Globalized Union

[jimntx]

While some unions in the U.S. have lost sight of their primary purpose--protect worker jobs and working conditions--that is not necessarily true of all unions. Watching some of the European unions in action makes me believe that they would not put up with some of the shenanigans of U.S. union officials.

Unions as a business phenomenon came into being for real reasons and to meet a real need. As laws have been passed--due to union political activity--some of the original purpose for unions has passed to government responsibility. In a sense, the unions through their activism have made themselves obsolete in certain areas--child labor, dangerous working conditions (for the most part), age/race/sex discrimination.

When I was in new hire training, when the union came to do a presentation. They had everyone in the class stand up. Then in succession they told people to sit down: if you are over 32; if you are married; if you are more than 10 lbs over your ideal body weight; if you are male. When they got through, only 3 members of the class were still standing. They pointed out that without union intervention, these would be the only people in the class.

At the same time, the accusations of featherbedding, protecting jobs of people who should be fired, etc have gained some merit. I know of f/a at DFW who has been fired twice for telling a passenger to go F themselves. She has gotten her job back again through union effort. As a union member, I resent the union putting forth that much effort and spending that much money to defend such a person. On the other hand, I also know that the union could face Duty of Fair Representation charges if they didn't. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground where everyone can agree...the company overstepped it's bounds in terminating this employee and/or the union has done all it can or should to protect this person. Common sense does not seem to prevail anymore.

Unions still have a real purpose. I know from my own experience that the company has attempted to violate the f/a contract in assigning me, giving me missed trips, etc. They back off if I can tell them the particular page and paragraph they are violating. If it weren't for the fact that they know I could grieve the assignment and would probably win, they would go ahead and assign me or threaten me with a missed trip (which is a big no-no).

That being said, I also know that my particular union has been less than helpful to me. Every single time that I have called them about one of these incidents, their answer has been "Go ahead and fly the trip. We can always grieve it later."

When I worked at Texaco, the only represented employees worked in the refineries AFAIK. There were probably people at some time or another who were fired or treated unjustly. But, for the most part from what I could see, the company was scrupulous in following state and Federal employment laws to the letter. It is too easy to sue today.

Should there be unions? You have to ask yourself...would I trust my company to do the right thing every time in every situation? If not, do I have recourse? I don't think most airline employees in any of the major airlines would answer yes to that first question. Without a union, the answer to the second question is most likely no.

 

[TWU informer]

I have worked in no-union work places.

Although organized labor is corrupt and has become a business instead of a representational offering, the seniority protection alone is what keeps the need for union still important.

I watched in the non-union workforce as the older less productive and higher paid were laid-off walking out the door with their pink slips while the younger more productive less paid was kept on the payroll.

Management has no return loyalty to the worker that has spent his/her life making profit for the employer. Thus the union is needed.

That being said though, we should NOT accept the corruption and mis-guided leadership we currently experience. The damn unions are using political influence and corruption to prevent the membership from having the deicision making power governing their union and even which union should represent who. The TWU along with AA used that influence to prevent a democratic vote of the membership on a representational dispute.

We CAN have both the needed union and the democratic needed that once again returns to the basics of helping the middle class working folks maintain middle class status and the poor under privileged once again desiring and given a chance at middle class.

Stop legislating and go back to negotiating.

 

[The Goose]

I have worked in no-union work places.

Although organized labor is corrupt and has become a business instead of a representational offering, the seniority protection alone is what keeps the need for union still important.

I watched in the non-union workforce as the older less productive and higher paid were laid-off walking out the door with their pink slips while the younger more productive less paid was kept on the payroll.

Management has no return loyalty to the worker that has spent his/her life making profit for the employer. Thus the union is needed.

We should NOT accept the corruption and mis-guided leadership though.

We CAN have both the needed union and the democratic needed that once again returns to the basics of helping the middle class working folks maintain middle class status and the poor under privileged once again desiring and given a chance at middle class.

Stop legislating and go back to negotiating.

Before I get into what I want to say, let me get it out that you, sir, are 100% correct.

Now - stop and consider what you're really talking about - the workers' need of recourse against human nature.

Any time people get involved in anything, there is a certain amount of bending the rules that goes on to suit those in authority. That would happen with an organization the AA mechs and other AA workers would hatch to rid themselves of their Totally Worthless Union.

After I actually checked into the structure of AMFA, I found it to be much better than anything the TWU had to offer; however, when McFarland and others began to organize the scabs at NWA (to ensure the flow of dues to the assn.), I lost all of what respect I had for them. So did many others - that particular movement is rightfully dead in the water even though there were a few good ideas floating around; just no automatic protection from the idiots/turncoats that conned their way into being elected to their positions. Most don't give a damn what the higher-ups do as long as the paycheck doesn't stop.

How, exactly, would an organization in any form be structured to eliminate the possibility that human nature wouldn't ruin it, much the same as the once needed multitude of unions and their umbrella, the AFL-CIO? Is it possible for any of us flawed critters to construct something like this?

Once upon a time, in order to get a resonable share of the profit pie, a union/AFL-CIO affiliation was all a worker had. Now, the bastards are wanting to recuit illegal aliens to their ranks - some protection for the working stiff while whining about foreign repair stations, a dues grab, plain and simple. The unions, as we once knew them, are going down for the count and those in high positions within them don't care for the prospect of losing their high standard of living and rejoining the rank-and-file they took advantage of, exactly as you said.

I'm afraid that, while you have many legitimate gripes Dave, you're on a Don Quixote type of mission - rather thankless and for damned sure impossible to accomplish, regardless of whether or not it's right. You're trying to fight human nature as I said earlier, and there's no way on God's green earth you'll make any headway. .

Now - I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but - go to your Dr. and get some of those pills they make for this. You'll feel better after a while and you might lose an ulcer or two. I did.

 

[TWU informer]

Goose,

That is why revolutions are necessary in a capitalist democracy.

Of course if everyone takes the position that nothing can or should be done because human nature will cause a return of the problem, then what do you suggest? Prescription Medication is not my idea of a solution. In fact scientific research is actually showing that pharmacuticals are actually another problem with the same political lobbying problem.

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

 

[The Goose]

Goose,

That is why revolutions are necessary in a capitalist democracy.

Of course if everyone takes the position that nothing can or should be done because human nature will cause a return of the problem, then what do you suggest? Prescription Medication is not my idea of a solution. In fact scientific research is actually showing that pharmacuticals are actually another problem with the same political lobbying problem.

Capitalist, yes - democracy, no. We have a Republic, i.e., a representative democracy. Franklin even said that "Sometimes, a little revolution is a good thing." Too many are too comfortable.

No - not saying this shouldn't be tackled; quite the contrary, actually, but problems arise when people feel they have too much to lose. Society today is a far cry from society at the time the young country was trying to toss the British. Relatively speaking, the future USA citizens had nothing to lose.

Our government has been working diligently for the last 50 years to breed the (figurative) balls off of society. When someone gets a belly-full and tries to make a statement, out come the cops, that individual is taken out (not all cases are of this example - some of these people are actually (deleted by moderator: language)), and that's the end of that, with a few footnotes about mental problems in society. I wonder what label, if we could have, hung on those intent to drive out the British? What label did the Brits hang on them?

It's rather doubtful our society, as it is, would have called them a "Patriot", and the person shot in the street. More likely, the "crazy" would be compared to Che, Fidel, Manuel Noriega, Sadaam Hussein or any other government created bogey-man to keep the people in fear and in need of "protection" and that is what our goverment has worked to infuse into the populace. As it's always been, one man's revolutionary is another's savior (and revolution is only cool with governmental approval). Most don't believe in a savior anymore, just the weekend.

This is what you've run into for years at AA with the misinformation drives of the TWU. The tactics are identical, albeit a different level. I don't see anything changing in the near future - these people are scared - few have another practical skill to fall back on and the union knows it, and the fear is continued.

 

[Man of the People]

:cop: TOPIC DRIFT! DANGER! :cop:

Do not turn this into another childish who sleeps where argument. The poster asked a question regarding the value (or lack thereof) of unions. If you can not or will not stick to the topic, the thread will be closed.

Here's an even better question to put out there: Did we need management? They have led us to the bottom in all DOT rankings. Who needs a management team that can only steer the ship when the waters are calm. It's time to throw out the useless management waste and keep the 5% who do all the work.

 

[eolesen]

Might want to think twice about the DOT example...

Management isn't the one misloading or misconnecting bags, being rude onboard, at thIe airport, or on the phones...

The only metric they have any shred of direct control over is cancels.

DOT's measures are a useless set of comparators in my opinion...

 

[TWU informer]

Might want to think twice about the DOT example...

Management isn't the one misloading or misconnecting bags, being rude onboard, at thIe airport, or on the phones...

The only metric they have any shred of direct control over is cancels.

DOT's measures are a useless set of comparators in my opinion...

Not sure I agree with you here. And you might want to think twice about why those metrics are in the tank these days.

Management has the ability to take or not take bonus awards after extracting huge concessions and propagating a "Pull Together - Win Together" philosophy. Choice? (Take the Bouns Screw The Worker) which in turn pisses the employees off and creating the "I don't give a damn" attitude that equates to those items the DOT metric measures.

Sure folks are responsible for their own actions, but I know where my attitude about this company of late has been. you sure don't anyone to measure my "give a damn" to determine anything honestly about this company right now. In fact, most I work around would rather piss on the grave of the greedy bastards than to help them out in any endeavor.

Personally, I could give a Rat's Ass about the corporate greed punks, and
I could even care more less that you like to defend them at every turn.

However, I do care and still think you are not being totally honest about your intentions here and what your agenda is these days. But I have and enjoy plenty of reasons for that position.

 

[Hopeful]

Might want to think twice about the DOT example...

Management isn't the one misloading or misconnecting bags, being rude onboard, at thIe airport, or on the phones...

The only metric they have any shred of direct control over is cancels.

DOT's measures are a useless set of comparators in my opinion...

And management isn't the ones climbing into fuel tanks repairing leaks and wiring, changing engines,, troubleshooting airframe and engine vibrations, radar, navigation systems hydraulic leaks, in all kinds of weather and working conditions.,,....BUT MANAGEMENT IS THERE WHEN WE CALL IN SICK.....READY TO WRITE US UP...

 

[The Goose]

Might want to think twice about the DOT example...

Management isn't the one misloading or misconnecting bags, being rude onboard, at thIe airport, or on the phones...

The only metric they have any shred of direct control over is cancels.

DOT's measures are a useless set of comparators in my opinion...

While there certainly are exceptions, management is of a parasitic nature, something that all companies could do rather well with a lot less of. I keep using the figure of 80% less. By contrast. the salaried staff is, for the most part, undermanned (these are the ones that actually do something constructive during their days).

Unfortunately for American Airlines and American business in general, there's no hope of trend reversal.

 

[El Che]

Capitalist, yes - democracy, no. We have a Republic, i.e., a representative democracy. Franklin even said that "Sometimes, a little revolution is a good thing." Too many are too comfortable.

No - not saying this shouldn't be tackled; quite the contrary, actually, but problems arise when people feel they have too much to lose. Society today is a far cry from society at the time the young country was trying to toss the British. Relatively speaking, the future USA citizens had nothing to lose.

Our government has been working diligently for the last 50 years to breed the (figurative) balls off of society. When someone gets a belly-full and tries to make a statement, out come the cops, that individual is taken out (not all cases are of this example - some of these people are actually (deleted by moderator: language)), and that's the end of that, with a few footnotes about mental problems in society. I wonder what label, if we could have, hung on those intent to drive out the British? What label did the Brits hang on them?

It's rather doubtful our society, as it is, would have called them a "Patriot", and the person shot in the street. More likely, the "crazy" would be compared to Che, Fidel, Manuel Noriega, Sadaam Hussein or any other government created bogey-man to keep the people in fear and in need of "protection" and that is what our goverment has worked to infuse into the populace. As it's always been, one man's revolutionary is another's savior (and revolution is only cool with governmental approval). Most don't believe in a savior anymore, just the weekend.

This is what you've run into for years at AA with the misinformation drives of the TWU. The tactics are identical, albeit a different level. I don't see anything changing in the near future - these people are scared - few have another practical skill to fall back on and the union knows it, and the fear is continued.

Goose, your reasoning is very sound. I could not have said it better myself.
One question. Are you implying that you are a capitalist, or a person who favors capitalism? Unless you own capital then you are the latter. Perhaps capitalism in a pure form with real competition might favor all but in its current incarnation (crony capitalism) it favors an elite few who do not like to share. They urinate on you and call it "trickle down."
As we all know that due to our fallen nature, no system that involves man is perfect. That includes socialism.To me the ideal would be a blend of capitalism and socialism. With the state controlling key infrastructure (utilities, transportation, etc) and the private sector doing the rest; I believe the Marshal plan provided such a blend and we all know the results of it.

 

[Bob Owens]

:cop: TOPIC DRIFT! DANGER! :cop:

Do not turn this into another childish who sleeps where argument. The poster asked a question regarding the value (or lack thereof) of unions. If you can not or will not stick to the topic, the thread will be closed.

Thats not the topic I started and I started the thread.

 

[Bob Owens]

A Global Union idea might be a sound idea, until the leaders decide to make it into a global political wing.

I cannot stand the AFL-CIO, I cannot stand the TWU, and cannot stand the belief that any politician is our friend.

The Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech.

The lobbyist with the all the money get what they want, while the rest are just bottom feeders made to believe their vote every 2 or 4 years really matters.

Even with the amount of cash the unions and the AFL-CIO are stealing from our paychecks for political influence, it isn't enough to keep up with those that have unlimited cash to influence politics.

What really should happen is the AFL-CIO should be dismantled, the union political lobby effort should be dismantled, and that money used to form third party, a working man's party. We can beat them at the ballot box, but we will never beat them at the game of who has the most money to influence.

Fact is though, the union leaders have become fat rich cats off of our dime and will never lower their own standards and stop the theft of political influence cash. The greed of continued status quo outweighs the need to change direction and what is right for the laborer.

We are being held hostage by our single issue political views regarding, gun control, abortion, gay rights, wars, christian right views, and thus we are subjected to the shell game the two current parties play to keep things even and the status quo alive. Until a legitimate third party is created to wedge the two party system into real change, the middle class will continue to suffer at the hands of those propagating the current charade against us.

Why is this so simple, yet impossible?

GREED!

Your union leaders are fine with stealing your paycheck and playing the current game with the current rules. Because they too are now rich and could really care less about your well being. Do you really expect them to move in a direction that would risk their wonderful lifestyle to maybe influence improvement in your lifestyle?

Our Union Leaders have joined the ranks of the "have's" while we mingle with the "have not's". Creation of a Global Union will only create more rich union leaders, and I think the intended goal would be claimed to have the working man's best interest at heart. I am not much interested in creating a larger global version of our current worthless labor movement. What is need is a complete overhaul of what we already have.

The real kicker is that a lot of the unions lobbying efforts are aimed at preventing transparency, in other words keeping us in the dark as to how they spend our dues money.

The simple fact is that when the American labor movement purged itself of Socialists-people who had the education, skills and a true belief in unionism, leaving business unionists to fill the gap it was only a matter of time before the gains made were all bartered away.

 

[Bob Owens]

While some unions in the U.S. have lost sight of their primary purpose--protect worker jobs and working conditions--that is not necessarily true of all unions. Watching some of the European unions in action makes me believe that they would not put up with some of the shenanigans of U.S. union officials.

I wholeheartedly agree. In Europe most Unionists would call themselves Socialists, here in America that would have them banned. Most unions in Europe support a "Labor Party" or the Socialist Party. In this country there is no prominent Labor Party. Both of the major poarties are Capitalist parties. So in Europe Capitalists have a harder time using Economic slumps to win concessions from workers like they do here. In Europe when the economy is failing Labor blames it on the Greed of Capitalists, if the Capitalist grab for concessions it bolsters the Socialists claim that Capitalism is a system that exploits everyone else for the benifit of the rich. The people of Europe get the best that both Socialism and Capitalism has to offer because both sides have to offer their best or be voted out of power.

Unions as a business phenomenon came into being for real reasons and to meet a real need. As laws have been passed--due to union political activity--some of the original purpose for unions has passed to government responsibility. In a sense, the unions through their activism have made themselves obsolete in certain areas--child labor, dangerous working conditions (for the most part), age/race/sex discrimination.

Actually they became business unions because they were purged of those who believed in unionism.

At the same time, the accusations of featherbedding, protecting jobs of people who should be fired, etc have gained some merit. I know of f/a at DFW who has been fired twice for telling a passenger to go F themselves. She has gotten her job back again through union effort. As a union member, I resent the union putting forth that much effort and spending that much money to defend such a person. On the other hand, I also know that the union could face Duty of Fair Representation charges if they didn't. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground where everyone can agree...the company overstepped it's bounds in terminating this employee and/or the union has done all it can or should to protect this person. Common sense does not seem to prevail anymore.

Much of that is due to legislation designed to do what it has done-make unions successful defenders of the screw=ups but incapable of doing the right thing for the majority who do their jobs correctly but are not fairly compensated for it.

Unions as a business phenomenon came into being for real reasons and to meet a real need. As laws have been passed--due to union political activity--some of the original purpose for unions has passed to government responsibility. In a sense, the unions through their activism have made themselves obsolete in certain areas--child labor, dangerous working conditions (for the most part), age/race/sex discrimination.

When I was in new hire training, when the union came to do a presentation. They had everyone in the class stand up. Then in succession they told people to sit down: if you are over 32; if you are married; if you are more than 10 lbs over your ideal body weight; if you are male. When they got through, only 3 members of the class were still standing. They pointed out that without union intervention, these would be the only people in the class.

At the same time, the accusations of featherbedding, protecting jobs of people who should be fired, etc have gained some merit. I know of f/a at DFW who has been fired twice for telling a passenger to go F themselves. She has gotten her job back again through union effort. As a union member, I resent the union putting forth that much effort and spending that much money to defend such a person. On the other hand, I also know that the union could face Duty of Fair Representation charges if they didn't. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground where everyone can agree...the company overstepped it's bounds in terminating this employee and/or the union has done all it can or should to protect this person. Common sense does not seem to prevail anymore.

Unions still have a real purpose. I know from my own experience that the company has attempted to violate the f/a contract in assigning me, giving me missed trips, etc. They back off if I can tell them the particular page and paragraph they are violating. If it weren't for the fact that they know I could grieve the assignment and would probably win, they would go ahead and assign me or threaten me with a missed trip (which is a big no-no).

That being said, I also know that my particular union has been less than helpful to me. Every single time that I have called them about one of these incidents, their answer has been "Go ahead and fly the trip. We can always grieve it later."

Unless its a safety isuue that is the standard rule that the arbitrators go by-Obey then grieve.

 

[Ralph]

This is a very good thread on the pros and cons of union representation. However, it is more general than specific to American Airlines. Others from other airlines may wish to express an opinion. I'm moving this thread to the Water Cooler.