Response To Jim Littles Letter

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
Questions you must ask yourself before you vote.
Do you trust the Company?
Do you trust the International?

Why you should not trust either.
Back in 1994 the company and the Union were both allowing the membership to believe that concessions were necessary in order to “saveâ€￾ the company. The company replaced the word “profitableâ€￾ with the word “competitiveâ€￾. American needed concessions in order to be “competitiveâ€￾. It was no longer acceptable to be profitable; they had to be the most profitable. They had to beat everybody else and be the biggest most profitable airline. So in order for AA to get the title, which did not help us pay our bills, we should be willing to “sacrifice for the companyâ€￾. After already going through 10 years of concessions the company knew that not too many workers were buying the idea of sacrificing for six years so American could be the biggest most profitable airline, so they added a couple of little false incentives. One thing they did was float out an offer for an early retirement package, that turned out to be an empty box, many of those who voted yes based upon the vague offer realized afterwards that the numbers were not what they were led to believe. Another ruse was that they also claimed that they were agreeing to a “Me Tooâ€￾ clause that tied our contract to the Pilots Contract. It turns out that the company was aware that the “Me Tooâ€￾ clause was moot at the time but they proceeded with the deception. Members were told across the system not to worry that the raises would not keep up with inflation because of the “Me Tooâ€￾ clause. The effort to deceive and defraud paid off as the vote passed by a margin of 77 votes. While the company was certainly aware of this deception its highly likely that the union was also. For cover, prior to the contract negotiations the union sent out a weighted survey that was designed to come to the conclusion that job protection took priority over wages. Using this, and agreeing to and participating in the deceptive early out and “Me Tooâ€￾ clauses the International made the argument that they were not responsible for the sorry ass 6 year 6% contract that financially devastated the membership. While the rest of the economy soared through the nineties, as average real wages increasing by 10% we saw our real wages go down, in total nearly 30% when compared to 1984.
While the motivation for why the company would do this is clear, to make more money for itself, trying to figure out why a union would do this is not as obvious. In order to figure out why we have to look at some of the facts behind our relationship with the International and more specifically the ATD.
1) The ATD does not work for us.
The ATD is made up of appointed officials. They are not accountable to us nor can they be removed by us. The ATD is answerable to Sonny Hall. Sonny never worked in this industry and is no doubt still influenced in his opinions about our conditions based on word of mouth comparisons that were made 25 years ago when he drove a bus. Back during deregulation the industry had the reputation of being a great paying place to work. Sonny is also director of the Transportation Trades Division. The fact that the TWU has been successful at expanding in large part through growth of the ATD has not been lost on the top leaders of the union. This type of performance makes it more likely that ATD members will move up through the ranks to higher position within the union. In other words if the membership of the ATD goes up ATD Directors are likely to be rewarded by the people they work for, namely Sonny Hall, not you or me. So even if our conditions deteriorate if the membership goes up, to those that the ATD is accountable to, they are doing a great job.
2) The loss of revenue through concessions can easily be offset by a growing membership.
If American expands because our lower wages allow it to beat out competitors the union sees more dues paying members. Raiding is illegal between AFL-CIO unions but undercutting each other is not. In the 80s the TWU helped AA undercut other competitors with lower labor costs, AA was able to drive other companies out of business. AA then expanded and hired many former members of other unions. In other words the TWU effectively raided the other unions by default. The TWU did not directly go after other union members, they helped AA undercut the other airlines and we got their members when they hired on at AA. As other unions like the IAM continue to shrink, the TWU continues to expand, but at what cost? The cost is us making less money. We have been the industry leaders in concessions for 20 years!

3) The interests of the International and the membership are not always the same.
Well I think the above example illustrates this point. There are going to be many times where the Interests of the International do not coincide with our interests. More members vs. better pay and benefits is one of them. Another one is taking action to defend workers rights. Recently we saw where the government gave itself the right to take away our ability to support our families in our chosen profession without the benefit of due process. Our leaders will challenge this using the same approach that they used to challenge random drug testing, with the same results no doubt. We may see the courts abrogate the UAL/workers contracts. Following Frank Lorenzo’s abuse of C-11 in the 80s workers started to question why they should honor contracts if the law provided companies such a convenient escape route. Legislators then enacted revisions to the law and workers were lead to believe that such abuses would not be repeated in the future. If the judge abrogates these agreements then we know that the so-called safeguards that were put in place are ineffective and were put there to pacify workers. That’s why if the judge does abrogate the agreements over there all union workers should walk out. They should do so because all contracts are now really worthless from a workers point of view. The International will not sponsor or condone any action that would leave the organization liable to attack from the courts. The international will not even use the word Strike. The International is more concerned about the viability of the organization than the members. Years ago and in countries where a viable “movementâ€￾ still exists these attacks would have been met with acts of civil disobedience such as strikes and protests. In the incorporated world of American unionism the cost of such measures are weighted against the cost to the treasury and the risk to its officers and not the effects upon the workers.

With these three things understood we could now look at any offer put in front of us and the union’s position on that offer in a different light. We know why the company is doing this. It gives the company a competitive advantage over other carriers. It will allow AA access to financing under better terms that may enable AA to drive the final nail in UALs coffin. Afterwards the company can reap massive rewards while we are once again locked into a concessionary agreement.
The union benefits because once UAL is out of the way AA will expand, hiring more workers thus more members and dues. The TTD officer’s salaries or other perks can even be raised using the larger membership as an excuse.

The question is are we going to once again lead the industry in concessions or are we going to stand up and say “NOâ€￾!!!
 
Response to Jim Littles letter of March 26, 2003;

In Jims letter he states the consequences of not giving into the company’s unsubstantiated demand for $310 million in concessions from M&E.
a) The Company will declare bankruptcy sooner rather than later.
B) Because of the substantial administrative costs of bankruptcy, the company will demand more relief in such proceedings than it is presently requesting.

Is it me, or do these two statements contradict each other? The first statement says that if we don’t give concessions “The Company will declare bankruptcy sooner rather than later†followed by “Because of the substantial administrative costs of bankruptcy, the company will demand more relief in such proceedings than it is presently requestingâ€. The first statement implies that bankruptcy is inevitable “sooner rather than laterâ€. The second statement says that the company will demand more in bankruptcy. If we are likely to go into bankruptcy anyway, why hold it off till later when they will come back for more? If we are going to go bankrupt then the sooner the better, right? That’s what all the “experts†say.

c) In bankruptcy, no work group and no individual employee will be exempted from the concessions demanded by the company or imposed by the court.
This might be true but in bankruptcy the company can get over on everybody. Not just labor. The Airbus leases that the company has been trying to get out of for two years-gone. The contracts with the construction companies that were struck in the boom times at peak prices-gone. The leased cars for the executives-gone. The fee for having “American Airlines†on sports arenas and movie theaters- gone. New Boeings that we don’t need –gone. All those things go first. A couple of years ago the flight attendants had a list of $7 Billion in frivolous expenditures. Lets dig up that list and end up $3billion in the black! Who knows then maybe they will not need anything from us, we can say sure lets open the contract, WE WANT RAISES!!
One thing about concessions from bankruptcy vs concessions prior to bankruptcy is that concessions in bankruptcy are not binding and we have the option of using self-help once our conditions of work or rates of pay are changed. USAIR is now attempting to emerge from bankruptcy; if the mechanics had not agreed to concessions on the revote (?) they could get back what the company took away. Now they are stuck with concessions till 2008.

“Anyone that believes otherwise only has to look at what has happened thus far at United and USAIRâ€

Well if we look at USAIR they agreed to concessions prior to bankruptcy and gave up more in bankruptcy, and now they are stuck with those concessions till 2008 no matter how well the company does. United had concessions in the form of a pay cut, not the broad range of concessions that the company was demanding that would be in place till 2008. The United mechanics can use self-help at any time and are not stuck with a bad deal till 2008. If UAL recovers they can recover all their money. The USAIR guys are stuck till 2008. Some employees fared very well at both airlines, the top executives at USAIR still got $6million in bonuses and both CEOs got theirs. Obviously the court did not treat everyone the same. Maybe if the unions had done a better job at representing their members they would have fared better.

d) The Company will be subject to potential liquidation by its creditors.

Funny, I though C-11 was protection from the creditors?
Okay, and what are they going to do with all that stuff? They lose more by liquidating in a depressed market than by leaving the airline running.

“Most carriers that file for Bankruptcy never emergeâ€

Like everyone has been telling us for the last two years “this time is differentâ€. When has the country ever faced the prospect where nearly half the capacity of our airline industry is operating under bankruptcy protection? Of those carriers that filed bankruptcy and never emerged, how many got concessions from their workers and liquidated anyway?

It is my understanding that good faith means that reasonable consideration is given by both sides to each others requests. From what I’ve been led to believe the company has made demands for concessions valued at $310 million. They claim that this figure in non-negotiable but they have failed to demonstrate that M&E puts the company at a competitive disadvantage equal to $310 million. Is M&E being expected to financially compensate for inefficiencies that lie outside of our department? Our wages are comparable to mechanics at SWA. However the compensation given to our executives is not comparable, ours get much more. Are we being told to give concessions to maintain this and other inequities?

There are too many unanswered questions; the few answers we have been given were mainly to questions we did not ask. We have been told of all the terrible things that can happen if we don’t come to an agreement, the union has done a good job at broadcasting the company’s propaganda. What we need to know is how is the union going to help us fight having this crammed down our throats? When are all the AFL-CIO unions, who are all, being driven into this race to the bottom going to sit together and formulate a plan of action? When are our leaders going to lead instead of just being a conduit to corporate propaganda and legal caution? There are many possible outcomes to this depending upon the collective action of union members, why do our leaders not lead and encourage us to passively give into the corporate/government alliances schemes? Could it be that those to whom we have entrusted our careers to have grown too comfortable with their six figure incomes? Could it be that the changes imposed upon us will not be imposed upon them? Could it be that they see the potential for growth more important than fighting to preserve what we worked for?
This is not leadership. This is a case of our representatives allowing themselves to be subordinated by the company. They have allowed the company to dictate terms and have set out to meet those terms without a fair challenge as to whether the terms are reasonable or not. The question is not whether or not the company at present needs the money or not, Éclat verified that they did, the question is whether or not our wages and terms are the reason why they need that money. Until these questions are answered satisfactorily I can only assume that the constant doomsday rhetoric being issued by the International is an effort on their part to convince me to submit to unfavorable terms without a fight. I can only assume that the International has self-serving motives and I do not feel that they are representing our interests. Therefore it goes without any further consideration that I shall reject any changes to our agreement due to the fact that I have not been given adequate information to justify why I should.
Bob Owens
Treasurer Local 562
 
----------------
On 3/28/2003 7:21:20 PM Bob Owens wrote:


----------------


Let me clear this up for you; It does not bother me that I accept payment from or hold a position in Local 562, obviuosly the majority of the members of 562 feel the same way.
OK

----------------​
That is clear! My apologies.
 
Bob,

While I agree with your letter and will stand with you in a fight for what is just, I cannot help but wonder how someone can cash the Officer Check and maintain the Oath of an Organization that you correctly point out the flaws and also know we cannot change from within.

Why not lead by example? Not with words, but actions? Why do we need the company union leaders or the AFL-CIO to take action?

It is my understanding that sick leave, vacation, and medical benefits of the mechanics MUST mirror the Fleet Service Agreement due to "Flow Thru" designation. We are screwed, and the union structure that you personally benefit from is responsible.

On one hand, I say to you, cash every last check you can from the Bastards until they are removed as our bargaining agent. At least someone will benefit. On the other, the credibility you and others are suffering from continued involvement is devastating. I am at a loss as to what the answer is beyond action that could be listed as illegal activity.​
 
----------------
On 3/28/2003 6:49:30 PM RV4 wrote:




Bob,

While I agree with your letter and will stand with you in a fight for what is just, I cannot help but wonder how someone can cash the Officer Check and maintain the Oath of an Organization that you correctly point out the flaws and also know we cannot change from within.

Why not lead by example? Not with words, but actions? Why do we need the company union leaders or the AFL-CIO to take action?

It is my understanding that sick leave, vacation, and medical benefits of the mechanics MUST mirror the Fleet Service Agreement due to "Flow Thru" designation. We are screwed, and the union structure that you personally benefit from is responsible.

On one hand, I say to you, cash every last check you can from the Bastards until they are removed as our bargaining agent. At least someone will benefit. On the other, the credibility you and others are suffering from continued involvement is devastating. I am at a loss as to what the answer is beyond action that could be listed as illegal activity.​

----------------​

It doesnt bother me or my members so why should it bother you? When they ask me to step down I will. If there is an election and AMFA wins I will continue to offer to serve. An Election however is in your court. The covenant I have with my fellow workers outweighs any oath to an institution.
 
Bob,

Tulsa is in desperate need of a leader for another card drive. We need someone with the political correctness required to attract liberals. We need someone who not only understands the line but is sypathetic to their issues. We need someone willing to battle the TWU, AA, and IGNORANCE. We need someone the line will not bash recklessly if they fail to succeed. We need someone who will forfeit 3 years of membership rights via kangaroo court. We need someone who is willing to lose friends in bitter debates. We need someone who will burn up most of their vacation balance (post concession) for a 3 year period. We need someone that does not use slide shows to get a point across.

We need someone, anyone.

Truth is Bob, I am both "bothered" and desperate!

Do you have any names that can help us? Please PM me if you do not want to post a name in public.
 
----------------
On 3/28/2003 7:07:31 PM Bob Owens wrote:

It doesnt bother me or my members so why should it bother you? When they ask me to step down I will. If there is an election and AMFA wins I will continue to offer to serve. An Election however is in your court. The covenant I have with my fellow workers outweighs any oath to an institution.


----------------​
It doesn't "bother" you? Yet, you write a scathing letter attacking the leadership and admit you are uniformed?

It appeared you were very "bothered" to me.

My mistake. Please accept my apologies.

How big of concession will this union structure deal you before you become "bothered"?

It appears the sheep in Tulsa are ready to fold and are not "bothered" either. Glad to see you and them have one small item in common, even if you and them are on different sides of the concession issue. I have already prepared for a $650.00 per month paycut. So, I guess I am not "bothered" either. Just as our Local 514 President pulled at least 3 roll call votes in these negotiations, Fleet Service will serve you a concession soon also.
 
As Jim Little leads us to the path of Personal Bankruptcy his doublespeak is becoming unbearable. As he is quoted in the papers advocating massive concessions for 6 years and lauded by the company for his co-operation the knot in my stomach continues to grow.
A short while ago Jim Little reponded to a question about a six-year deal with "not on my watch". Was is not "on his watch" that EAGLE got stuck with a twelve or fifteen year deal? Is he not trying to bring these same Eagle concepts into our agreement?
How did the TWU get to represent EAGLE without a vote? The EAGLE workers that I've spoken to told me that one day they were told that they now have a Union, they never were informed of an election. Could it be that the company figured that it was a good business decision to bring in a co-operative union that could handle most of the HR functions with the workers own money? Could it be that as a bonus AMR also got the six-year six percent agreement at AA that saved the company billions of dollars? The masterful technique of masking blame on the "Presidents council" and the members themselves is in full gear during these "negotiations" as well. As self seving Presidents take their lead from International officers who give direction on the side with promises of a place for them in the "International" where they will never have to run for election again along with $90 K or more,a laptop, cellphone, no time clock, a title and an office where you want, (doesnt matter you dont have to do nothing anyway) these Presidents gut a contract that they never plan on working under again anyway. Those Presidents that are there fighting for their members are simply overwhelmed and out voted. As Fleet service clerks from stations like BNA are able to exact revenge upon "those mechanics" the mechanics representatives are left without recourse in this arena. Jim Little wil not take a visable part in the process. Instead he has his plants, all eager for the coveted International spot, all thinking that THEY are the only one really considered for the spot as they sell out the people who sent them there,do his bidding. As these fools sell us out, trying to get us to settle for this six year sell out so the company can come back in BK next month and get $500 million more, Jim has covered his but nicely. When the company goes bankrupt, as Jim told us it will in his March 26th letter, and possibly gets another $500 million in concessions, Jim is covered, he said it would. When the company comes out of bankruptcy and within two years starts making record profits off our concessions we will still be stuck with this agreement. Jim will still be covered, after all HE did not negotiate this agreement, the Presidents Council did. "Dont blame me, I had nothing to do with it, the Presidents Council did it and you guys voted for it". Does this sound familiar? Its the same thing that Koziatek did. The same Kozitek that chose to be seated with top management at his retirement party instead of his fellow unionists. The same Koziatek that laughed and appluaded when Carty announced was giving the TWU 7000 former IAM members (TWA) as a retirement gift. Its sad to see a retirement party for a union leader that had more members of management than union members, but this should not be a suprise, after all these were his freinds, the members were not. I met with Koziatek before he decided to retire. He challenged me on my call for more militance and a more liberal use of the Strike threat. He told me that although the members of NY might be willing to strike, since they always rejected contracts any way, that nobody else would. I told him that if that was the case then it was his fault, their reluctance to strike for better wages was a result of his failure to lead. Koziatek rarely met with the membership, I think that the members will likely see little of Little in the future. As Jim absolves himself of guilt he conveniently will omit letters such as the one he issued on March 26. Letters that are contradictory-in order to clear him but clear enough in that it says that we must submit to the will of the company.

I have to wonder if all of top management will be at Little's retirement party. If this goes through Little will have done a better job at lowering AMRs labor costs than Koziatek and he will be able to retire early. Maybe they will give him a yacht like Crandall!!!
 
If this goes though I have no future in this industry. Should we give 6 years of massive concessions for a slight HOPE? We would be better off putting every penny we have in the lottery. Better to leave it to chance than in the hands of Don Carty and Jim Little.
 
----------------
On 3/28/2003 6:33:36 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Response to Jim Littles letter of March 26, 2003;

In Jims letter he states the consequences of not giving into the company’s unsubstantiated demand for $310 million in concessions from M&E.
a) The Company will declare bankruptcy sooner rather than later.
B) Because of the substantial administrative costs of bankruptcy, the company will demand more relief in such proceedings than it is presently requesting.

Is it me, or do these two statements contradict each other? The first statement says that if we don’t give concessions “The Company will declare bankruptcy sooner rather than later” followed by “Because of the substantial administrative costs of bankruptcy, the company will demand more relief in such proceedings than it is presently requesting”. The first statement implies that bankruptcy is inevitable “sooner rather than later”. The second statement says that the company will demand more in bankruptcy. If we are likely to go into bankruptcy anyway, why hold it off till later when they will come back for more? If we are going to go bankrupt then the sooner the better, right? That’s what all the “experts” say.

Bob,
I think what he is saying is this:
If the labor unions do not agree to the wage cuts now and have some hope of staying out of BK. Once Bk happens, fees from lawers will be added to wage concessions.
Ual has a 2.8 billion bill from BK lawers to pay on top of their normal loses.

Maybe AA can''t stay out of BK, but without the concessions they surly won''t.
I guess the ball is in your court, and you all have the power to create, or ruin your future.