I've been asking that very question for a long time; all I've gotten for my trouble is rhetoric and professions of never-ending love for del Femine's dues machine and alternately, the Teamsters.
I feel the main reason amfa made any representational inroads at all is because it wasn't subject to the AFL-CIO's no-raid policies, not so much that there was a better product offered. I believe the Teamsters saw this and capitalized on it, disaffiliating from the AFL-CIO (their stated reason was they weren't happy with the AFL-CIO's organizing rules). They're now free to "raid" also, if you will. Not sure if that's a better choice - to modify one of amfa's campaign sayings, "Why drive the truck when you can fly?"
I agree - where is there to go?
If I recall it was "Bus" not "truck".
Where could we go? Right now we have three choices.
1. AMFA,
2. Start an entirely new union that goes for everyone, thus making it more difficult for the NMB to stifle an election ,or
3. reform the TWU,make sure you get leaders in place that will make changes at the next convention.
1. AMFA while some claim that NWA was a fatal setback for AMFA it wasnt. The reasons for AMFA remain, however it must be noted that even if all or most of the mechanics end up in AMFA there is still weakness in the structure of craft unionism where there is not cooperation with other craft unions. Pilots and Flight Attendants have craft unions and they didnt fare much better than other workers. The RLA and the commonality of court interference makes cooperation a necessity. However if the choice is between staying with an organization structured like the TWU and AMFA clearly AMFA is a better choice.
2. Start an entirely new union that goes for everyone. Everyone at every airline. Huge undertaking and it would face resistance from both the industry and the labor. But if succeesful it would be the most powerful union in the country. Instead of having unions tripping over each other in order to grant the carrier where their dues come from the most concessions the union could allow workers to have portable seniority. Labor costs would be determined by management exoprtise instead of worker concessions, as it should be. Management would actually have to earn their money though skill and intelligence instead of thuggery and deciet.
3.Reform the TWU. While this may seem at face value to be the easiest option you have to consider the fact that even if successful at best we end up with a better union in a structure thats flawed when looked at as an industry. Even a reformed TWU would have AA members that have too much invested in things that are out of their control. Having your life tied to any one corporation is the most perilous of situations that any worker could ever be in. The owner could at any time decide to liquidate. Companies use that as a threat to gain concessions. If workers had more portability it would be easier to ignore such threats.
That said, reforming the TWU is still a worhwhile undertaking, certainly a better choice than doing nothing.
How can we reform the TWU? Well first of all we have to break down what is wrong with the TWU, what needs to be addressed? Some items are confined and unique to the AA/TWU system and others to the TWU as a whole.
Problems unique to AA/TWU.
International ownership of the contract.
If we can chose those who control the contract then we really dont have a contract, the TWU International has a contract and they are not accountable to us if we elect to stay in the TWU.
How can we get ownership of the contract? Well the real question is "Why dont we have ownership?".
TWU Local 100 has 30,000 members under one contract, why cant 30,000 TWUAA members be in one local? Well one answer to that was "geography". Members were spread across the country so the membership was divided into many seperate Locals. The International used this as an excuse to own the contract. Since no one local could own it the International had control. Under leaders like Mike Quill this wasnt such a bad deal, even if it was undemocratic, because the leaders were true unionists who really believed in getting workers better pay, however with the degeneration of leadership, resulting in what we have today-Former AA management Jim Little- its intolerable.
If we want to get control of our contracts then each group must get everyone thats in their contract into one local. We could either have everyone from every contract at AA in one local or have every contract group in one local. So instead of having 21 mostly weak locals where none of them have control of the contract we would have one or a handful of stong-well finaced-accountable locals.
Under the present structure there is no accountability, the locals negotiate with the International and the International negotiates with the company. While Local Presidents are elected by the members at AA the International officers are not.Local Presidents and negotiators are blamed for what the International decides. The International covers themselves by having the "committee" vote yes to bring back what the International says they have to bring back. All they have to do is keep them there until they get a majority, a little arm twisting and promises of International positions is usually all thats needed. Look at it from the Local Presidents eyes. If he votes NO he will be threatened and pressured by the International, but if he votes Yes he could land a six figure job with the International. (Worked well for Videtich, Gless, Conley and Gordon)If they all voted "No" the International could put the contract out to vote or even put it in place without membership ratification. (They've done both, they put seperate locals out for a vote despite failing to muscle the Presidents council into accepting it and they put our current contract in place without membership ratification, in fact the TWU testified in Federal Court that the Presidents council has no authority over the union). If we had one local then there would be no reason for International ownership. Local 100 owns their contracts, same with local 236, as well as the SWA Flight Attendants and the SWA Ramp workers, they all have their entire contract group in one local.
Under the current structure there is no accountability, if the vote is not unanamous then any President can claim that other Presidents or the International is to blame. Undr one local there would be no opportunity to pass blame.
Under the current structure most of the AA locals are financially weak. Running 21 seperate locals is expensive, but not to the International, they net the same either way and having the members all split up makes them weak at the Convention. Just paying the officers consumes most of the money that the Local gets, in fact without the illegal payments from AA most Locals in the AA system would be economically unsound, they would be bankrupt. By keeping the locals weak the International keeps the membership weak.
Clearly having 30000 workers divided randomly into 21 powerless locals that have no authority over the contract is about as close as you could get to not having a union while still payin dues. Unionism is supposed to provide unity as well as accountability, the TWU/AA is structured to provide niether.
So gaining control of our contract is the key to becoming a union. However in order to have any chance of doing that we must reform the International. Both objectives could and should be attempted simultaneously.
The opportunity to reform the International only comes once every four years. What we need to do is align ourselves with those who are already in opposition with the current leaders and gain some allies with those who are unaware of what Little and Company are all about. That must be done prior to the Convention. It should start now.
to be cont.
