Received from Bob Owen: RE United Airlines
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: Re:
When the first contract is voided we should all walk out.
Bob,
I received your E-mail regarding UA and 11-13. As a Union Officers you are placing our membership in jeopardy by your suggested walk out. We (Presidents and Negotiating Committee, Consultants and Legal Team) are doing all possible to protect our members "quality of life" we do not need to end up in court!
As you know, labor is being attacked on all fronts. The UA issue needs to be handled within the court. W should get however get the AFL & TTD involved.
It would be in our members best interest for you to retract your statement. As we discussed at the Council meeting all Local communications should be handled with care with the advance of bankruptcy on the radar screen.
Thanks,
Fraternally,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Owens
To: Jim Little
Cc: Bobby Gless ; Chuck Schalk ; Cindy Winslow ; Curtis Gentry ; Don Videtich ; Duke Hingley ; Garry Drummond ; Gary G. Peterson ; Jack Maddish ; James C. Little ; Jeff Ortegren ; Jim Brinker ; Joe Gordon ; John Conley ; John Orlando ; John Plowman ; Keno Carr ; Mark Rasco ; Mike Chiafolo ; Pat Noonan ; Paul Cassidy ; Paul McCormick ; Randy McDonald ; Rick Rodriquez ; Tim Gillespie ; Todd Woodward
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: E-mail
Jim;
You must be joking!
What would Mike Quill say?
Would he join in the retreat or would he say the same as I?
STRIKE is not a four letter word! Our labor leaders need to use it now and then. I agree that labor is being attacked on all fronts, I also see that while they are using all the weapons at their disposal we do not use what we have. One of their best weapons is the courtroom. We are playing by their rules and losing. The UA issue needs to be brought to the streets where we should help them, not sit back and do nothing except figure how AA will be able to swell TWU ranks when UAL folds! Instead of fighting back with weak words we should start using a few strong ones. I agree we should ask the AFL-CIO and the TTD for help. We should make our plea loud and clear that we are under attack and we need their help and then shut the whole thing down. If they chose to turn their backs on us like they did to PATCO , well at least we know where we stand and the true value of the organization.
Twenty years ago PATCO warned the other unions that they too would get picked off one by one if they failed to stand up to Reagan, they were right. As the graph I sent you on mechanics salaries shows our top paid mechanics lost $150,000 thanks to the weakness of the labor movement. In the 80s the unions failed to unite and rise to the challenge, all working people have paid the price ever since. The TWU claims that Bush is worse than Reagan (COPE Conference) but what have we learned except to shout a few words of indignation as we empty our pockets into theirs once again. Its sad but true when people say that history repeats itself.
Jim, I do not work for you, I work for the people who elected me and it is in our interests that we do not give concessions. Its in our interests that UAL workers are not forced into concessions. Its in our interests that the courts realize that unfair treatment in their courtrooms will result in disruptions to the economy outside their courtrooms. Its in our interests that those who are attacking us know that we will fight back even if our leaders are afraid to even utter the word strike. Being that by and large the Union leaders of the 80s, who in a few short years managed to lead their people into losing much of what had been gained since FDR, hand picked their successors its likely that these hand picked successors will follow in their predecessors missteps.
I retract nothing.
When the first contract is voided we should all walk out.
Fraternally;
Bob Owens
Bob,
I think you know better than that...Those are the E-mails that caused the APA $48M in the infamous sick out. I have no problem striking if the time was right, and in fact I will lead the charge. I know you would be there also. I do appreciate your zeal! When was the last time a bank robber notified the police he was going to rob a bank? As I stated, those type of E-mails are irresponsible. I believe we all have the members best interest at hand.
Later!
Jim
Ps. I think Mike would say: lets use our BIG Heads instead of our little ones.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Santos" <[email protected]>
To: "Bob Owens" <[email protected]>; "Little, Jim" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: E-mail
> Jim,
>
> I agree wholehearted with Bobby Owens. The IAM's struggle is our's as
> well. It was a sad chapter in Labor history when Unions turned their
> backs as Lorenzo voided contracts @ CAL. If UAL void their contracts
> with workers we can either make amends for our past negligence or once
> again participate in the dismantling of Labor with inaction.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
Gary,
Bob knows we share the same views. I grew up in the UK in an all Union
family and walked many a national picket line. As you know, we are being
attacked on all fronts,
and need the AFL-CIO to take a major role. If we sit
back all of our maintenance will be in CHINA!
When will the AFL wake up and
take the lead role? I attended the Senate hearing on "Binding Arbitration"
in which ALPA testified on behalf of the TTD.
Even if the AFL-CIO was not
testifying ALL of the national officers and national unions top leaders
should have been in the audience. That would have made a powerful statement.
We would also have received national press. I have made my position known! A
call for only AA or a specific Local to walk out plays right into the
company and the administrations hands.
When will everyone in labour wake up
and realize if we do not role back the labour of old to the 40s, and take a
more militant position there will be no labour.
Do not misinterpret my position as not in agreement with Bob. I am just
protecting our members from another court battle. I am in full agreement
that when UA files 11-13 all bets are off and AFL-CIO needs to come out in
full force across this country not just the aviation side. Gary both you and
Bob are prolific and as I told Bob I wish we had others with his zeal! Let's
work together and plan an all out blitz. Maybe, we should have a conference
call?
Thanks,
In solidarity,
Jim
March 17, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL
Mr. John J. Sweeney
President, AFL-CIO
815 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear President Sweeny:
On behalf of our working men and women in the aviation industry, I urge you to take a strong stand against the plans of various bankrupt carriers to abrogate their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and, in particular, the Scope clauses. This will have a major impact on the entire Aerospace community, based on the fragile state of the Legacy carriers.
Our major concern is that the absence of a CBA will provide the opportunity to have major maintenance performed outside U.S. soil. We will see denigration to our current aviation safety and the security of high skill high wage U.S. jobs. As an example, the cost of Maintenance repair in China is $48-60 dollars per hour less than similar work performed in the U.S.
In 1997, when we mounted an aggressive fight on HR145, it was shown that most foreign repair stations performing maintenance on U.S. aircraft do not meet the same regulatory, and safety standards abroad as have to be met in the U.S. Currently, in too many cases, foreign repair stations working on U.S. aircraft do not meet the same high standards required in our country and has become far too easy for foreign repair stations in countries like Mexico, Costa Rica, and China to receive certification to perform major maintenance on U.S. aircraft. We cannot allow corporate America, our legislators, or our Labor leaders to allow our Aircraft maintenance to be performed overseas. We, within the AFL-CIO, need to
March 17, 2003
Page 2
do all possible to make sure the traveling public is educated on the fact that our highly skilled personnel working on aircraft in the U.S. have a high level of safety and regulatory standards, and all U.S. aircraft are maintained by a standard set of regulations.
Given the opportunity and the current state of the legacy carriers, corporations will no doubt try to cut corners on aircraft maintenance by flying them to foreign countries. This will not only threaten high-wage U.S. aviation jobs, but also compromise the safety of the flying public. The use of uncertified or "bogus" parts also is a growing problem throughout the world.
As our leader, I urge your consideration in mounting a media campaign and a nationwide demonstration on this matter.
Sincerely and fraternally,
James C. Little
Director Air Transport Division
Intl. Administrative Vice President.
JCL:cjw opeiu-153 afl-cio
C: Sonny Hall, President TTD
Ed Wytkind, TTD, AFL-CIO
TWU-ATD staff
Notice how Jim also likens our struggle to keep what we negotiated to a bank robber stealing from a bank. Is he saying that we did not deserve the raises we negotiated and should not announce to those who would take it away that we will defend ourselves?
I doubt that the letter to Sweeney was ever sent, as no reply was ever forwarded to us. To me it seems that the letter was written for Gary and I in order to show that Little was trying to get the AFL-CIO to move. I called the AFL-CIO and they said that they do not lead intiatives, the member unions lead them while the AFL-CIO coordinates them.
Either way, its interesting how in these letters Jim repeatedly tries to fault the AFL-CIO for his lack of action. He blasts the AFL-CIO repeatedly then tells us we should stay with the TWU because they are affiliated. Yet he repeatedly admits that the affiliation needs to "wake up", and then he brings back and signs into effect the most concessionary contract in the industry! Look at how he flipped floped from saying not to be militant because it puts our members in danger to saying that we must be more militant or there will be no labor movement. So whats the deal here? Could it be that Jim, the International and many of the Presidents were simply taking whatever means neccissary to preserve their check from AA?