AMFA vs Idustrial Unions for elections of National Officers

[WNMECH]

So being the senior man at the worst paying job is your objective?

If SWA were to buy AA tomorrow I'd gladly accept being stapled in exchange for a $30,000 a year payraise. The Airtran guys hit the Jackpot, now they are complianing because there's no cherry on top.

We didn't staple Airtran and we would not staple you.

But we would seek a deal that was fair and equitable to BOTH sides.
Just like the law requires.

 

[Anomaly]

No actually AMFA members got an increase in our seniority.


The IBT is the only one that got a decrease in seniority for their members.
Way to go teamsters.

BS. Date of hire does not equate to a loss of seniority.

 

[Anomaly]

We didn't staple Airtran and we would not staple you.

But we would seek a deal that was fair and equitable to BOTH sides.
Just like the law requires.

But many of you wanted to staple.....

 

[WNMECH]

BS. Date of hire does not equate to a loss of seniority.

Yea I know.
Those are the same words we used to get them to by into it.
It's just semantics.

 

[Anomaly]

So being the senior man at the worst paying job is your objective?

If SWA were to buy AA tomorrow I'd gladly accept being stapled in exchange for a $30,000 a year payraise. The Airtran guys hit the Jackpot, now they are complianing because there's no cherry on top.

When EAL workers were forced to change companies how much seniority did they get to carry? When Pan Am workers were forced to change companies how much seniority did they carry? Do you think its a good thing to allow the companies actions to determine the seniority of workers in this industry?

You work for seniority, I work for money.

And what is wrong with date of hire when the company forces the change on you? At least you know where you stand. Beyond that, I simply do not believe you. I doubt very much you would be willing to sell out your seniority for cash. I know you sell yourself all over this board for one direction or another, but this is something much different.

 

[WNMECH]

But many of you wanted to staple.....

Many?
Really?
Prove that.
Did I miss a poll of SWA mechanics somewhere that asked us if we wanted a staple?
How many is many?
I really think you should supply exact numbers MR. Factcheck.

 

[WNMECH]

Beyond that, I simply do not believe you. I doubt very much you would be willing to sell out your seniority for cash.

Why not?
Airtran did.
And they will be richer for it.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Who were these "several Int'l reps"?

Still waitng Don.

 

[Anomaly]

Bob Owens, SWAMT, WNMECH,

at the heart of the matter is not seniority or our opinions on the value of seniority. You place little on it and more on cash. In many threads and comments posted on this site, you three, as well as a few others, speak openly and under the circumstances disingenuously on the virtues of ALL airline mechanics. You claim amfa is the single union that will stand for all mechanics equally, yet when push comes to shove your actions and statements describes certain issues as everything but equal.

This year marked my 28th anniversary at UAL. I have been a mechanic the whole time with no seniority adjustments. When we merged with Continental, I quickly accepted that there would be mechanics now ahead of me, and I would be pushed further down the list. I am also aware that CO made more than us (until recently) and they still posses some valuable benefits that I will never fully gain back (retirement).

But the mechanics at CO did not do this to me. They did not put me in this position and certainly did not want the merger. They had nothing to do with any of it. So why should I cry that I want what they have, or that they should have less seniority or a somewhat adjusted seniority that benefited me??

I look at it as what we are now, more than ever, UNION brothers. We don't take away from each other. I just put my big boy pants and learn to accept that there was a CO mechanic who worked at his airline LONGER than I have worked for mine, and now he is senior to me. End of story. I accept this without whining, complaining, or asking "what's in it for me".

I know that there are other industrial unions, even the Teamsters, who have made adjustments in certain situations, I am simply stating I am against that. I am against it all that much more when the talk surrounding it is as it is here. On one post you state how amfa will represent all members equally, and in another, you are quite content with robbing the much smaller group of new members. Still others post that amfa is the one true union for mechanics, and all are open with open arms and treated equally.

In your merger situation, there are some AT mechanics who have worked for their company longer than you have worked for your company. The two companies became one. End of story.

I just do not understand nor appreciate the hypocrisy.

 

[WNMECH]

Bob Owens, SWAMT, WNMECH,

at the heart of the matter is not seniority or our opinions on the value of seniority. You place little on it and more on cash. In many threads and comments posteid on this site, you three, as well as a few others, speak openly and under the circumstances disingenuously on the virtues of ALL airline mechanics. You claim amfa is the single union that will stand for all mechanics equally, yet when push comes to shove your actions and statements describes certain issues as everything but equal.

This year marked my 28th anniversary at UAL. I have been a mechanic the whole time with no seniority adjustments. When we merged with Continental, I quickly accepted that there would be mechanics now ahead of me, and I would be pushed further down the list. I am also aware that CO made more than us (until recently) and they still posses some valuable benefits that I will never fully gain back (retirement).

But the mechanics at CO did not do this to me. They did not put me in this position and certainly did not want the merger. They had nothing to do with any of it. So why should I cry that I want what they have, or that they should have less seniority or a somewhat adjusted seniority that benefited me??

I look at it as what we are now, more than ever, UNION brothers. We don't take away from each other. I just put my big boy pants and learn to accept that there was a CO mechanic who worked at his airline LONGER than I have worked for mine, and now he is senior to me. End of story. I accept this without whining, complaining, or asking "what's in it for me".

I know that there are other industrial unions, even the Teamsters, who have made adjustments in certain situations, I am simply stating I am against that. I am against it all that much more when the talk surrounding it is as it is here. On one post you state how amfa will represent all members equally, and in another, you are quite content with robbing the much smaller group of new members. Still others post that amfa is the one true union for mechanics, and all are open with open arms and treated equally.

In your merger situation, there are some AT mechanics who have worked for their company longer than you have worked for your company. The two companies became one. End of story.

I just do not understand nor appreciate the hypocrisy.

You finally have a post with a thought out argument.
Problem is you don't understand basic things and keep repeating the same false things.

I don't really like repeating myself over and over but I will try one more time.

First off, I am not a AMFA rah rah cult member.

And AMFA at SWA is nothing like any union I have seen.
I am a supporter because their system is really nice where they let us control ourselves. Their open negotiations allows us unprecedented access to the process without filters. That builds trust in the agreements we reach with management and is very important to me.
Then there is our local, where we run everything and our money is ours to control.

Are you seeing a pattern yet Anomaly?

Control of ourselves.

You keep saying over and over and over that "AMFA does this and AMFA does that" like AMFA is a big industrial union that pulls all the strings.

NEWS FLASH. They don't.

But I see it is easier to blame one big organization for everything than admit that individuals at each carrier and local make those decisions.
People have made mistakes at all unions since the beginning of unions. But you pile everything onto AMFA national.


Now about seniority again.
After the TWA staple we have a new law called McCaskill-Bond, and a process was set up to determine seniority in cases like ours.
The law requires that a SLI is "Fair and Equitable" to both sides.
It doesn't matter that you think DOH is the only fair way to do it, or that staples were done before. Only that the deal reached is fair to both sides.
We came to a deal and both sides voted yes. If we had not agreed then an arbitrator would have made the decision to what was fair.



If you actually read what I wrote above you should know that AMFA the organization, doesn't control us mechanics or tell us what we should think is fair to us.
So you can quit blaming them for our deal. We mechanics made this deal along with our hired lawyers.

The Airtran guys voted to accept our SLI offer and then join us on our superior AMFA negotiated contract. They will now enjoy our hard fought for wage rates and benefits. And to prevent a windfall to only one side, we get a 4 year boost to our seniority. It is fair to both sides. And was accepted by them on a 80% yes vote.

You don't like it?
Too bad. These are not your Airlines merging here. You do not get a vote on what is fair and equitable to our two groups.

I have already told you that if it was not fair to Airtran mechanics then the IBT could have easily taken it in front of an arbitrator at any time.

Now I hope you have a better understanding of where I stand, of AMFA at SWA and of how the SLI process works under the new McCaskill-Bond law.


PS...
I have never said or ever will say that AMFA is the savior for all AMTs.
It is just a really good organization for those who are ready to govern themselves without a big industrial union taking there money and them telling them what to do.

If AMFA ever changes and starts to try to control us then I would push for an independent SWA mechanics union. But the AMFA system works really good for us.

 

[Anomaly]

You finally have a post with a thought out argument.
Problem is you don't understand basic things and keep repeating the same false things.

I don't really like repeating myself over and over but I will try one more time.

First off, I am not a AMFA rah rah cult member.

And AMFA at SWA is nothing like any union I have seen.
I am a supporter because their system is really nice where they let us control ourselves. Their open negotiations allows us unprecedented access to the process without filters. That builds trust in the agreements we reach with management and is very important to me.
Then there is our local, where we run everything and our money is ours to control.

Are you seeing a pattern yet Anomaly?

Control of ourselves.

You keep saying over and over and over that "AMFA does this and AMFA does that" like AMFA is a big industrial union that pulls all the strings.

NEWS FLASH. They don't.

But I see it is easier to blame one big organization for everything than admit that individuals at each carrier and local make those decisions.
People have made mistakes at all unions since the beginning of unions. But you pile everything onto AMFA national.


Now about seniority again.
After the TWA staple we have a new law called McCaskill-Bond, and a process was set up to determine seniority in cases like ours.
The law requires that a SLI is "Fair and Equitable" to both sides.
It doesn't matter that you think DOH is the only fair way to do it, or that staples were done before. Only that the deal reached is fair to both sides.
We came to a deal and both sides voted yes. If we had not agreed then an arbitrator would have made the decision to what was fair.



If you actually read what I wrote above you should know that AMFA the organization, doesn't control us mechanics or tell us what we should think is fair to us.
So you can quit blaming them for our deal. We mechanics made this deal along with our hired lawyers.

The Airtran guys voted to accept our SLI offer and then join us on our superior AMFA negotiated contract. They will now enjoy our hard fought for wage rates and benefits. And to prevent a windfall to only one side, we get a 4 year boost to our seniority. It is fair to both sides. And was accepted by them on a 80% yes vote.

You don't like it?
Too bad. These are not your Airlines merging here. You do not get a vote on what is fair and equitable to our two groups.

I have already told you that if it was not fair to Airtran mechanics then the IBT could have easily taken it in front of an arbitrator at any time.

Now I hope you have a better understanding of where I stand, of AMFA at SWA and of how the SLI process works under the new McCaskill-Bond law.


PS...
I have never said or ever will say that AMFA is the savior for all AMTs.
It is just a really good organization for those who are ready to govern themselves without a big industrial union taking there money and them telling them what to do.

If AMFA ever changes and starts to try to control us then I would push for an independent SWA mechanics union. But the AMFA system works really good for us.

I appreciate your rational and well thought response, and while I do not entirely disagree, I believe you may not be seeing the point of MY argument either.

AMFA works for you, and that is great. But as a former member myself, I can honestly tell you it did NOT work in our situatioin. UAL was simply too big to be controlled with the AMFA system. It was not good at all. Like you, I feel I am repeating myself when I say the association structure just did not hlp us at UAL.

While you find open control, we saw nothing but disorganized chaos. There is a reason UAL mechanics decertified the association so quickly and it had nothing to do with what others on this board claim.

We never saw our reps, there was way too much infighting between the stations, and our Locals were disorganized and a source for political drama. Our officers were constantly looking for either scapegoats or credit. All the while, our HOSTILE company was cleaning up.

So maybe that is it? It is the company which offers a difference more than the union?

Beyond that, what drives me to keep up this argument is your narrow views that AMFA is the only union to listen to their members. You praise your leaders, negotiators and lawyers as being the only ones; but consider the results of the AT group. The IBT did exactly as instructed and left all the decisions to the rank and file negotiators.

Look to their final posted and public election results as proof of this. The Teamster negotitating team did exactly as the rank and file desired even when this went against the best advise of the IBT lawyers and international representatives. At the end of the day, we all know what happend. The Teamsters did what any good union should and allowed the rank and file to decide through vote. They did not like it, but stuck by their former members without attempting to control them. Sound familiar?

I can tell you unequivocally that our former union before AMFA was not structured in the same way as the Teamsters. If anything, the Teamsters are much more like AMFA, but with a larger base and presence. The power is within the Locals, and some are better than others.

Our former union, the IAM was organized with a middle layer component that ran and controlled everything and we never voted on any of them. When you criticize the industrial unions, I swear you are speaking of this union and not the Teamsters. As a group, we would never go back, but there are few, one hero even on this board, who apparently prefers their structure (a group of AMFA reps formed up with the IAM to win us back under the IAM. That is another story). For me and most others, they are what we ran from and AMFA and the Teamsters offers a completely opposite scenario.

I realize too that you were a former Teamster and your experience with Local 19 was much different than what we are experiencing now. For just a second, lets take a look at that. Could it be that we have each experienced two completely opposite points of views to the same union at different times under different circumstances?? WHY NOT?

Our AMFA membership was sub par and not helping to our situation and we went with the Teamsters who have shown us improvements. For you, The Teamsters did not measure up and you found solace and trust in AMFA. My simple point, the Teamsters, for us at UAL, are working where AMFA did not. For you, the opposite is true.

Does that really warrant the ridicule and insults of either one of us towards the other? Probably not, yet still here we both are.

I never intended or even desired to defend my union or be the unofficial spokesperson for the Teamsters. At the same time, I could not let the same promises and rhetoric that was sold to us by the association go unanswered. I am in no way accusing you personally of this. Your posts are at least legitamate.

In my local here with the Teamsters, the same can be said as with your union, we govern ourselves. I have no problem getting calls answered, communicating, or expressing our views. They have let us vote and decide our own fate. All the while, there is a sense of organization and true leadership that was missing with AMFA.


Just a few words on McCaskil / Bond. The process set up determining fair and equtable has not been tested enough or on enough cases. Nobody knows what fair and quotable is. Too many cases, such as yours, have been settled by vote rather than arbitration or court process. In these instances there is no case law to satisfy the question of fair and eqitable. It simply has not been defined by the courts.

What bothers me most is the side taken by many supporters of AMFA who call for a single union with a single seniority system. Yet your issue with the merger proves that the members may not be entirely ready for it. Being an organizing political arena that we have both dicovered ourselves in, I find it a bit too much to argue one philosophy and practice another. If this merger and situation is as you say fair and equitable to your members and the established position of your union, then other supporters of this same union should cease with the proaganda that there could be a universal seniority system under AMFA where by members could carry their seniority from airline to airline. This was surely not the case with AMFA's largest airline.

I hope we are begining to understand each other.

 

[1airborne]

Both very good posts. Both points explained very well. Maybe one union doesn't fit the mold for all airlines.

1airborne

 

[1AA]

The TWU does not fit the mold for ANY airline anymore. They failed to realize that they are a union.

 

[swamt]

Bob Owens, SWAMT, WNMECH,

at the heart of the matter is not seniority or our opinions on the value of seniority. You place little on it and more on cash. In many threads and comments posted on this site, you three, as well as a few others, speak openly and under the circumstances disingenuously on the virtues of ALL airline mechanics. You claim amfa is the single union that will stand for all mechanics equally, yet when push comes to shove your actions and statements describes certain issues as everything but equal.

This year marked my 28th anniversary at UAL. I have been a mechanic the whole time with no seniority adjustments. When we merged with Continental, I quickly accepted that there would be mechanics now ahead of me, and I would be pushed further down the list. I am also aware that CO made more than us (until recently) and they still posses some valuable benefits that I will never fully gain back (retirement).

But the mechanics at CO did not do this to me. They did not put me in this position and certainly did not want the merger. They had nothing to do with any of it. So why should I cry that I want what they have, or that they should have less seniority or a somewhat adjusted seniority that benefited me??

I look at it as what we are now, more than ever, UNION brothers. We don't take away from each other. I just put my big boy pants and learn to accept that there was a CO mechanic who worked at his airline LONGER than I have worked for mine, and now he is senior to me. End of story. I accept this without whining, complaining, or asking "what's in it for me".

I know that there are other industrial unions, even the Teamsters, who have made adjustments in certain situations, I am simply stating I am against that. I am against it all that much more when the talk surrounding it is as it is here. On one post you state how amfa will represent all members equally, and in another, you are quite content with robbing the much smaller group of new members. Still others post that amfa is the one true union for mechanics, and all are open with open arms and treated equally.

In your merger situation, there are some AT mechanics who have worked for their company longer than you have worked for your company. The two companies became one. End of story.

I just do not understand nor appreciate the hypocrisy.

Anomaly,
Wnmech has already stated alot of what I was going to state. Let me add this. First off, there you go twisting crap up again. You lead on once again that AMFA doesn't treat all mechs the same. AMFA treats all mechanics they represent the same, period. I agree 100% with everything WNMECH posted above. With the SLI nego with AT; we simply made it better ballanced for both sides rather than one side having a windfall. Now that the AT fellas are AMFA they will be treated 100% the same as all others at SWA. Before they became AMFA, we (not AMFA, I said we) were simply following the law which "instructed" us to nego a fair and equitable SLI or goto arbritration. Any merger that has 2 of the same unions in the same craft will go by what it says in their contract. Like yours says DOH, IAM--DOH. We did not have this in our contract, as AT did not either, therefore we had to nego an SLI. I am done with you on this subject, very tired of repeating myself. It's too bad that you just don't understand.

 

[swamt]

I appreciate your rational and well thought response, and while I do not entirely disagree, I believe you may not be seeing the point of MY argument either.

AMFA works for you, and that is great. But as a former member myself, I can honestly tell you it did NOT work in our situatioin. UAL was simply too big to be controlled with the AMFA system. It was not good at all. Like you, I feel I am repeating myself when I say the association structure just did not hlp us at UAL.

While you find open control, we saw nothing but disorganized chaos. There is a reason UAL mechanics decertified the association so quickly and it had nothing to do with what others on this board claim.

We never saw our reps, there was way too much infighting between the stations, and our Locals were disorganized and a source for political drama. Our officers were constantly looking for either scapegoats or credit. All the while, our HOSTILE company was cleaning up.

So maybe that is it? It is the company which offers a difference more than the union?

Beyond that, what drives me to keep up this argument is your narrow views that AMFA is the only union to listen to their members. You praise your leaders, negotiators and lawyers as being the only ones; but consider the results of the AT group. The IBT did exactly as instructed and left all the decisions to the rank and file negotiators.

Look to their final posted and public election results as proof of this. The Teamster negotitating team did exactly as the rank and file desired even when this went against the best advise of the IBT lawyers and international representatives. At the end of the day, we all know what happend. The Teamsters did what any good union should and allowed the rank and file to decide through vote. They did not like it, but stuck by their former members without attempting to control them. Sound familiar?

I can tell you unequivocally that our former union before AMFA was not structured in the same way as the Teamsters. If anything, the Teamsters are much more like AMFA, but with a larger base and presence. The power is within the Locals, and some are better than others.

Our former union, the IAM was organized with a middle layer component that ran and controlled everything and we never voted on any of them. When you criticize the industrial unions, I swear you are speaking of this union and not the Teamsters. As a group, we would never go back, but there are few, one hero even on this board, who apparently prefers their structure (a group of AMFA reps formed up with the IAM to win us back under the IAM. That is another story). For me and most others, they are what we ran from and AMFA and the Teamsters offers a completely opposite scenario.

I realize too that you were a former Teamster and your experience with Local 19 was much different than what we are experiencing now. For just a second, lets take a look at that. Could it be that we have each experienced two completely opposite points of views to the same union at different times under different circumstances?? WHY NOT?

Our AMFA membership was sub par and not helping to our situation and we went with the Teamsters who have shown us improvements. For you, The Teamsters did not measure up and you found solace and trust in AMFA. My simple point, the Teamsters, for us at UAL, are working where AMFA did not. For you, the opposite is true.

Does that really warrant the ridicule and insults of either one of us towards the other? Probably not, yet still here we both are.

I never intended or even desired to defend my union or be the unofficial spokesperson for the Teamsters. At the same time, I could not let the same promises and rhetoric that was sold to us by the association go unanswered. I am in no way accusing you personally of this. Your posts are at least legitamate.

In my local here with the Teamsters, the same can be said as with your union, we govern ourselves. I have no problem getting calls answered, communicating, or expressing our views. They have let us vote and decide our own fate. All the while, there is a sense of organization and true leadership that was missing with AMFA.


Just a few words on McCaskil / Bond. The process set up determining fair and equtable has not been tested enough or on enough cases. Nobody knows what fair and quotable is. Too many cases, such as yours, have been settled by vote rather than arbitration or court process. In these instances there is no case law to satisfy the question of fair and eqitable. It simply has not been defined by the courts.

What bothers me most is the side taken by many supporters of AMFA who call for a single union with a single seniority system. Yet your issue with the merger proves that the members may not be entirely ready for it. Being an organizing political arena that we have both dicovered ourselves in, I find it a bit too much to argue one philosophy and practice another. If this merger and situation is as you say fair and equitable to your members and the established position of your union, then other supporters of this same union should cease with the proaganda that there could be a universal seniority system under AMFA where by members could carry their seniority from airline to airline. This was surely not the case with AMFA's largest airline.

I hope we are begining to understand each other.

This is the first time that you have better explained what you personally really thought why AMFA was removed from UAL. And all your reasons all point to the officers and represenatives that the membership voted in. What you guys needed at UAL was to replace the officers and represenatives not the representational union AMFA.