Locals Stripped of Representation

[MTheory]

Bob Owens

Did I say they "generate the most revenue'? Did I even single out JFK and LAX? No you did. Who is misrepresenting the facts here? Are you disputing my claim that the stations in high cost of living areas are stations that generate more money than the company lays out in wages?

Sorry, you said "where the revenue is generated". So you imply no revenue is generated outside of the high cost areas. Which would be the Northeast and West coast. You didnt have to single out JFK and LAX. They are the biggest players in the region.

The Northeast has no say or vote at the table, neither do the guys from the west coast and the MidAtlantic states.

Read the message from your own committee. "ANY T/A REACHED WILL REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE FULL M and R COMMITTEE". Which includes you.

They wont be representing you, they will be representing people who according to them are fine with the status quo. If you are willing maintain the status quo indefinatly(nominally-every year you take Real paycuts through inflation and medical premium increases) then yes they represent your interests.

Again, read the message from the negotiating committee. They are reverting back to The "restore and more" proposal from Nov 2008. Anyway, what is "status quo"? I guess it is different depending on who you ask. Find me anyone who WANTS to take pay cuts. There are trade offs in everything. That is what "negotiating" is all about.

That being said I would add that the Company so far has not held up their side. Asking for more concessions, or freezing pay at this point is not a realistic proposition from the Company.

I wasnt thrilled about the June 09 supposal from the M and R committee, but based on the current econimic climate, it was probably the best that could be expected at the time. Im not a "doom and gloom" kind of guy, but the Company knows that there is not much to fall back on should any of use choose to leave.

Everything must be balanced. "ALL or nothing" is not always a good option.

I know that you are a fan of the "working Together" concept in any form but for me I have to know that there will be some quid pro quo for the membership that I represent.

For me? Only for the purposes of getting the job done. Generally you will not get anything from anyone if your demands are not based on realistic assumptions. Im not saying here that yours are or arent realistic.

Yes but I'm not going to be in that room at the table nor is anyone from the high cost areas. We, workers from high cost areas are not represented in that room by anyone that any of us can hold accountable.

You are not going to review or comment on any T/A? You are still a member of the full M and R committee? Yes? Although you will not be meeting directly with the Compnay I am sure that there will be full committee meetings that you will attend. Will you then have the opportunity to bring your concerns to light? You have a vote and a say for any T/A that comes forward. That has not changed.

 

[Jager]

And, I've said it before and will say it again --- you'd be well served to have outside professional negotiators at the table with you, for no other reason than to make sure that *all* parties interests are indeed represented.

Indeed a brilliant suggestion that we have been recommending for years...

Our high school educated, tech school, maybe Associates Degree union presidents negotiating with MD and PhD’s Finance grads .... The decisions made on the company contracts are not made by the guy sitting across from you at the table, but they are simply the messengers to the Center Port Tower masterminds who ultimately give the nod..

Its time to match ft/lbs to ft/lbs...

I believe there is not one AMT that wouldn't contribute to hire a respectable, conscientious contract attorney to handle our future..

 

[Boomer]

From what I've seen, the only way to stop lemmings from marching lockstep off the cliff is to keep them from assembling. In my opinion, the lemmings have now been assembled for marching orders.

The Negotiations bylaws from the TWU state that it takes 2/3 approval for a change in the Negotiating Committee: given that 7 out of some 20 members of the separate negotiations for the TWU M&R are now present in actual negotiations; wouldn't that violate the rules by which the negotiations team runs? Did 2/3 of the Negotiating Committee of the TWU M&R vote to exclude themselves? That would be a DFR in that we are a closed shop required to maintain membership in the TWU as a condition of employment and our elelcted leaders voted to remove themselves from negotiations.

Go to the nearest Federal Court and request a TRO against further negotiations between AA and the TWU M&R on the basis that 2/3 of the Negotiations Committee is excluded from any agreement in principle due to the fact that final language for any T/A is not voted or negotiated by the full committee.

This is no difference from diversity challenged groups being denied membership in some exclusive club where decisions and agreements are made but to which all will become entangled. Excluding the elected and duly appointed members of the negotiations committee of the TWU M&R Separate Negotiations, despite the rules of the TWU International, should render individuals and locals subject to DFR.

The negotiations debate is critical in Arbitration of disputes after an agreement has been reached but results in different interpretations over the actual reaching of any agreement in principle that results in a tentative agreement which may or may not become a CBA under the RLA.

The refusal to allow observation of the elected representatives for an affected contract group renders them powerless to give an opinion on the merits of any real or contemplated dispute as to the meaning and intent of any agreement in principle, tentative agreement or collective bargaining agreement under the RLA. This type of position, is, in my opinion a DFR.

Out of some 20: 7.

Spend the money on a good lawyer and file in Federal Court that is worker friendly: try California, the 9th Appellate Court is the most overturned but the most likely to take on an individual versus collective rights case on appeal.

 

[MTheory]

Correction to my last post (#31)... The Nov 2008 TWU proposal is not "restore and more" as I stated. It proposes a 13% pay increase over three years and some articles restored to 2001. The proposal can be viewed on the TWU negotiations website.

 

[Deleted member 14439]

Indeed a brilliant suggestion that we have been recommending for years...

Our high school educated, tech school, maybe Associates Degree union presidents negotiating with MD and PhD’s Finance grads .... The decisions made on the company contracts are not made by the guy sitting across from you at the table, but they are simply the messengers to the Center Port Tower masterminds who ultimately give the nod..

Its time to match ft/lbs to ft/lbs...

I believe there is not one AMT that wouldn't contribute to hire a respectable, conscientious contract attorney to handle our future..

ROGER THAT!!!

 

[The Goose]

ROGER THAT!!!

Little would never allow that as he's probably being paid by the company to ensure that never happens.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Correction to my last post (#31)... The Nov 2008 TWU proposal is not "restore and more" as I stated. It proposes a 13% pay increase over three years and some articles restored to 2001. The proposal can be viewed on the TWU negotiations website.

Lets look at it for what it really is a two dollar and fifty cent raise over three years or is it really eight years since we havent seen a raise just more and more concessions in the form of increased medical premiums. Basically this proposal dont amount to sit. Makes me want to run out there and give every bit of 13 percent

 

[shthslwyr]

Yes

From now on negotaitions will be conducted by a subcommittee of seven.

While I agree that the committee was too large to be productive I dont agree with how it was sorted out. The group meeting with the company should reflect the varied composition of the membership. This is not the case. This is a Midwest committee, with the exception of one rep from MIA all the representatives are from the Midwest, two from Oklahoma, two from Texas, one from Missouri, one from Illinois. The needs, concerns and priorities of those in the much lower cost Midwest can be very different than the high cost coastal areas. Yes, there's one from MIA but MIA is one of the cheapest coastal areas where we have a substantial operation. To his credit the MIA Rep brought up that all areas should be represented on the committee, but obviously that was not how the majority felt.

While Larry Pike from AFW has been a staunch supporter and sympatheic to the challenges that workers in high cost areas face it wouldnt be fair to expect him to champion our cause as his own base is under threat.

Its also important to note that only one person on the subcommitttee voted for Geo pay. So that will be the first thing off the table. All except one voted in favor of the June supposal.I would expect to see a version of that resurrected.

Members from high cost areas are not represented at all at the table. They have zero opportunity to present the concerns of their members to the company.

I fault the International for this. They should have ensured that a tyranny of the majority did not impinge the rights of the minority. Thats what we have. The minority, workers in high cost areas, have no voice at the table.

A title I mechanic and a title II mechanic from the midwest are more likley to have the same priorities, yet they are represented by six negotiators, Title i and II mechanics from the high cost northeast and California are not represented at all. Its a form of taxation without representation. Without anybody looking out for our interests does anyone expect that our interests will be vigorously presented to the company?

I dont.

From my observations I do not expect that an ILC is even an objective. The update doesnt mention ILC, only a contract as the objective. Its pretty sad that we arent even attempting to get an ILC anymore.

Sentiment has already been expressed that in this economy "The status quo is just fine". Perhaps if I lived in the Midwest i would share that sentiment, doubtful, but maybe.

Sure, everything the negotiations sub-committee agrees to in principle will be brought back to the whole witness committee before its brought back to the members for ratification but in reality they may as well not even bother, it doesnt matter, the majority voted these guys in and they will pass whatever they bring back. Without the ability to represent their members concerns directly to the company representatives from the high cost areas cant effectively represent their members interests. Our needs are no longer even a consideration.

I do not expect the product this subcommitteebe be a living wage for members in high cost areas. The majority of the subcommittee has already demonstrated that they dont feel that any consideration should be given to workers in high cost areas, despite the fact that the revenue generated in those areas allows the company to employ them in the low cost areas.

The situation at negotiations doesnt bode well for the future of workers in high cost areas. We will likely face futher real income declines and greater economic hardship because the priorities of the committee has been narrowed by the exclusion of their voices at the table. This will leave us with less options if we wish to ever enjoy any sort of economic security, find a new job, transfer to a low cost area or hope you wife gets a good job. Needless to say my vision of a future with AA is moving towards "doubtful".

What is your problem with the Midwest? Do you think we live in sod huts and gain our sustenance from hunting and gathering? By any measure, the Chicago metro area ranks among the top three of those you characterize as high cost. If anything, it seems to me that the actual division can be seen more properly as a horizontal one rather than vertical; locations in the South being the majority; not that it matters all that much, being itself another invidious and irrelevant contrived divisive wedge of the sort you traffic in, and only offered to illustrate the point.

Your high cost area interests will be well looked after by Gilboy and the others on the Commitee, with whom Steve has always sought pragmatic consensus instead of idealistic and demagogic confrontation and conflict. As far as your crack about Steve being a Company man, if you bother yourself to check the facts, you will find that under his leadership Local 563 has followed a continuous and consistent policy of non-cooperation with any Company active engagement initiative, based on the simple principle that participation should only follow from compensation instead of the other way around.

I wonder if the rejection of a representative from the Northeast has anything at all to do with the alleged regional bias. I'm inclined to the conclusion that it absolutely did not.

 

[Hopeful]

I wonder if the rejection of a representative from the Northeast has anything at all to do with the alleged regional bias. I'm inclined to the conclusion that it absolutely did not.

Not that Bob Owens needs any help defending himself here, but don't you find it odd that the ones removed from the negotiating comittee are the most outspoken? Don't you find it odd that Bob Owens was once removed from office along with Chuck Shalk for being "outspoken" only later on to be relelected to local positions? Don't you find it odd that Bob Owens was physically threatened during negotiations under the auspices of Videtich with no punishment for those individuals?
If you feel offended and inadequately represented being from the midwest, I invite you to come pay my property taxes, school taxes, auto insurance, city taxes, state taxes, utility bills, oil bills....Wanna trade?

 

[Bob Owens]

What is your problem with the Midwest? Do you think we live in sod huts and gain our sustenance from hunting and gathering? By any measure, the Chicago metro area ranks among the top three of those you characterize as high cost. If anything, it seems to me that the actual division can be seen more properly as a horizontal one rather than vertical; locations in the South being the majority; not that it matters all that much, being itself another invidious and irrelevant contrived divisive wedge of the sort you traffic in, and only offered to illustrate the point.

I dont have a problem with the midwest, I just think that the priorities are different because the wage they get goes a lot further, or at least thats what we are told from several of those who represent them. On multiple occasions I've heard that the stutus quo is just fine. Well its not just fine with us, we are going BK because our wages simply do not cover what it costs to raise a family here. You may say move, but that doesnt address the problem because as long as the company continues to do business in high cost areas they need to pay a livable wage there and a union should insure that everyone is taken care of, not just the majority. The fact is that the pay cuts had a disproportionate impact on the high costs areas because they inherantly have less disposable income to spare. We have guys quitting because they cant afford to work here anymore. My guess is thats not as common in other areas.

Your high cost area interests will be well looked after by Gilboy and the others on the Commitee, with whom Steve has always sought pragmatic consensus instead of idealistic and demagogic confrontation and conflict.

I dissagree since he spearheaded the June supposal "exercise" and removing GEO pay. How is that looking out for our interests?

As far as your crack about Steve being a Company man, if you bother yourself to check the facts, you will find that under his leadership Local 563 has followed a continuous and consistent policy of non-cooperation with any Company active engagement initiative, based on the simple principle that participation should only follow from compensation instead of the other way around.

On that issue I would say that we both agree, but as far as supporting our union brothers and sisters we have different views. I also dont think that we should base our demands on what the company says they can afford because they lie. If others are paying it we should demand at least as much, not buy into the companies excuses and pass them off as fact.

I wonder if the rejection of a representative from the Northeast has anything at all to do with the alleged regional bias. I'm inclined to the conclusion that it absolutely did not.

I dont think that its because of where we were from but more because we voted no. The only NO vote on the committee is Larry Pike, and it would have been hard to exclude him as one of the two Base representatives when you consider that MCI is scheduled to be closed.

 

[AANOTOK]

We have guys quitting because they cant afford to work here anymore. My guess is thats not as common in other areas.

Your guess would be wrong Bob. There are guys quitting, retiring all across the system (not just Northeast) because
Little Jimmy has done nothing to help get back any of the monies we have lost.

It ain't just a Regional problem Bob, we all are suffering and are on the brink.

 

[shthslwyr]

Not that Bob Owens needs any help defending himself here, but don't you find it odd that the ones removed from the negotiating comittee are the most outspoken? Don't you find it odd that Bob Owens was once removed from office along with Chuck Shalk for being "outspoken" only later on to be relelected to local positions? Don't you find it odd that Bob Owens was physically threatened during negotiations under the auspices of Videtich with no punishment for those individuals?
If you feel offended and inadequately represented being from the midwest, I invite you to come pay my property taxes, school taxes, auto insurance, city taxes, state taxes, utility bills, oil bills....Wanna trade?

Sure, any time. BLS statistics indicate to me that it would be about a wash. And no, I do not find it odd, since I don't think outspokenness is so much the problem as what is said, and more importantly where, and to whom.

 

[Hopeful]

Sure, any time. BLS statistics indicate to me that it would be about a wash. And no, I do not find it odd, since I don't think outspokenness is so much the problem as what is said, and more importantly where, and to whom.

So just be good little soldiers and do whatever Little tells you to do.......Great outlook!

Keep in mind, Bob Owens was elected to do exactly what he's doing. We didn't elect him to be a sheep and suck up to Little so he may be rewarded down the road with an international position.

So if regional pay affects us all, why was it removed from the table?

 

[TWU informer]

TWU wants binding Arbitration to blame on the sub-standard agreement we have coming.

 

[shthslwyr]

So just be good little soldiers and do whatever Little tells you to do.......Great outlook!

Keep in mind, Bob Owens was elected to do exactly what he's doing. We didn't elect him to be a sheep and suck up to Little so he may be rewarded down the road with an international position.

So if regional pay affects us all, why was it removed from the table?

Hey, if your going to argue with me, then argue with me, not with the voices in your head. I never said such a thing.

Keep in mind that Steve Gilboy was elected by us to do exactly what he's doing, and was re-elected to keep doing it. We've never heard Steve bad mouth Bob around here, ever; even when Bob has, on more than one occasion, not felt constrained to show the same courtesy. Steve has taken a hell of a beating from us because he refused to break his committment to the negotiating committee not to disclose what goes on in the room among them. I never understood his reluctance until Bob showed up on the scene; now I can see how bringing one's own account about how events have transpired, and his particular interpretation of other's motives and aims would have a tendency to chill a free and fair exchange of ideas and opinions, while creating a corrosive atmosphere of mistrust and resentment at a time and place where it is least useful. I commend Steve for his integrity and I believe that Bob owes him an apology for his unkind and intemperate comments about him.

I will not speak to the specifics of why regional pay was removed from the table out of respect for Steve's committment not to disclose the business of the negotiating committee, but I absolutely guarantee you that if you speak to other presidents beside Bob, you will get a version of the story that is so breathtakingly at variance with what you've been told as to be a difference in kind rather than degree. I do know one thing: In October 2007, a full fourteen months before Bob ever showed up, regional pay was put on the table for the first time in recent AA/TWU negotiation history because of Steve's advocacy of it and his ability to achieve consensus on the issue, but because it doesn't fit the conspiracy theory narrative that seems to be the dominant one here, you never heard it.