I was just reviewing the company/union propaganda sent to our homes. It hurts to think that my fellow unionists here in 562 give the International $200,000 of our hard earned money so they can work so hard against our interests and mislead us.
In Overview of the Airline Industry, they included many misleading statements.
Ticket taxes have increased dramatically,,,,A large portion of the ticket price tax 'increase' is due to the decline in ticket prices as those rates are a flat fee.
â€as much as 47% for those who remained.†Pilots are the only workers that were cut by 47 percent. If we accept this we wont be far behind at nearly 40%. The only difference is they will still be making six figures. Plus USAIR has been in trouble for a long time and in reality is a competitor against American Eagle now, not AA.
and are now poised to abrogate its agreement with IAM employees so permanent, court imposed rates can be implemented. This statement is wildly inaccurate. The court cannot impose permanent cuts. The cuts that the court did impose, on a temporary basis are significantly lower than what this union†wants us to accept. United troubles are not comparable to ours either, they have courted bankruptcy before and their costs are higher and work rules more restrictive.
Our own union absolves the company of blame, endorsing the company’s business plan of slashing wages to profitability.
While the attorneys and analysts may not be intentionally deceiving you they are obviously delivering an opinion based upon confined parameters. These parameters can change dramatically in a relatively short period of time. We saw such a change in the 90s when we were led by the same union to accept a six-year deal that enabled AA to make record profits year after year at our expense. Attorneys and analysts were also used at that time. When we take information from such people we have to know all of the assumptions they used to come to their conclusion, in the end, predictions for the future are merely just assumptions. Personal experience has more validity than analyst’s assumption when it comes to predicting the future. Personal experience in this industry has shown that the so-called permanent changes are not always so permanent. We have seen low cost carriers and fare wars before.
“For the past month, TWU joint Committee of 34 elected TWU officers, and our Maintenance and Related committee of 26 elected officers, met with the company in good faithâ€. Another inaccurate statement. Only the Presidents were elected officers. Appointed officials who told the committeees what they could and could not do controlled the meetings. There was no good faith bargaining only debate over how to meet the company’s demands. The result nearly mirrored the company’s “Vermont†plan with a few exceptions. Many of the negotiators were not elected but rather appointed by the Presidents. The M&R Committee rarely met with the company, perhaps a total of 16hrs even though the “negotiations†were conducted ON COMPANY PROPERTY! One has to wonder if the company was monitoring the discussion all along, unknown to the committees? One should also wonder what would motivate the International to choose such a place?
According to the company/union if AA experiences a 3% RASM we will get a grand total of $12465.78 over the next 5 years, that is if we agree to give the company $138000 in givebacks. The Union was careful to not make this point too obvious. Instead they showed how many millions would be put into the plan if these goals were achieved. I don’t know about you but to give up $138,000 in order to MAYBE†at best get $12465.78 does not sound like it would be a good selling point. Why not just cut the pay cut by 1%?
Figure base on 38000 members. However if the company expands by 3% per year there will likely be more employees, which would dilute the $12465.78 even more.
Upon reading 'Terms of Bankruptcy Protections Agreement Between TWU and American Airlines I thought that they modeled it after the treaty of Versailles. It even uses the phrase unconditionally ratified.
At Local 562 we have had our own Lawyer on retainer for quite a few years. He has an excellenmt reputation and was involved in the recently successful musicians strike on Broadway NYC. He said after looking at this agreement that we would be much better off rejecting it and taking our chances in court. In court, once the agreements are abrogated we have the right to self help. This right in itself, especially if we inform the court that we are prepared to use it, provide a deterrent to abrogation or the implementation of such onerous terms.
We are already prepared, our Strike Vote passed unanimously yesterday. Our guys are ready to shut it down if the company abrogates our agreement! With or without the International. The only question now is are we alone? Will you fight to protect what we have fought for? Will you insure that your coworkers who return from Iraq do not come home to a paycut? Will you fight for them as they fought for others? I will not tell our members that we allowed the company to rape their families while they were over there without a fight! Vote NO, Lets roll. Lets not submit to the company's terroristic dictatorial threats.
In Overview of the Airline Industry, they included many misleading statements.
Ticket taxes have increased dramatically,,,,A large portion of the ticket price tax 'increase' is due to the decline in ticket prices as those rates are a flat fee.
â€as much as 47% for those who remained.†Pilots are the only workers that were cut by 47 percent. If we accept this we wont be far behind at nearly 40%. The only difference is they will still be making six figures. Plus USAIR has been in trouble for a long time and in reality is a competitor against American Eagle now, not AA.
and are now poised to abrogate its agreement with IAM employees so permanent, court imposed rates can be implemented. This statement is wildly inaccurate. The court cannot impose permanent cuts. The cuts that the court did impose, on a temporary basis are significantly lower than what this union†wants us to accept. United troubles are not comparable to ours either, they have courted bankruptcy before and their costs are higher and work rules more restrictive.
Our own union absolves the company of blame, endorsing the company’s business plan of slashing wages to profitability.
While the attorneys and analysts may not be intentionally deceiving you they are obviously delivering an opinion based upon confined parameters. These parameters can change dramatically in a relatively short period of time. We saw such a change in the 90s when we were led by the same union to accept a six-year deal that enabled AA to make record profits year after year at our expense. Attorneys and analysts were also used at that time. When we take information from such people we have to know all of the assumptions they used to come to their conclusion, in the end, predictions for the future are merely just assumptions. Personal experience has more validity than analyst’s assumption when it comes to predicting the future. Personal experience in this industry has shown that the so-called permanent changes are not always so permanent. We have seen low cost carriers and fare wars before.
“For the past month, TWU joint Committee of 34 elected TWU officers, and our Maintenance and Related committee of 26 elected officers, met with the company in good faithâ€. Another inaccurate statement. Only the Presidents were elected officers. Appointed officials who told the committeees what they could and could not do controlled the meetings. There was no good faith bargaining only debate over how to meet the company’s demands. The result nearly mirrored the company’s “Vermont†plan with a few exceptions. Many of the negotiators were not elected but rather appointed by the Presidents. The M&R Committee rarely met with the company, perhaps a total of 16hrs even though the “negotiations†were conducted ON COMPANY PROPERTY! One has to wonder if the company was monitoring the discussion all along, unknown to the committees? One should also wonder what would motivate the International to choose such a place?
According to the company/union if AA experiences a 3% RASM we will get a grand total of $12465.78 over the next 5 years, that is if we agree to give the company $138000 in givebacks. The Union was careful to not make this point too obvious. Instead they showed how many millions would be put into the plan if these goals were achieved. I don’t know about you but to give up $138,000 in order to MAYBE†at best get $12465.78 does not sound like it would be a good selling point. Why not just cut the pay cut by 1%?
Figure base on 38000 members. However if the company expands by 3% per year there will likely be more employees, which would dilute the $12465.78 even more.
Upon reading 'Terms of Bankruptcy Protections Agreement Between TWU and American Airlines I thought that they modeled it after the treaty of Versailles. It even uses the phrase unconditionally ratified.
At Local 562 we have had our own Lawyer on retainer for quite a few years. He has an excellenmt reputation and was involved in the recently successful musicians strike on Broadway NYC. He said after looking at this agreement that we would be much better off rejecting it and taking our chances in court. In court, once the agreements are abrogated we have the right to self help. This right in itself, especially if we inform the court that we are prepared to use it, provide a deterrent to abrogation or the implementation of such onerous terms.
We are already prepared, our Strike Vote passed unanimously yesterday. Our guys are ready to shut it down if the company abrogates our agreement! With or without the International. The only question now is are we alone? Will you fight to protect what we have fought for? Will you insure that your coworkers who return from Iraq do not come home to a paycut? Will you fight for them as they fought for others? I will not tell our members that we allowed the company to rape their families while they were over there without a fight! Vote NO, Lets roll. Lets not submit to the company's terroristic dictatorial threats.