Team TWU LeadernNow Management

[aapitbull]

Word is that former team Twu leader K. Hammock is now a member of AA management can anyone in Tulsa confirm this?

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Word is that former team Twu leader K. Hammock is now a member of AA management can anyone in Tulsa confirm this?

Why would that not surprise me that another dedicated and devoted TWU officer defects in their best interests!

 

[limit]

A fine specimen.
FAA Liaison I believe.
Kind of old news around here.

 

[eolesen]

There are always going to be folks who aspire to do more than turn a wrench, throw bags, hand out boarding passes or serve drinks for their entire career. And there will always be folks who are satisfied to do the same job for 20 or 30 years.

The union guys who want to do more are going to head off in one of three directions -- purser/crew chief/check airman; union leadership; or management.

Some get bored by being in a sub-MPR position like purser or crew chief, and then go after a union leadership position.

When that gets to be too boring (or you find out it's either a futile attempt to try and change the union from within, and/or you realize you no longer have any faith in the union leaders), the only option left is management.

I've known several supervisors and managers who at one point were shop stewards, info reps, and even a local president or two. Most of them followed the path above. It doesn't make them bad people. It just means they wanted to do more with their career.

 

[Mrs. McFly]

One would think that it might not be such a bad thing to have one of your own migrate into management territory. It certainly will lend itself to a healthier balance of viewpoints, and could lead to a better (and perhaps more sympathetic) relationship between labor and management. Rather than throwing a guy under the bus because he chooses to make a career move, how about looking at this as a positive. Maybe someone seized the opportunity to find ways to make changes that would benefit his brothers from the inside.

 

[The Goose]

Why would that not surprise me that another dedicated and devoted TWU officer defects in their best interests!

That was quite some time ago, Chuck. Evidently, he couldn't stand the thought of returning to work with the people he hosed while in office or simply working at all.

I'd not have any problem with this route except it's more of the company stocking up on useless people than trying to find quality individuals (that would, no doubt, have more pride in themselves that to take a job as a highly-paid whipping boy anyway).

Regardless of background, AA seeks out those who are willing and able to say "yes" at a moment's call, regardless of any issues involved including legalities.

These people must believe in the meeting as an acceptable alternative to any productive activities.

Many "supervisory" personnel are required because every manager needs numerous underlings to blame for their own incompetence should things go south and it would be beneath the dignity of those "in charge" to have a conversation with an individual possessing a "lunchbox mentality" - besides, those people need to work to support the management, their family members employed in salaried positions, and other follies - not talk to "management".

 

[The Goose]

... snip
I've known several supervisors and managers who at one point were shop stewards, info reps, and even a local president or two. Most of them followed the path above. It doesn't make them bad people. It just means they wanted to do more with their career.

Most of us here have seen the day to day stupidity, CS, and other nonsense that happens on a daily basis at American simply because of "It doesn't make them bad people" types being put into salaried position they never should have given. Most of American's present problems could easily be traced to management, top to bottom. To dive into one of these positions knowing full well the only qualifying attribute being the ability to say yes says volumes about these people and what they're actually qualified to do.

Over the years, these hiring patterns have set up a downward spiral in the quality of management personnel, not just at American but USA business in general.

You say that you haven't a problem with anyone climbing the ladder in this manner; that is, taking a promotion knowing full well the only function being a higher-paid fool's toadie.

Do you realize what finding this behavior acceptable says about you?

Speaking for myself, aspirations have nothing to do with it - it's a matter of personal pride.

 

[eolesen]

Bitter, party of many, your table is ready...

Most of American's present problems could easily be traced to management, top to bottom. To dive into one of these positions knowing full well the only qualifying attribute being the ability to say yes says volumes about these people and what they're actually qualified to do.

Hmmm. Then I guess it's also true that American's successes can be traced to management, bottom to top.

You obviously are convinced that nobody in management can think or act on their own conscience.

If I said what I really thought about ignorance like that, I'd be shucking corn for a few days...

 

[Boomer]

Nothing really surprises anyone that has watched this stuff for very long. Below are a few ideas that have never been tried but could address the problem. I hope that the new Leadership of 565 would lead the drive as a way of beginning the changes required.

"No Compete" clauses are common in many commercial Agency employment contracts and there is no reason that the goal of transparency with respect to representation shouldn't be furthered by such provisions inserted into Local By-Laws and/or the TWU Constitution. Locally for M&R has the best bet of beginning the change, but, like refusing to fund negotiations has to actually be proposed before it can get rooted.

There are really five scenarios:

1) Someone wants to move from a directly elected position locally to an International position.

2) Someone wants to move from a directly elected position locally to AA Management position.

3) Someone wants to move from an appointed position within the TWU International to an AA Management Position.

In each of the above cases, require two years separation beginning with a voluntary resignation or five years following an election defeat, unless:
a) the Local Membership in 1 & 2 authorize a waiver by three fifths vote, or,
B) the Contract Membership in 3 authorize a waiver by three fifths vote.

4) Someone wants to move from an AA Management Position to a directly elected Local Position.

5) Someone wants to move from an AA Management Position to an appointed position within the TWU International.

In each of the above cases, require two years separation beginning with involuntary termination or five years beginning with voluntary separation, unless:
a) the Local Membership in 4 authorize a waiver by three fifths vote, or,
B) the Contract Membership in 5 authorize a waiver by three fifths vote.

The show should be good, if it ever starts.

 

[eolesen]

Yes, it would be interesting.

Non-compete clauses give the appearance of protection. They're typically not enforceable if the party subject to the clause can claim that enforcement would prevent them from earning a living.

But what would it accomplish, aside from having potential promotions into management be subject to a union vote. Giving the union final say on a hiring decision is also a conflict of interest. You'd probably wind up encouraging reverse discrimination, i.e. if there's such a potential hassle, why bother to recruit from within when you can just hire guys from outside the company (with no experience?) and not give the union veto power?

Who really wins from that?...

Seriously, in the history of the TWU, how many times have you had a guy fall into any of those scenarios, and was the outcome really so bad, especially if they're not in a capacity where they're supervising former peers?

One of the guys I used to work with as a programmer was a former shop steward. He was also a programmer, having transferred into that job directly from fleet service. Exactly what conflict of interest did he present?

 

[Bob Owens]

There are always going to be folks who aspire to do more than turn a wrench, throw bags, hand out boarding passes or serve drinks for their entire career. And there will always be folks who are satisfied to do the same job for 20 or 30 years.

The union guys who want to do more are going to head off in one of three directions -- purser/crew chief/check airman; union leadership; or management.

Some get bored by being in a sub-MPR position like purser or crew chief, and then go after a union leadership position.

When that gets to be too boring (or you find out it's either a futile attempt to try and change the union from within, and/or you realize you no longer have any faith in the union leaders), the only option left is management.

I've known several supervisors and managers who at one point were shop stewards, info reps, and even a local president or two. Most of them followed the path above. It doesn't make them bad people. It just means they wanted to do more with their career.

Bennidict Arnold just wanted to better himself too. I guess that didnt make him a "bad" person, it just made him a traitor.
When someone goes from the union directly into management you have to suspect what their motives were while in office. If going back to work at the rates and conditions they told everyone was acceptable, is unacceptable for them, the members are justified in being suspicious.

 

[The Goose]

Bitter, party of many, your table is ready...



Hmmm. Then I guess it's also true that American's successes can be traced to management, bottom to top.

You obviously are convinced that nobody in management can think or act on their own conscience.

If I said what I really thought about ignorance like that, I'd be shucking corn for a few days...

If American's (mis)management actually engineered any success in the years since Crandall left, it was purely accidental and in spite of their everlasting stupidity. The latest PR nightmare with the military baggage should be a clue. Why are these dolts paid millions per year to do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot?

I speak of what I see, not from salary jealousy or "bitterness", as you imply. I must admit though, I got a helluva laugh from that little cliche. We all make at least $100k less a year than what we're worth - you don't believe it? Ask any one of us - include yourself also.

Another niggle I have - one of your posts referred to taking a company/management job as a promotion. Is it, now?

If there an ounce of honor or promotion in turning your back on those one has worked worked with for years simply for a few extra dollars, the individual that does so is no better than Judas.

Some of us take a great deal of pride in whatever our particular our trade may be. Some see any position only as a stepping stone.

Some of us have found that happiness has nothing to do with the AGI line on a 1040 - others don't possess the capacity to learn that.

 

[The Goose]

Bennidict Arnold just wanted to better himself too. I guess that didnt make him a "bad" person, it just made him a traitor.
When someone goes from the union directly into management you have to suspect what their motives were while in office. If going back to work at the rates and conditions they told everyone was acceptable, is unacceptable for them, the members are justified in being suspicious.

Benedict Arnold was a good example, Bob.

 

[limit]

Eric.
In theory I agree with you.
In this particular case you have to know this individual.
If you ever meet him you will see that everything people are saying about him is true.
This is nothing more than a thank you from AA to a guy that did just as he was told by them , while in office,
There is a reason he was not reelected.He sold the guys out while in office and when he was on base he behaved with extreme arrogance and walked and talked as if he was a despot over the guys and their livelihoods.

 

[AAmilesman]

Let us not forget that prior to the name Benedict Arnold becoming synonymous with treason he provided invaluable service as a highly respected general. Service that had we done without we very well may not be having these discussions