McCain: Let weak airlines fail

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/19/2003 11:24:25 PM FA Mikey wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/18/2003 9:28:03 PM Buck wrote:


Mike, do you know the difference between the union of the ground employees and the Flight Attendants and Pilots?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Not sure I do. I know the difference in that pilots, and mechanics have FAA license's. That flight attendants have a standard crew minimum, as well as a set number of trained hours. That provides theses people with some breathing room in negotiations and the threat of replacement.

I know that the flight attendants were once part of the TWU. From my NY friends said that the TWU was a very male dominated organization that didn't care to spend much time or energy in fighting for the rights and working conditions of flight attendants. When the AFA organizers were close to making their move. The oppositions main argument against leaving was the strength in numbers.

----------------
[/blockquote]
I would not doubt any of these things you have stated. But I was indicating that there is no affliation to the AFL-CIO. I wonder if this is why they fight?

 

[FA Mikey]

The AFL-CIO unions seem so preoccupied by everything, but what is in front of them. They have too many interests in to many different areas.

You see companies today concentrating on the core business. They find that being spread to thin weakens there overall position. Big international unions think bigger is better. They want to have a collection of crafts and classes all across the spectrum. They want the largest membership and income. They believe they can be everything to every group.

The strength APFA and APA have is there sole purpose is to represent one group and the interests of that group.

 

[RV4]

[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/19/2003 10:06:48 PM Bob Owens wrote: [BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]
[P align=left][BR][BR]And how was the right to organize won? Through legislation![BR][BR]While I agree that the Labor Movement has abandoned its most successful methods of engagement, civil disobedience, brave leadership, jail time, and empowerment of the members, in other words strikes job actions etc, for an over reliance on the political system, to some how believe that even the early unionists chose to avoid the political arena is naive. With the exception of some misguided quotes from Samuel Gompers Unionists have always known that legislation is a key to long-term success for working people. The other methods were a necessity when access to the political arena was denied. What the Labor movement has failed to realize is that because they are outspent by 12 to 1 that their access is for all intensive purposes, Denied. I agree that we can not outspend our opponents and COPE would be better spent supporting educating on a more grassroots level. Unreliable "friends" are unfortunately rewarded because they are considered the lesser of two evils. The fact is that the ruling class, regardless of whether they ride the donkey or the elephant simply laugh at Labor as a toothless Tiger. It can roar, on occasion, but it wont bite. Its time, to go back to our roots. Its time to bite again. We cannot rely on the legal system to defend our rights. We must defend them by engaging in the same activities that won those rights in the first place. We cannot pass laws, we cannot make them pass laws; what we can do is just STOP. Stop supplying our labor. Despite all thier power they still need us. When we strike for political vs economic motives, such as to protect our rights our leaders are put in an awkward position. As the leader of the “freeâ€￾ world how can they justify fines, imprisonment or other penalties in response to non-violent political expression?[BR][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE]I believe the legislative ability to "organize" you worship was nothing more than a pacifier to employers. The legislation was designed to create a feeling of "winning" so that chaos would be subdued. In truth, the legislation is restrictive and intended to control the workers. I see you clearly bought in![BR][BR]Fact is, the workers were already organizing for survival and the politicians stepped in and made a legal (weaker) means to resolve conflict. Simarly, our TWU grievance procedure was exchanged for the No Strike - No Lockout clause to stop successful wildcat strikes.[BR][BR]Lack of monetary funds is not the only reason Labor is failing in the political arena. Corruption and Politics outside the working man agenda has disenfranchised the members. Samuel Gompers was clear, DO NOT FORM AN ALLIANCE WITH ONE PARTICULAR POLITICAL PARTY. I hardly think that was misgiuded, in fact, I believe more than ever this is the problem.[BR][BR]You are always barking about the strike weapon and S-1327, yet you must fail to realize what the Railway Labor Act which has been in place since 1926 was all about...[BR][BR]..."To remedy this dangerous situation, the Railway Labor Act was introduced and passed into law by Congress. Basically, it called for labor disputes concerning railroads which could not be settled between the rail companies and rail workers' unions to be presented to a National Mediation Board which would act as an independent arbiter. It also called for the rail unions to consolidate into a single national union which would prevent those strategically located smaller local rail unions from causing a disproportionate disruption of commerce as well. This effectively precluded the potential threat of crippling strikes."[BR][BR]Bob, the legislation you hold so dear is nothing more than a "CONTROL DEVICE" for workers.[BR][BR]If you have evidence of some legislative "rights to organize" that were anything other than worker control laws, feel free to educate me![/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/20/2003 8:48:29 AM FA Mikey wrote:



The AFL-CIO unions seem so preoccupied by everything, but what is in front of them. They have too many interests in to many different areas.

You see companies today concentrating on the core business. They find that being spread to thin weakens there overall position. Big international unions think bigger is better. They want to have a collection of crafts and classes all across the spectrum. They want the largest membership and income. They believe they can be everything to every group.

The strength APFA and APA have is there sole purpose is to represent one group and the interests of that group.
----------------
[/blockquote]


This problem is especially evident in the organisational structure of airline ground workers. They are mixed and spread out between three big unions where none of those unions are primarily interested in this industry. The IAM, TWU, and IBT all seek a stake in the industry but none are totally committed to the industry. The logical step for those three unions, in the interest of the labor movement and thier airline workers, is to consolidate (like the industry has/is doing) and form one union with divisions for each class and craft. Unfortunately the short term bottom line comes ahead of ideology and none of these organisations are willing to give up its profitable airline sideline.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/20/2003 8:41:51 AM RV4 wrote:







[BLOCKQUOTE]I believe the legislative ability to "organize" you worship was nothing more than a pacifier to employers. The legislation was designed to create a feeling of "winning" so that chaos would be subdued. In truth, the legislation is restrictive and intended to control the workers. I see you clearly bought in!

Fact is, the workers were already organizing for survival and the politicians stepped in and made a legal (weaker) means to resolve conflict. Simarly, our TWU grievance procedure was exchanged for the No Strike - No Lockout clause to stop successful wildcat strikes.

Lack of monetary funds is not the only reason Labor is failing in the political arena. Corruption and Politics outside the working man agenda has disenfranchised the members. Samuel Gompers was clear, DO NOT FORM AN ALLIANCE WITH ONE PARTICULAR POLITICAL PARTY. I hardly think that was misgiuded, in fact, I believe more than ever this is the problem.

You are always barking about the strike weapon and S-1327, yet you must fail to realize what the Railway Labor Act which has been in place since 1926 was all about...

..."To remedy this dangerous situation, the Railway Labor Act was introduced and passed into law by Congress. Basically, it called for labor disputes concerning railroads which could not be settled between the rail companies and rail workers' unions to be presented to a National Mediation Board which would act as an independent arbiter. It also called for the rail unions to consolidate into a single national union which would prevent those strategically located smaller local rail unions from causing a disproportionate disruption of commerce as well. This effectively precluded the potential threat of crippling strikes."

Bob, the legislation you hold so dear is nothing more than a "CONTROL DEVICE" for workers.

If you have evidence of some legislative "rights to organize" that were anything other than worker control laws, feel free to educate me![/BLOCKQUOTE]

[/BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
[/blockquote]

Dave if you could stay a little more within the realm of what is said instead of adding your fanciful assumptions the discussion would remain more objective and productive.

Where did you get it in your head that I "worship" the RLA? All laws are "control devices" and the level of control that S-1327 seizes, in favor of the company, dwarfs that of the RLA. In its day the RLA was considered a great comprimise. Sure it restricted workers but it provided workers the ability to organize more effectively than ever before. Workers at the time saw things get better under the RLA than before it. The restrictions on striking was the price they paid, but striking was still an option and a potent weapon. If it wasnt, CESTA would not exist. S-1327 seeks to take away that right, regardless of who the President is.
The most favorable legislation that I feel helped workers to organize, and then improve thier earnings and conditions was the Wagner Act.
Strikes are not desireable, what is desireable is decent wages and working conditions. Chaos is the means to an end and not a means to itself. Chaos certainly helped to usher in favorable labor legislation. While it restricted labor, even more importantly it restricted the abuse of labor by capital. Over time those laws that had helped workers have been eroded to the point where a new round of Chaos may be required to restore favorable conditions.
The "fact is", prior to the Wagner Act workers were so desperate that they were often faced with dying to secure fairness in the workplace. Prior to the Wagner Act, despite decades of struggle, labor made very little progress at securing decent wages and conditions for workers. After the Wagner Act organized labor grew at a tremendous rate and with that growth came increased living standards. Unfortunately other laws were put in place that reveresed many of the benifits of the Wagner Act.

Disenfranchisement with the political arena is not limited to union members. Reportedly Union members vote at a higher rate than the general population.Forming an alliance with one particular party is not always a bad thing, as long as its clear that the alliance is conditional. Labors alliance with the Democrats was a good idea in the 1930s, in fact right up to the 70s it was still a good idea. However, by the 80s and certainly by the 90s the alliance was no longer paying off for Labor. The idea of settling for the lesser of two evils without a plan for seeking out a better option is unacceptable. Labor should pick and choose only acceptable candidates, regardless of their party and promote thier own candidates where no acceptable candidates exist. They should do this even if winning the election is futile.

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/20/2003 5:17:13 PM Bob Owens wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/20/2003 8:48:29 AM FA Mikey wrote:



The AFL-CIO unions seem so preoccupied by everything, but what is in front of them. They have too many interests in to many different areas.

You see companies today concentrating on the core business. They find that being spread to thin weakens there overall position. Big international unions think bigger is better. They want to have a collection of crafts and classes all across the spectrum. They want the largest membership and income. They believe they can be everything to every group.

The strength APFA and APA have is there sole purpose is to represent one group and the interests of that group.
----------------
[/blockquote]


This problem is especially evident in the organisational structure of airline ground workers. They are mixed and spread out between three big unions where none of those unions are primarily interested in this industry. The IAM, TWU, and IBT all seek a stake in the industry but none are totally committed to the industry. The logical step for those three unions, in the interest of the labor movement and thier airline workers, is to consolidate (like the industry has/is doing) and form one union with divisions for each class and craft. Unfortunately the short term bottom line comes ahead of ideology and none of these organisations are willing to give up its profitable airline sideline.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Bob are you ok it sounds as if you are promoting a craft and class union for mechanics?

 

[RV4]

My reading and understanding of the passage of the "Wagner Act" is that this law was in direct response to the great depression. Given your past opposition of Capitalism, I am surprised you do not find flaw with that.[BR][BR]So after over 100 years of debate and political expenditures, we have ONE law that lasted less than 15 years. What a "new deal" that was?[BR][BR]What are the current "Conditions" placed on the Labor alliance to the Democrats? I know, they will change and will not do it again.[BR][BR]Aren't we just abused whores that cannot seem to leave the flawed and abusive realationship?[BR][BR]Bob,[BR][BR]How much political money did Labor spend during your fantasy of 1930-1980' good alliance with the Democrats and what else did we gain for that expense?[BR][BR]I agree with you Bob, disenfranchisement is not unique to Labor. But it is also a given that without unity Labor is weak, thus this is patently unacceptable. It is also noteworthy that other political groups are not held hostage by employment to continue being disenfrachised. Nowhere in the political spectrum is the disenfranchisement more damaging, and justification of such atrocious behavior based on comparison to others is just more weak and worthless policy. Maybe the Enron and WorldCom Executives could use a likewise policy and claim others "cooked the books" to justify their actions and avoid prison time?[BR][BR]I disagree with your strategy of running candidates for office regardless of chance of victory. Labor should form their own party, dispense with the abusive Democrats. Given the closeness of recent elections combined with surveys that show 40% of union members vote Republican means that the formation of a new party would get the attention of both dominant parties and we would get some results real quick from such action. Not likely to happen given the head up rear policies and leadership of Sweeney.