Team TWU LeadernNow Management

[Boomer]

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.

Before anyone can run for office, they had to be on the floor: to claim they cannot earn a living only proves they cannot live under the terms they negotiated for us. If they negotiated such a good deal for us: let them live with it, like us. They can earn the living they negotiated, under the conditions they negotiated and among those "for whom they negotiated."

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?...

The only veto is from the floor for a management prospect that is also an elected/appointed TWU rep, not someone on the floor that decides they want to be in management. Those that wish to use the fiduciary position to which they were elected/appointed as a means of bettering themselves: there is your conflict of interest!

If someone wants to go into management; have at it, but do not use your TWU position to get in good with management- earn it by being the best mechanic that can also manage others.

This is about transparency and the fact that everyone wins when everyone knows the rules and is forced into open play.

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?

The problem lies in the total failure of accountability from the TWU and the collusion between AA and the TWU to suppress the membership.

The simple fact that individuals elected/appointed from the ranks into the Union would take direct appointment to the opposition brings the appearance of impropriety.

Coupled with the historic poor performance by the TWU for the M&R only begs the question as to whose interests are being represented with the dues we are forced to pay.

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?

From the above, that would technically make you un-represented airline employees: not management. There is no conflict of interest, the same as if someone left the ramp and became a ticket agent.

 

[eolesen]

From the above, that would technically make you un-represented airline employees: not management. There is no conflict of interest, the same as if someone left the ramp and became a ticket agent.

Nope. Programmers are considered management. So are engineers, lawyers, bankers, sales reps, and the guy who maintains the plans book on the M&E website. If working as a FAA liason isn't going to have any direct input into hire/fire or disciplinary actions, it would present far less of a conflict than it was for Mark Nelson to take a job in Employee Relations after he was voted out of office. Even with Mark, I don't know that you're in a situation where this guy is using the local to advance his career. I see it as AA having some front line common sense injected into discussions where the front line would otherwise have no voice whatsoever and get screwed by what you seem is a pattern of dumb decisions. You want -more- people with front line moving into management, not MBA's and people off the street. Putting up artificial barriers to that will only continue the losing streak you think management has.

Now if you want to limit the scope of your proposal to just those in direct contact supervisory roles, I'd be more inclined to agree.

 

[Boomer]

Nope. Programmers are considered management. So are engineers, lawyers, bankers, sales reps, and the guy who maintains the plans book on the M&E website. If working as a FAA liason isn't going to have any direct input into hire/fire or disciplinary actions, it would present far less of a conflict than it was for Mark Nelson to take a job in Employee Relations after he was voted out of office. Even with Mark, I don't know that you're in a situation where this guy is using the local to advance his career. I see it as AA having some front line common sense injected into discussions where the front line would otherwise have no voice whatsoever and get screwed by what you seem is a pattern of dumb decisions. You want -more- people with front line moving into management, not MBA's and people off the street. Putting up artificial barriers to that will only continue the losing streak you think management has.

Now if you want to limit the scope of your proposal to just those in direct contact supervisory roles, I'd be more inclined to agree.

Within M&E, the lines are more blurred than I had earlier stated as explained below:
1) programmers can deny faults in the on-line M&E Manuals during ASAP investigations or MEAA inquiries; and,
2) engineers can state that they were misled with regard to SMMRs' or other million dollar fineable actions; and,
3) lawyers can do the obvious; and,
4) bankers can do what they have already done- how about 1.45 Trillion in damage from bad securities; and,
5) sales reps can continue to do what they do-greAAt job with our war-fighters and excess luggage; and,
6) plAAns? what plans?- other than threatening M&R with the Vermont PlAAn unless the RPA was signed off on; only to implement the Vermont PlAAn anyway, just ask theguys in MCIE.

I think you get my drift.

My proposal would extend to any position that directly or indirectly influences the CBA between the CompAAny and the TWU with respect to wages, hours of work and/or working conditions as defined under the Railway Labor Act.

Further, if the future incumbents of Local 565 are reading this exchange: I would directly state that such language be included as part of the "No Compete Clause."

For those at the TWU International Level; take heart, it would also include individuals currently or in the future that would occupy elected/appointed positions who support your ouster, unless the membership trusts them more than you.

 

[The Goose]

...
If someone wants to go into management; have at it, but do not use your TWU position to get in good with management - earn it by being the best mechanic that can also manage others.
...

Mr. Boomer, I made a comment some time ago re: this. The last thing the company wants in their ranks is an individual who is a master of their particular position.

Andrew Carnegie once commented that he got to his position in life by hiring individuals who were smarter than he was.

Things have changed considerably. Now, there is fear of being replaced. Naturally, an individual with less on the ball is a perfect candidate as there is no perceived threat to a "superior's" position. After a few generations of this, a downward spiral in the quality of management personnel has been set in motion.

Anyone that doesn't believe this should take an honest look at American Airlines and American business in general. Regardless of the inevitable ridicule the resident company apologists will spout, what I've described is not difficult to see.

 

[eolesen]

Things have changed considerably. Now, there is fear of being replaced. Naturally, an individual with less on the ball is a perfect candidate as there is no perceived threat to a "superior's" position. After a few generations of this, a downward spiral in the quality of management personnel has been set in motion.

Fear of being replaced?.... Most managers want nothing more than to be able to hire their replacement and move on to something else.

Back in the Bob Baker days, the mentality in most of Operations was for managers to move onto another job after three years. That only works if you have a department which looks good and can run by itself. Since the airline started shrinking, there have been fewer jobs to move around to, but the fact is that when you have a department that runs on auto-pilot, being a manager can be a really simple job. If you keep hiring people who don't know more than the manager, the manager winds up doing work that his direct reports should be doing.

If anything has diminished the quality of managers nationwide, it is the fear of being questioned by the diversity police over who gets selected out of a candidate pool for a job. Picking the smartest and most qualified doesn't always happen when they're hovering about. When I was at AMR, the higher-ups were always looking at gender and ethnicity when it came to who was and wasn't interviewed.

Want more proof of that? Look no further than the newspapers. If Obama looked more like his momma, and Hillary were biologically a man, it's doubtful neither one of them would have ever had a serious chance at the Presidency. Certainly, there are smarter and far more experienced people within the Democratic party.

 

[The Goose]

....
Anyone that doesn't believe this should take an honest look at American Airlines and American business in general. Regardless of the inevitable ridicule the resident company apologists will spout, what I've described is not difficult to see.....

You cut out the last part of the post -

 

[The Goose]

Fear of being replaced?.... Most managers want nothing more than to be able to hire their replacement and move on to something else.

Back in the Bob Baker days, the mentality in most of Operations was for managers to move onto another job after three years. That only works if you have a department which looks good and can run by itself. Since the airline started shrinking, there have been fewer jobs to move around to, but the fact is that when you have a department that runs on auto-pilot, being a manager can be a really simple job. If you keep hiring people who don't know more than the manager, the manager winds up doing work that his direct reports should be doing.

If anything has diminished the quality of managers, it is the fear of being questioned by the diversity police over who you selected as a candidate. Picking the smartest and most qualified doesn't always happen when they're hovering about.

Yes - in the outlined situation, being a manager can be a very simple job.

Now - tell me again why this person is collecting a salary for doing nothing. What value does this person have to the operation? Does his boss simply not care to speak with the "hired help"?

The relationship is parasitic on those who actually do something. That's why, in other conversations, I've advocated thinning the so-called management group by not less than 80%.

 

[eolesen]

Goose, you say it's not difficult to see. I say you have little experience with regard to how management functions if it's outside a 1000' circle of your regular work-area....

Being a manager isn't doing the work the underlings do. It's making sure the work occurs, and making sure you've got the right set of people doing the work. I spend more time mentoring and coaching on a daily basis than I do doling out and monitoring the work. Sure, I could be eliminated, but at some point, the department won't function the same because nobody is watching how individuals interact with their peers, and nobody is spending the time to get those off tangent back on track.

I'm sure you could also fire all of the coaches & managers in professional sports. Certainly, if an athelete is good enough to earn millions of dollars, they don't need someone else to watch their performance and tell them how to improve.

 

[The Goose]

Goose, you say it's not difficult to see. I say you have little experience with regard to how management functions if it's outside a 1000' circle of your regular work-area....

Being a manager isn't doing the work the underlings do. It's making sure the work occurs, and making sure you've got the right set of people doing the work. I spend more time mentoring and coaching on a daily basis than I do doling out and monitoring the work. Sure, I could be eliminated, but at some point, the department won't function the same because nobody is watching how individuals interact with their peers, and nobody is spending the time to get those off tangent back on track.

I'm sure you could also fire all of the coaches & managers in professional sports. Certainly, if an athelete is good enough to earn millions of dollars, they don't need someone else to watch their performance and tell them how to improve.

I see you haven't learned to take your own advice re: doling out insults.

Quality people needn't be supervised, only assigned to a job. They know what to do. There's no issue as to whether the work gets done or not.

Layers of management protect those who shouldn't be protected, much like a union protects the jobs of some who shouldn't be cleaning the crappers.

Now - how does an entity acquire and retain people like that? AMR is a perfect example of what NOT to do.

 

[Bob Owens]

Things have changed considerably. Now, there is fear of being replaced. Naturally, an individual with less on the ball is a perfect candidate as there is no perceived threat to a "superior's" position. After a few generations of this, a downward spiral in the quality of management personnel has been set in motion.

Thats the same process that resulted in us hving Jim Little put in charge to the TWU.

 

[Bob Owens]

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?

I've seen it happen many times. Les Frank-used to sell out the guys and went directly into management at LGA, he is now at NWA. Mike Smith was also a shop steward and LGA, also went directly into management after selling out the guys and siding with management. There are scores more just from New York, go around the system and you will find many more. I would say that a sizable number of ex-TWU officials-those who werent chosen to go to the International went into management. The higher you go the more treacherous they were. The trend is unmistakable, very few Presidents quit and go into management, they often get voted out then go directly into management or the International. The fact that they got voted out should be an indication of their performance and the fact that they get promoted by the company or its union should also be revealing. The message is clear-sell out your members and you will be rewarded, fight for your members and you will be punished.

It will be interesting to see where Gordon Clark ends up. He sold out his members by getting them to vote in the concessions, MCI was critical and provided the necissary margin for acceptance (Nearly 1500 yes votes and the vote passed by 700) but he may have blown his chances with his statements about how former TWA workers were targeted by the company and the union. If he takes them to court then it would appear that his statements are genuinely felt, if he just bitches and lets it all just happen then its just a show and chances are you will see his name on either the TWU International payroll or AA management.