Steve Connell said:
Buck, as long as you have drives of one union against another you will not experience solidarity, the floor and it's members will be split and remain so. You speak of damage, was this by the TWU, or the members within the TWU? When you speak of damage do you mean damage to something in particular?
You state this union at AA has been damaged since 1983. I was not here then but from my research I found the union asked your membership to turn down the contract tendered, yet the floor approved by over 80%, wasn't this also a strike issue at the time? So who do we blame for not getting/obtaining 100% of top wages and benefits at every contract date? The negotiator or the voter?
I know who the majority lies blame to, and this will remain so even if your illustrious AMFA obtains bargaining agent at AA. We will blame AMFA for the floor voting on less than perfect contracts, correct?
You have to remember Buck, you don't judge a person on how he handles the good times.
Why would a solidified membership want to have a replacement drive in the first place?
Do you expect a membership that has experienced twenty years of concessions not to attempt to change the way they do business?
What the TWU does is, scare its own membership to the point of ratification and then blames that same membership. Then they can say we told you to vote no. In 1983 at the creation of the B-Scale, it was the fear of a complete shutdown of TUL that created the cause and effect that is the TWU. They generate fear of massive layoffs and the company plays right along. The company then offers a savior contract package that will save jobs, but the membership must accept contractual concessions of Scope, wages and benefits and whatever else the company dictates. This is the same path that has been the TWU for the last twenty years.
Yes the union has been damaged; it is damage from the pseudo leadership of the locals, which is told what to do from the International. All with the purpose of continual dues flow. It is no longer about unionism; it is about ensuring the flow of International salaries. If the International were concerned about the local member’s welfare, then unionism would unite under the AFL-CIO banner and all unions would flourish.
Strike? at the TWU??? They might lose dues flow. Also the new generation of unionist does not believe in strikes. They would rather accept concessions as long as they have a job. It matters not at what level they are compensated or what their benefit package is. It is how many are employed. We are supposed to better ourselves, not lower our standards.
I believe that you as a former TWA employee could see that the easiest.
Who do we blame? We blame the fear generated by the TWU....
Whether it is AMFA or not, we must change. The membership that has been with the TWU knows this and has attempted change from within. It has been proven to be unsuccessful.
For the desired wage and benefit improvements that we all desire (your pension), we must change the structure at the constitutional level. Even Dennis Burchette and far back as Ed Wilson have attempted this. They were both shown the door.
As for blaming AMFA, this membership will blame AMFA for the contracts "negotiated" by the AFL-CIO affiliated unions even if AMFA did not negotiate them. The membership will blame the AMFA leadership until they learn that they the membership can be more involved at the constitutional level. IT requires a change of attitude and a change at the way of doing business.
Who do you blame for the demise of TWA?
The only good times here at AA/TWU has been the direct reflection of what was negotiated by another union at another airline. But the TWU allowed through their fear based campaigns to eliminate that also. Even when there were good times the membership still was divided at the wage level. The good times of a divided wage scale? There are no good times....
