Iam Attacks Amfa

[synchronicity]

Today we got our bi-monthly IAM district 141 propaganda rag. Normally it has the standard stories about hard-working union folks and how they're getting screwed over by greedy capitalist management bastards, and if only those pigs would listen to the union's great ideas all would be right with the world. Of course, somehow every few years they manage to negotiate a contract and that's always a great and fair deal, but I digress.

So it came as some surprise today to see, right there on the front page "above the fold" the headline "AMFA's Mistakes Lead to Disaster for Mechanics". Yup, the main article in the paper was devoted to AMFA and those "elitist" mechanics, and how AMFA's actions in not being part of the big ol' AFL-CIO umbrella are ruining everything. The other main article on the front page was another swipe by IAM at AMFA.

OK, so they're still pissed that AMFA took away the UAL mechanics. Fine, whatever. But the thing that struck me as hilarious was the fact that the front page of IAM's newspaper included a quote attacking AMFA from The Wall Street Journal!!

First off, aunion newspaper citing the Journal as a source to support their arguments? Say it ain't so! But more amusing was the fact the IAM was heralding the support of not just the Journal, but specifically a Wall Street Journal op-ed!

What, you mean the Journal published an editorial critical of a labor union?!?! I'm shocked, shocked to hear that! I mean, WSJ editorials are so amazingly unbiased and objective, and if there was any bias, it certainly wouldn't be against organzied labor, would it?

Well, like the slogan says: Workers of the World, Bicker Amongst Yourselves!

-synchronicity

 

[Emil.Howes]

Today we got our bi-monthly IAM district 141 propaganda rag. Normally it has the standard stories about hard-working union folks and how they're getting screwed over by greedy capitalist management bastards, and if only those pigs would listen to the union's great ideas all would be right with the world. Of course, somehow every few years they manage to negotiate a contract and that's always a great and fair deal, but I digress.

So it came as some surprise today to see, right there on the front page "above the fold" the headline "AMFA's Mistakes Lead to Disaster for Mechanics". Yup, the main article in the paper was devoted to AMFA and those "elitist" mechanics, and how AMFA's actions in not being part of the big ol' AFL-CIO umbrella are ruining everything. The other main article on the front page was another swipe by IAM at AMFA.

OK, so they're still pissed that AMFA took away the UAL mechanics. Fine, whatever. But the thing that struck me as hilarious was the fact that the front page of IAM's newspaper included a quote attacking AMFA from The Wall Street Journal!!

First off, aunion newspaper citing the Journal as a source to support their arguments? Say it ain't so! But more amusing was the fact the IAM was heralding the support of not just the Journal, but specifically a Wall Street Journal op-ed!

What, you mean the Journal published an editorial critical of a labor union?!?! I'm shocked, shocked to hear that! I mean, WSJ editorials are so amazingly unbiased and objective, and if there was any bias, it certainly wouldn't be against organzied labor, would it?

Well, like the slogan says: Workers of the World, Bicker Amongst Yourselves!

-synchronicity

[post="307509"][/post]​

Synchronicity,

I am amused but not surprised.
Did they happen to justify their SCABBING at NWA as well?

-BigE

 

[casual rat]

Unions=Corporations...bottom line. Members=Customers....bottom line. AMFA took millions of dollars away from the IAM recently, so why wouldn't the IAM criticize AMFA? By the same token, AMFA criticizes the IAM to reduce 'buyer's remorse'....Anyone who thinks that AMFA isn't as 'Corporate' as the IAM is basically foolhardy--Union Dues being the objective. Unions/Bargaining Agents are pertinant in this Industry (probably now more than ever), but basically, it's all the same basket. Companies are only going to pay 'this much' period--if they don't get what they want, they'll commit financial suicide as in the case of Northwest....The workforce has always been pawns in the Corporate World--to think otherwise is pure 'naivete'.

 

[Emil.Howes]

Unions=Corporations...bottom line. Members=Customers....bottom line. AMFA took millions of dollars away from the IAM recently, so why wouldn't the IAM criticize AMFA? By the same token, AMFA criticizes the IAM to reduce 'buyer's remorse'....Anyone who thinks that AMFA isn't as 'Corporate' as the IAM is basically foolhardy--Union Dues being the objective. Unions/Bargaining Agents are pertinant in this Industry (probably now more than ever), but basically, it's all the same basket. Companies are only going to pay 'this much' period--if they don't get what they want, they'll commit financial suicide as in the case of Northwest....The workforce has always been pawns in the Corporate World--to think otherwise is pure 'naivete'.

[post="308499"][/post]​

Casual Rat,

If (as you say) AMFA is another corporate Union, then explain to me how taking the chance to loose 4400 members and having a guaranteed (for awhile) 2200 members make it a business?

AMFA is run by the ‘Membership’ as a Union should be!

So you can mark me down a ‘foolhardy’ and ‘naive’.

The ‘Officers’ and ‘BOD’ make the decisions and have planned for the NWA AMFA strike for 18 months and just a few months ago cashed out much of their stock.

Coincidence?

Yea, right!!! :down:

-BigE

 

[casual rat]

Big E, I think you misunderstood my point. Unions are dependant on Union Dues. Union officers are paid through these dues. In effect they are run like a business. Why would a Union charge Union Dues if this wasn't the case? Why would AMFA spend thousands of dollars to attract a membership away from another Union (arguably, not as efficient as it could be)?
I didn't mean to imply that AMFA was a 'Corporate Union' (those are illegal BTW). If you're satisfied with AMFA, then they're meeting your expectations--you're happy--just like a company you do business with and return as a customer.
Since the IAM lost members, it cost them money. Unions compete for dollars just like companies do. The IAM is still competing for those lost dollars, which is why they criticize AMFA. AMFA criticizes the IAM for their non-support with regard to the strike at NWA. Do you honestly think that NW mechanics would support it's IAM members if the shoe was on the other foot? Unlikely.
NWA understood the politics, and exploited it for their own long term gain. That's all that I meant. I don't agree with NWA's methods either. Individual employees are being used as pawns in this case--NWA doesn't care if an employee's kid misses out on an education (for example), bottom-line money is more important to them. It's sad--but our country's laws support these kinds of actions, since they allow for it to happen.

Good Luck in your fight!

 

[Emil.Howes]

Big E, I think you misunderstood my point. Unions are dependant on Union Dues. Union officers are paid through these dues. In effect they are run like a business. Why would a Union charge Union Dues if this wasn't the case? Why would AMFA spend thousands of dollars to attract a membership away from another Union (arguably, not as efficient as it could be)?
I didn't mean to imply that AMFA was a 'Corporate Union' (those are illegal BTW). If you're satisfied with AMFA, then they're meeting your expectations--you're happy--just like a company you do business with and return as a customer.
Since the IAM lost members, it cost them money. Unions compete for dollars just like companies do. The IAM is still competing for those lost dollars, which is why they criticize AMFA. AMFA criticizes the IAM for their non-support with regard to the strike at NWA. Do you honestly think that NW mechanics would support it's IAM members if the shoe was on the other foot? Unlikely.
NWA understood the politics, and exploited it for their own long term gain. That's all that I meant. I don't agree with NWA's methods either. Individual employees are being used as pawns in this case--NWA doesn't care if an employee's kid misses out on an education (for example), bottom-line money is more important to them. It's sad--but our country's laws support these kinds of actions, since they allow for it to happen.

Good Luck in your fight!

[post="308942"][/post]​

Casual Rat,

I used to believe the same as you as I was also disenfranchised by the 'union machine'. But since I have begun working closely with AMFA and their officers, I have a renewed outlook in Unions and individuals that dedicate their lives to Unionism and comprehend what Unions are all about.
The ‘Membership’!!!
We need not go into the politics of my last Union, but I viewed it as a corporate machine that cared more about dues than ‘The Membership’!!!
Of course AMFA has to have fiscal responsibility, but do you believe that it is fiscally responsible to Strike NWA? I do not see how it is. It is a ‘Moral Obligation’ to perform the actions that are dictated by ‘The Membership’ even if it means insolvency and the end of the ‘Union’. We have not seen this type of ‘Unionism’ in many-many years!
As I walk the picket line with my AMFA Brothers and Sisters, I am astounded in the heroic determination and ‘personal’ sacrifice that these individuals portray.
I am saddened that not everyone can see this, but many individuals in unions have your (and once mine) attitude and this is caused by the ‘Union Machines’. Individuals see these machines as their bargaining agent and nothing more and do not realize that a ‘Union’ is as strong as its 'Membership'. Nothing more or nothing less.

Do I believe that AMFA would cross the IAM Picket Line (if one would occur)?
I give you and emphatic ‘NO', we would not cross!

In fact, during the last UAL Negotiations, we have publicly stated that we would not cross an IAM picket line. Which other ‘union(?)’ has made the same public statement?

-BigE