun also? YOU PUT IT TO THE OTHER DUDE'S HEAD, RIGHT? Only then do real talks begin. Yes, United can go chapter 7 but the alternative is such a piss clam contract that it is an abomination to your profession. The biggest inequitable part is that most of these things are permanent with no snapback. Real negotiations only possible with a gun to the corporations head will negotiate snapbacks and the only chance to protect the profession down the road.

Be careful with the $40 million in possible returns since it could be the part where you have analyst sell you a pipedream with a laptop that graphs all the mechanics as getting a good investment on their givebacks. It may be a lot closer to a 'drunken promise in the dark. The UAL mechanic has seen that sort of thing before. Working men and women almost always get screwed with these financially brokered deals that usually blanket nothingness. I'm sure the mechanics can decide if UA can be trusted on another financial deal. BTW, the 4% 401K is like the IAM's new 4% deal at US AIRWAYS for fleet service and mechanics should not only demand but stick to getting a more equitable 401k. And is there any language that will prohibit Corporate officer bonus' or other raises? Alot of US AIRWAYS workers would love to have had language prohibiting officer bonus' without triggering raises, benefits for the rank and file. Until unions create a new paradigm they will continual to get the heck beat out of them. GM and the auto workers will be next.

At any rate, I hate it for the UAL mechanics who wanted a union that had balls and swtiched to AMFA, only to have the opportunity to vote for this enema. What will be interesting is if the rank and file approves the very thing that seems contradictory to the words they have spoken.

Until working men and women stop a defeatest attitude they will continual to lose everything. One other thing, If I'm United and the mechanics roll over then I come back for more and 'get me som' mo.

regards,

Tim Nelson, Interim Director, Allied Ground Workers
 
Hello, Synch,


A question, sir.

Bush wants to shift money from the SS trust fund to private accounts, so that the $$ can be invested in the market. Nominally, for higher returns.

Why not bypass the middle man, and place the FICA withholdings directly into a mammoth index fund?

Could the reasons this is not under discussion be a) it would reveal the true size of the deficit, and B) the returns may or may not be so good?
 
Tim Nelson said:
Today, I received communication from United Mechanics wanting to decert AMFA but not to go back to the MIA.  The AGW has not considered a raid on  AMFA before and it is premature at this point to speculate on one, options are open. 

But FWIW,
This contract/enema  is not equitable and should be flushed down the john. Dell's statement of 'gun to the head' is IAMism.  In fact I think he may have got it from the IAM loyalist when they told the US AIRWAYS members that the company had a 'gun to the head and a knife in the back'  and another good one was 'we got the best of the worst'.  Further, Dell's manufactured framework of your choice is pathetic. He says, "Our choice is to either consent to concessions from the company or risk even worse..." does harm to justice since since it doesn't recognize the outcome seemingly outside his framework that REAL negotiations may allow for the opportunity to get snapbacks, etc in the latter part of the contract as opposed to a 'permanent' condition that will shake the profession for years to come. 

The simple fact is that the mechanics have a gun too and the only REAL negotiations will be when ANY union has enough balls to stand up to corporate greed and place that gun at a Corporation head also.   Does this make sense to any of you?  I mean, what happens in real life if someone puts a gun to your head yet you have a gun also?  YOU PUT IT TO THE OTHER DUDE'S HEAD, RIGHT? Only then do real talks begin. Yes, United can go chapter 7 but the alternative is such a piss clam contract that it is an abomination to your profession.  The biggest inequitable part is that most of these things are permanent with no snapback.  Real negotiations only possible with a gun to the corporations head will negotiate snapbacks and the only chance to protect the profession down the road.

Be careful with the $40 million in possible returns since it could be the part where you have analyst sell you a pipedream with a laptop that graphs all the mechanics as getting a good investment on their givebacks. It may be a lot closer to  a 'drunken promise in the dark.  The UAL mechanic has seen that sort of thing before.  Working men and women almost always get screwed with these financially brokered deals that usually blanket nothingness.  I'm sure the mechanics can decide if UA can be trusted on another financial deal.  BTW, the 4% 401K is like the IAM's new 4% deal at US AIRWAYS for fleet service and mechanics should not only demand but stick to getting a more equitable 401k.  And is there any language that will  prohibit Corporate officer bonus' or other raises? Alot of US AIRWAYS workers would love to have had language prohibiting officer bonus' without triggering raises, benefits for the rank and file. Until unions create a new paradigm they will continual to get the heck beat out of them. GM and the auto workers will be next.

At any rate, I hate it for the UAL mechanics who wanted a union that had balls and swtiched to AMFA, only to have the opportunity to vote for this enema.  What will be interesting is if the rank and file approves the very thing that seems contradictory to the words they have spoken.

Until working men and women stop a defeatest attitude  they will continual to lose everything.  One other thing, If I'm United and the mechanics roll over then I come back for more and 'get me som' mo.   

regards,

Tim Nelson, Interim Director, Allied Ground Workers
[post="271089"][/post]​

I agree thats Delles letter was poor, however it was nowhere near as poor as what the IAM and TWU told their members. I know thats not a good excuse.

Delle stated the obvious that the company held a gun to their heads.

What else is new?

But he failed to balance that with the obvious of what a Yes vote would mean-effectivly the end of every mechanics career. Sure there will still be mechanics out there, it just wont be a job worth having anymore.

Delle failed to show his members that by voting Yes the cycle will continue and things will not get better but continue to get worse. AMFA was the one who brought mechanics wages up, and unfortunately its up to them to maintain them because we know that the IAM and TWU will not. A yes vote at UAL will be a major victory for the sellout unions. A NO vote leaves them with options.

If you vote YES it does not mean an end to concessions, in fact it guarantees they will continue. The TWU will once again lower the bar.

Delle failed to tell his members that the system is already at Max capacity and that if UAL stops flying due to a strike that there will be massive disruptions wherever UAL flies.

The cycle of concessions will continue until either there is a standoff or a major disruption to service. AS far as the airlines are concerned as long as we keep accepting concessions they will keep going for them.

If you vote NO, and do not strike what conditions will the company impose? Would they be much worse than what they are asking for now? And if they were then you could strike. However if you vote yes, then you are stuck in this downward spiral till at least 2009, possibly much longer. AS we have seen in the past, when we are in a position to make gains all of a sudden the government becomes very "hands on" and delays the process or issues PEBs.

As far as a decert goes I doubt there would be much support. If the members at UAL are unhappy with Delles performance they can recall him and if he doesnt step up then he may well face recall. You have to remember that the AMFA members at other carriers know whats at stake here and that if UAL gets the same TWU type concessions in, then they are next. So even if the members at UAL end up voting this in, a recall drive could start from any one of the other carriers where AMFA has members.

I'm sure Delle realizes that the contest at UAL is crucial. Will the profession be ruined without a shot fired? If the industry continues in its quest to "reset wages" without any disruption by mechanics then the blame will be focused on Delle for failing to lead. Should the mechanics at UAL accept this deal, in part because Delle offered no plan to resist and only cited the worst case outcome of rejection, Delle will likely no longer be in office to see the mechanics from AA join AMFA. In fact it could threaten the whole mission of the union to unite the mechanics. The margin of acceptance at AA for concessions was 700 votes out of over 10,000 cast. More than 700 have retired since. The majority of workers at AA are against the concessions and are looking to get to AMFA before the next contract. If AMFA fails to resist concessions at UAL then support for AMFA is likely to subside, they would not start supporting the TWU, they would simply give up on unionism. Instead of signing to cards to get AMFA they would sign them to get a vote then not vote at all so we end up with no union. Could we blame them?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #19
First question, who pays Tim Nelson's salary? I'm guessing it is not UA. Does the AGW pay his salary? If so, then he has nothing riding on a strike at UAL or any other airline because his salary is paid for by other peoples dues. It is easy to give advice when your house and lively hood is not riding on it.

As for Mr. Owens, you cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. The company is in BK and the employees have no leverage. If the employees shut down the company the only ones getting screwed are the employees. The top tier management will not be harmed. So how does this help the United employee? It doesn't. It only helps the other employees at other carriers. Like yourself.

Bob, you worry about your company and we will worry about ours.
 
herkav8r,May 20 2005, 01:00 PM]

As for Mr. Owens, you cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. The company is in BK and the employees have no leverage.

Wrong.A strike always has an impact. When the system is running with 80% load factors and a major carrier like UAL stops flying it means major disruptions.The ability to cause disruptions has always been the leverage that workers have.

If the employees shut down the company the only ones getting screwed are the employees.

Wrong again. Right now the only ones getting screwed are the employees. Everyone else is getting what they want. The Oil companies are selling their fuel, the leasing companies are collecting their leases, the airports are collecting their landing fees and rents, the government is collecting their departure taxes the hotel rooms are full and everyone else who has anything to do with the airlines are seeing a booming business. If the planes stop flying, they start to feel the pain too. Right now employees are feeling all the pain.

The top tier management will not be harmed.

Well yes and no. Sure they will have their (what should have been your) money, but their reputation will be ruined. Look at how long Lorenzo has been trying to get back in. These guys have so much money already they do it for the power. If their company liquidates under them they lose that.

So how does this help the United employee? It doesn't.

You are right, this round of concessions will not help the UAL employee any more than the other ones did, however we see the execs giving themselves bonuses everytime they sucker you guys into yet another round of givebacks.

It only helps the other employees at other carriers. Like yourself.

OK, fair enough, but if you guys give concessions what do you think will happen here? The TWU already proved in court that they can and will change our contract without membership approval.So if you vote yes what will you have accomplished? The majority of TWU mechanics at AA live in low cost areas like Oklahoma or Missouri, no matter how low you agree to go, they can go lower. If you vote YES, the TWU will simply give AA more concessions then UAL will come back again, and they wont wait till 2009, they will be back next year.

Bob, you worry about your company and we will worry about ours.

I dont have a company, I'm just an employee like most of the other people here and what happens there will impact what happens here, so like it or not I will express my opinion, if you dont like it, too bad.
 
herkav8r said:
First question, who pays Tim Nelson's salary? I'm guessing it is not UA. Does the AGW pay his salary? If so, then he has nothing riding on a strike at UAL or any other airline because his salary is paid for by other peoples dues. It is easy to give advice when your house and lively hood is not riding on it.

As for Mr. Owens, you cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. The company is in BK and the employees have no leverage. If the employees shut down the company the only ones getting screwed are the employees. The top tier management will not be harmed. So how does this help the United employee? It doesn't. It only helps the other employees at other carriers. Like yourself.

Bob, you worry about your company and we will worry about ours.
[post="271390"][/post]​

Just pointing to the scoreboard is all I'm doing. Concessions without negotiations ALWAYS means more concessions will come later. Also, there is more future money for the mechanics to be had and without a doubt snapbacks but they only come if they are fought for. Snapbacks 3 years down the line doesn't send UAL in bankruptcy Ch 7 today. A person doesn't have to work at UAL to know this. And I said the same things when it was my job on the line. R U Kiddn me, UAL isn't going to give the mechanics much at all if they have a gun up to Dell's head and Dell doesn't put his gun up also. It's life.

regards,
 
Bob Owens said:
herkav8r,May 20 2005, 01:00 PM]

As for Mr. Owens, you cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. The company is in BK and the employees have no leverage.

Wrong.A strike always has an impact. When the system is running with 80% load factors and a major carrier like UAL stops flying it means major disruptions.

If the employees shut down the company the only ones getting screwed are the employees.

Wrong again. Right now the only ones getting screwed are the employees. Everyone else is getting what they want. The Oil companies are selling their fuel, the leasing companies are collecting their leases, the airports are collecting their landing fees and rents, the government is collecting their departure taxes the hotel rooms are full and everyone else who has anything to do with the airlines are seeing a booming business. If the planes stop flying, they start to feel the pain too. Right now employees are feeling all the pain.

The top tier management will not be harmed.

Well yes and no. Sure they will have their (what should have been your) money, but their reputation will be ruined. Look at how long Lorenzo has been trying to get back in. These guys have so much money already they do it for the power. If their company liquidates under them they lose that.

So how does this help the United employee? It doesn't.

You are right, this round of concessions will not help the UAL employee any more than the other ones did, however we see the execs giving themselves bonuses everytime they sucker you guys into yet another round of givebacks.It only helps the other employees at other carriers. Like yourself.

Bob, you worry about your company and we will worry about ours.

I dont have a company, I'm just an employee like most of the other people here and what happens there will impact what happens here, so like it or not I will express my opinion, if you dont like it, too bad.
[post="271397"][/post]​
Bob, the only reason planes are flying at 80% capacity is because most carriers have reduced capacity, deliberately and voluntarily. But because there are multiple carriers, they are still (for the most part) competing on price.

If UAL went under, the other carriers WOULD be able to increase capacity quickly. No, it wouldn't be an exact match on all routes where UAL flies, but it wouldn't be the "major disruption" you're envisioning.

This reminds me of your comments back before UAL was going into BK, when you were urging mechanics to push UAL into BK, saying (essentially) that they had a better chance of getting their due from the judge in BK than they did from UAL. You were wrong then, and I firmly believe you're wrong now.

-synchronicity, equal opportunity offender
 
Forgot to mention:
Bob Owens said:
Wrong again. Right now the only ones getting screwed are the employees. Everyone else is getting what they want. The Oil companies are selling their fuel, the leasing companies are collecting their leases, the airports are collecting their landing fees and rents, the government is collecting their departure taxes...
[post="271397"][/post]​
(emphasis added)

Actually, the leasing companies are not necessarily "collecting their leases". Most are collecting only a fraction of what they would be receiving if UAL were not in BK.

I no longer work for the company that had leased two planes to UAL, but still know that BK attorney representing at least one UAL creditor (I'm related to the guy, after all)

-synchronicity
 
synchronicity said:
Bob, the only reason planes are flying at 80% capacity is because most carriers have reduced capacity, deliberately and voluntarily. But because there are multiple carriers, they are still (for the most part) competing on price.

If UAL went under, the other carriers WOULD be able to increase capacity quickly. No, it wouldn't be an exact match on all routes where UAL flies, but it wouldn't be the "major disruption" you're envisioning.




Well I doubt that the other airlines have the ability to absorb the extra business without major disprutions. Even in the past when load factors were much lower stikes caused disruptions. I know where I work that they are having a hard enough time just taking care of what they have never mind picking up extra should UAL strike. The workers at most airlines are not likely to give any more than they are now to help out either. In fact if UAL strikes across the board and uses their right to set up secondary pickets I would honor it. I know that what happens there will affect us here.


This reminds me of your comments back before UAL was going into BK, when you were urging mechanics to push UAL into BK, saying (essentially) that they had a better chance of getting their due from the judge in BK than they did from UAL. You were wrong then, and I firmly believe you're wrong now.

Thats your opinion. Are you a mechanic? Would you have had to work under those conditions? Are the USAIR guys doing better than the UAL guys? Are the AA guys doing better? The Guys at AA are getting less than the UAL guys and have been for the last two years. Tell me how you figure that the UAL guys would be better off if they had accepted concessions.

The fact is that if the mechanics had given concessions then the airline still would have gone BK. Instead of being where they are now they would already be on their next round of concessions. The ATSB said flat out that the mechanics rejection had nothing to do with their rejection of the loan, but you prefer to ignore that. USAIR gave the concessions prior to BK only to give even more in BK.

The UAL guys were right to reject the contract, it was the TWU and AA that screwed everything up. If the TWU had rejected the concessions this whole process would have stopped then. Perhaps AA would have filed BK, if they had then Delta and NWA would have been right behind us, then with most of the industry in BK the government would have had to do something, instead we provided them a way out, we lose everything while every one else cashes
in.
 
synchronicity said:
Forgot to mention:
(emphasis added)

Actually, the leasing companies are not necessarily "collecting their leases".  Most are collecting only a fraction of what they would be receiving if UAL were not in BK.


-synchronicity
[post="271422"][/post]​


And 99/100 is still a fraction is it not?

And by the way was I right when I said that once they start with concessions that they will keep coming back?

So far we have seen round after round of concessions, no strikes, just concessions. Nobody has closed their doors yet have they? The fact is this will continue until there are major disruptions.

I
no longer work for the company that had leased two planes to UAL, but still know that BK attorney representing at least one UAL creditor (I'm related to the guy, after all)

So if the employees keep accepting concessions it takes more pressure off other creditors to charge less doesnt it? It allows the airlines to charge less for tickets but your interests to charge more.
 
Bob Owens said:
And 99/100 is still a fraction is it not?

And by the way was I right when I said that once they start with concessions that they will keep coming back?

So far we have seen round after round of concessions, no strikes, just concessions. Nobody has closed their doors yet have they? The fact is this will continue until there are major disruptions.
[post="271426"][/post]​

A) It's a lot less than 99/100 for most (probably all) of the lessors. But you can continue believing that darn it, it's JUST the employees getting screwed here and everyone else is getting theirs. (Yeah, I know, evils of capitalism, everyone should strike, vive la revolution and all).

2) Regarding the "no strikes, just concessions", you do know that the company holds more leverage because they are in bankruptcy, right? That was the point I was making ages ago, that you don't want to go into BK because then there is the "gun to the head" of the judge throwing out the contracts. Although back then you were trying to argue that the judge wouldn't do that, based on some notion of fairness and equality and a confused understanding of BK law.

You always take the view that labor should take as hard a line as possible, because in the worst case (strike or BKor whatever) labor will wind up better off than through any type of negotiation/concession. If "labor" is "giving up" something then "management" must be gaining. It's a zero-sum game in your eyes.

Of course, the fact that the industry as a whole is getting reamed is ignored. Somehow lots of extra money will be there for "labor". Look, I'm no fan of UAL's management, but even if you got them all to work for minimum wage, the amount of resources that would free up for "labor" is minimal overall.

And I'll ask: what would you negotiate for right now? If the industry returns to record profitability in two years, what would you want. You seem opposed to any sort of profit share plan or equity participation by the unions? The only thing I hear from mechanics is "snap-back".

-synchronicity

BTW- they pay that much for oil 'cause it's a commodity. If they don't, someone else will. Which is why I say "if you're worth more than the airline is willing to pay you, go elsewhere. If enough people do that, the airline will have no choice but to pay mechanics (or whoever) more."
 
synchronicity,May 20 2005, 02:38 PM]
A) It's a lot less than 99/100 for most (probably all) of the lessors. But you can continue believing that darn it, it's JUST the employees getting screwed here and everyone else is getting theirs. (Yeah, I know, evils of capitalism, everyone should strike, vive la revolution and all).

OK, how much is it? Plus if they jack up rates by 50% in the future would it make the same headlines as if labor did that?How have lease rates been over the last twenty years? The fact is that real labor rates have already been declining for the last twenty years at a rate that exceeds the general population. Our rates during the 90s were in a free-fall.

2) Regarding the "no strikes, just concessions", you do know that the company holds more leverage because they are in bankruptcy, right? That was the point I was making ages ago, that you don't want to go into BK because then there is the "gun to the head" of the judge throwing out the contracts. Although back then you were trying to argue that the judge wouldn't do that, based on some notion of fairness and equality and a confused understanding of BK law.

How many labor contracts have the courts thrown out over the last two years in this industry?



Of course, the fact that the industry as a whole is getting reamed is ignored. Somehow lots of extra money will be there for "labor". Look, I'm no fan of UAL's management, but even if you got them all to work for minimum wage, the amount of resources that would free up for "labor" is minimal overall.

However if you get all the workers to work for minimum wage it would free up a lot of money for everyone else wouldnt it?

So that justifies the guys at the top giving themselves bonuses while everyone else, who already make much less, take paycuts. "A few hundred thousand here and there for those at the top doesnt really make much of a difference when you look at the whole company right? Thats what you are saying isnt it? So while those at the top skim off a few extra hundred thousand here and there those at the bottom, who can barely make ends meet should look at the big picture of how the thousands they are giving up add up and will save the company? Why shouldnt they take the same individualistic approach that the executives take in that the extra few thousand they get from ME really wont make a difference, overall?

Its safe to say that for 100 or 300 workers that took the paycuts that funded "saving" the company, that their contribution did nothing at all for the company, it simply allowed those at the top to get bonuses, because thats where the money went and it took at least that many employees paycuts to provide the money to pay for those bonuses. So should they tell their kids that they cant go to college in addition to the other things they are doing without because the money went to executive bonuses instead? Would that be a fair statement? If not, then why not?

Look I've been in this industry for 25 years and I said long before any of this started that in this industry sometimes it pays to lose money. If the airlines and all the other creditors were really hurting then they would be desperate for concessions, they are not, they are making huge demands.

A few year back I remember the company bragging that they had a "$500 million dollar war chest" and could fend off a strike with it, now they claim that if they dont have at least $2billion in cash the banks will liquidate the company. Who is bullshitting who? They stand to lose moere if the airline liquidates than if they opeate at a loss. Isnt that why GE keeps dumping money into USAIR? If they were truly desperate then they would offer 1 year agreements, not long term agreements. I know, "the banks are demanding that", and the banks would never work with management to reset labor rates in their favor right?

Give airline workers a break, they did the same thing back in the early 90s and went from the brink of bankruptcy to record profits, in the meantime our standard of living declined.


And I'll ask: what would you negotiate for right now?

I would settle for nothing more than a one year contract with full economic disclosure to the union. I would want all the numbers going back at least twenty years to see where the money is going.

If the industry returns to record profitability in two years, what would you want.
You seem opposed to any sort of profit share plan or equity participation by the unions? The only thing I hear from mechanics is "snap-back".

Well you are going to hear it again-snap back, full restoration. Pay me for my labor. Profit sharing plans for the most part are a farce, if they want to offer them as an incentive fine, but in place of a fair wage-NO. If I want to own the company stock I'll buy it. My equity is the years I put in, the weekends, shifts and holidays I worked etc.
-synchronicity

BTW- they pay that much for oil 'cause it's a commodity. If they don't, someone else will. Which is why I say "if you're worth more than the airline is willing to pay you, go elsewhere. If enough people do that, the airline will have no choice but to pay mechanics (or whoever) more."


Well the fact is that if enough of us do that all at once its called a strike, and that it what I believe we should do. Seniority and other issues makes your individual approach ineffective, which is no doubt why you are touting it. You are deliberately touting a plan that works in the companies favor.
 
This is too funny. Bob Owens failed to convince his own co-workers to reject concessions, so now he's trying to convince other down-n-out employees at other airlines to reject concessions and to strike to preserve his "profession." :down:
 
FWAAA said:
This is too funny.  Bob Owens failed to convince his own co-workers to reject concessions, so now he's trying to convince other down-n-out employees at other airlines to reject concessions and to strike to preserve his "profession."  :down:
[post="271454"][/post]​

Well my coworkers did vote NO, by well over 90%. It was MCI that put in just enough votes to get it passed. Perhaps if we had more time, money and access we could have gotten it rejected.


The TWU and the company spent millions, sending propaganda to every members home urging them to vote YES. I sent out 1000 letters, better than 90% of those who recieved those letters voted NO, in addition we put that same letter in the Tulsa World and the NO vote out of Tulsa was much higher than expected. In fact its likely that if we had done the same in Kansas City the contract would have been rejected. Out of over 10,000 votes cast it only passed by 700. So they mailed out over 10000 mailers and got just over half to vote yes, we mailed out just over 1000 mailers and over 90% of the recipients voted NO. Every member recieved the Company/TWU mailer and 1000 recieved both the company/TWU mailer and the Local 562 mailer. So as you can see, when members were given both sides they were much more inclined to vote NO. Even 4000 or so members that only got the company/TWU mailer voted NO. Imagine if we had sent it to everyone?

Who made the better arguement? It wasnt right or wrong that won the day, it was who had the most resources.
 
FWAAA said:
This is too funny. Bob Owens failed to convince his own co-workers to reject concessions, so now he's trying to convince other down-n-out employees at other airlines to reject concessions and to strike to preserve his "profession." :down:
[post="271454"][/post]​

In fairness to Bob I believe your statements are somewhat elementary and inaccurate. I do not believe Bob's point is to strike. To be sure, he left that option open but in any case the option isn't necessarily to reject concessions and to strike. I suggest you visit some interesting cases that found 'key daggers' outside of striking that 'reigned in' corporate greed. Further, the oxygen UA needs can only be found in new financing...period. It is highly unlikely that any new financing would come UA's way with an open contract in which mechanics can do all kinds of 'legal daggerlike' things to break the arrogance of UA management.


regards,
 
Back
Top