Today, a Rival Union petitioned to oust IAM at United

[delldude]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 10:38:58 AM ualflynhi wrote:

We(the mechs) started and carried out card drives
and now AMFA has filed with the NMB on our behalf.
Lovely how democracy works.People who dont like their
union or government should vote those weasels out,and
vote in a representative they want working for them.
----------------
[/blockquote]
just pray your little democracy doesn't delay and stall UAL'S much needed BK relief and put you into a nonrecoverable flat spin.

 

[diogenes]

Plenty of finger-pointing to go around on this one.

1. Obviously, if the IAM were more responsive to the membership, and created an environment of open, honest debate, there would never be a successful drive to replace them.

2. I'd be careful about anointing AMFA the saviour. They generally pop out of the woodwork when the target union is going thru a rough patch, a la the IAM at UA. Didn't here a whole bunch about AMFA when UA and the IAM were riding high in the 90's. Moreover, I'd be extrememly concerned when the stated position of AMFA is everyone would be better off if UA went under. Sounds like AMFA's throwing a drowning UA an anchor.Lastly, I don't see AMFA, or anyone else being able to do any better in this climate. Look how mighty ALPA is getting b***h-slapped at US.

3. Lastly, even if AMFA is the cat's pajamas, the timing sucks...........if you want UA to survive.

 

[cat 111]

Hopefully, the mechanics at usair will wake up and boot out the IAM.Lav man you can keep your iam.We are tired of you riding on our coat tails !!!! That second vote(confused vote) the IAM took was a real piece of work by the IAM.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 8:27:58 AM oldiebutgoody wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 7:59:16 AM ualflynhi wrote:

Well we arent going to wait,and by the way UAL is in BK
so UAL from what I've heard is just going thru the motions negotiating they are going to get what they want
anyway.
----------------
[/blockquote]
The ONLY folks that win when the employees fight among themselves IS MANAGEMENT! In this case, switching horses in mid stream (even if it IS yellow water...) just makes it MORE difficult to unite the employees to accomplish the goal. It really proves to me that the AMFA is not at all concerned about the employees of UAL, but that they are opportunistic. They saw a weakness and jumped at it.
----------------
[/blockquote]

UAL mangement will get what they want no matter what union is in there. BK is the perfect strategy to "hammer" all the labor groups into submission and giving up years and years of valued language in our agreements that protect our folks while working. UAL will be in BK for at least 18 months, according to their projections...and the mangement feels the longer the better for them to get what ever they dream of from labor.

Unless, one group makes the ultimate sacrifice, and says to mangement "enough is enough"; we're done, the concession cancer will spread throughout labor across the nation. Some folks on these boards feel that saying NO to severe concessions that may bankrupt their members, is insane. So be it. Nothing ventured; nothing gained.

Haven't seen any courage from any group to stand up to management. Presently, we have problems with our Medical PPO placing "caps" on coverage for certain diagnosis here at U, and I know damn well the labor coalition did not sign on to that. WE only signed onto to increasing our contributions to assist our company escalating costs in medical and dental premiums. I've challenged this and I will see how this goes.

I can understand how many folks would sign cards to rid themeselves of certain poor representation from their unions.

 

[LavMan]

Scamfa has tried at least twice in the past to raid UAL and have been unsucessful. They even tried to get the NMB to exclude utility from voting in the 1994 raid.

 

[Tim Nelson]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 1204 PM diogenes wrote:

Plenty of finger-pointing to go around on this one.

1. Obviously, if the IAM were more responsive to the membership, and created an environment of open, honest debate, there would never be a successful drive to replace them.

2. I'd be careful about anointing AMFA the saviour. They generally pop out of the woodwork when the target union is going thru a rough patch, a la the IAM at UA. Didn't here a whole bunch about AMFA when UA and the IAM were riding high in the 90's. Moreover, I'd be extrememly concerned when the stated position of AMFA is everyone would be better off if UA went under. Sounds like AMFA's throwing a drowning UA an anchor.Lastly, I don't see AMFA, or anyone else being able to do any better in this climate. Look how mighty ALPA is getting b***h-slapped at US.

3. Lastly, even if AMFA is the cat's pajamas, the timing sucks...........if you want UA to survive.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Diogenes,
I think your judgement on ALPA might be premature. At any rate, a few points on your comments.

1. A few months ago, we were led to believe that the judge had horns that go all the way to the ceiling. The end result was misinformation and fear.

On the other hand, we see how ALPA went to the judge, and the judge ruled in ALPA's favor in its main objection to the US AIRWAYS position. So now, ALPA forced an arbitrator to decide the pension issue.
For that I must applaud the ALPA members for taking the case to the judge instead of coiling up in the fetus position.

At any rate, it is premature to make a final judgement on ALPA and how they will make out with all this. We know that going in, US AIRWAYS wanted to fund only $850 million in a new pension over 7 years.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the fruit of negotiaitons boost the funding up to over $1 billion dollars. There is plenty of wiggle room for US AIRWAYS on the back end of the 7 year period. After all, they project hundreds of millions in net profit after the next 18 months.

2. The timing sucks if you want United to survive???
Exactly how will a union petition tank United?

 

[delldude]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 12:12:25 PM cat 111 wrote:

Hopefully, the mechanics at usair will wake up and boot out the IAM.Lav man you can keep your iam.We are tired of you riding on our coat tails !!!! That second vote(confused vote) the IAM took was a real piece of work by the IAM.
----------------
[/blockquote]
only thing needs booted is the poop for brains rank and file who never can do anything to fix their union except whine.

 

[ualflynhi]

just pray your little democracy doesn't delay and stall UAL'S much needed BK relief and put you into a nonrecoverable flat spin.


Well could you please tell us how changing unions would
screw anything up? Maybe I didnt think of all the ramifications.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 8:48:52 PM ualflynhi wrote:

just pray your little democracy doesn't delay and stall UAL'S much needed BK relief and put you into a nonrecoverable flat spin.


Well could you please tell us how changing unions would
screw anything up? Maybe I didnt think of all the ramifications.


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

I am not speaking for Diogenes, but I perceive his sentiments regarding poor timing in changing unions is that the memebers of UAL don't need to be thrusted into yet another issue/battle. Their Representatives main focus is to be negotiating with management in an attempt to work out an equitable deal. When you have your leaders having to be occupied with politics and staying in office, keeping a union intact, how much of their energy is going to where it needs to be, and that is protecting its members so that management does not try and attempt to take advantage of the situation, and take MORE than it needs from one group. Mangement teams are hired to strategize and figure out unions most vulnerable points. Many times they create the "havoc" in order to "unfocus" their opponents at the table. If they sense members are unhappy with their union leaders, management will make those union leaders look even worse so that the members have no other alternative but to trust what management claims. Trust me; its the "Art of War" (Sun Tzu) and Labor Relations management team's main expertise is to create "division" from within.


IMO,of ALL the unions at U, my perception of a "strong union" was definitely IAM; and I am NOT a member of IAM.

Even round 1 negotiations, their members where strong and together, in light of the threat of Liquidation and we were already in BK when they voted. I don't know many unions that could stand to hear the constant "mantra" of "if you don't buy this 1113 letter we will ask the judge to abrogate". That is just what UAL is presently hammering into their leaders.

 

[ualflynhi]

what about northwest they werent in "dire straights"
when they voted in amfa.the mechanics just wanted a different union.thats b.s

 

[Tim Nelson]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 9:00:45 AM PITbull wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 8:48:52 PM ualflynhi wrote:

just pray your little democracy doesn't delay and stall UAL'S much needed BK relief and put you into a nonrecoverable flat spin.


Well could you please tell us how changing unions would
screw anything up? Maybe I didnt think of all the ramifications.


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

I am not speaking for Diogenes, but I perceive his sentiments regarding poor timing in changing unions is that the memebers of UAL don't need to be thrusted into yet another issue/battle. Their Representatives main focus is to be negotiating with management in an attempt to work out an equitable deal. When you have your leaders having to be occupied with politics and staying in office, keeping a union intact, how much of their energy is going to where it needs to be, and that is protecting its members so that management does not try and attempt to take advantage of the situation, and take MORE than it needs from one group. Mangement teams are hired to strategize and figure out unions most vulnerable points. Many times they create the "havoc" in order to "unfocus" their opponents at the table. If they sense members are unhappy with their union leaders, management will make those union leaders look even worse so that the members have no other alternative but to trust what management claims. Trust me; its the "Art of War" (Sun Tzu) and Labor Relations management team's main expertise is to create "division" from within.


IMO,of ALL the unions at U, my perception of a "strong union" was definitely IAM; and I am NOT a member of IAM.

Even round 1 negotiations, their members where strong and together, in light of the threat of Liquidation and we were already in BK when they voted. I don't know many unions that could stand to hear the constant "mantra" of "if you don't buy this 1113 letter we will ask the judge to abrogate". That is just what UAL is presently hammering into their leaders.

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


Pitbull,

I can certainly understand your reasoning regarding the AMFA petition at UA and how it will affect the members, but there is much assumption in it regarding 'relationships'.

For instance, although, as you say, "Their representatives main focus is working out an equitable deal [for the members]."

It simply might not be the case, and it now appears a majority of members will make that decision.

And I think the majority of Mechanics at UA can decide what is in their best interest, whether it be AMFA or the IAM.

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 3/9/2003 9:59:54 AM Tim Nelson wrote:

----------------
On 3/9/2003 9:00:45 AM PITbull wrote:


----------------
On 3/8/2003 8:48:52 PM ualflynhi wrote:

just pray your little democracy doesn't delay and stall UAL'S much needed BK relief and put you into a nonrecoverable flat spin.


Well could you please tell us how changing unions would
screw anything up? Maybe I didnt think of all the ramifications.


----------------
[/blockquote



I am not speaking for Diogenes, but I perceive his sentiments regarding poor timing in changing unions is that the memebers of UAL don't need to be thrusted into yet another issue/battle. Their Representatives main focus is to be negotiating with management in an attempt to work out an equitable deal. When you have your leaders having to be occupied with politics and staying in office, keeping a union intact, how much of their energy is going to where it needs to be, and that is protecting its members so that management does not try and attempt to take advantage of the situation, and take MORE than it needs from one group. Mangement teams are hired to strategize and figure out unions most vulnerable points. Many times they create the "havoc" in order to "unfocus" their opponents at the table. If they sense members are unhappy with their union leaders, management will make those union leaders look even worse so that the members have no other alternative but to trust what management claims. Trust me; its the "Art of War" (Sun Tzu) and Labor Relations management team's main expertise is to create "division" from within.



IMO,of ALL the unions at U, my perception of a "strong union" was definitely IAM; and I am NOT a member of IAM.


Even round 1 negotiations, their members where strong and together, in light of the threat of Liquidation and we were already in BK when they voted. I don't know many unions that could stand to hear the constant "mantra" of "if you don't buy this 1113 letter we will ask the judge to abrogate". That is just what UAL is presently hammering into their leaders.

----------------
[/indent]



Pitbull,

I can certainly understand your reasoning regarding the AMFA petition at UA and how it will affect the members, but there is much assumption in it regarding 'relationships'.

For instance, although, as you say, "Their representatives main focus is working out an equitable deal [for the members]."

It simply might not be the case, and it now appears a majority of members will make that decision.

And I think the majority of Mechanics at UA can decide what is in their best interest, whether it be AMFA or the IAM.
----------------
[/indent]



Tim,

I believe you are very correct in your assertion that the UA mechanics can decide what is in their best interest. Make no mistake, I was not trying to imply that the members are not focused. Infact, I believe the members are MORE focused on such issues than their leaders on many occasions such as these. My point was to share the understanding that Dio presented above, and those who were perplexed on why the sentiment out there is that it appears that "changing unions and representatives" is such poor timing. I was just agreeing with how someone could come to that conclusion.


I spoke with many members of IAM who were very vigilant and strong in their opinions on U's concessions and their vote. I have the outmost respect for that Union.


I am of the hope and pray that the UAL employees collectively recognize that these airlines are being very opportunistic in implementing a "business plan" that is only addressing Labor costs and nothing else as their method of restructuring. Inspite of the reported revenue numbers and projections, I can't help but think part of using those numbers is more purposely portrayed as the "sledge hammer" to break the legs of the union, (metaphorically speaking). And I believe that the members are becoming more aware and quicker than their Leadership. As in the case of AFA, the leadership was very divided on how deep these concessions should be with our particular group. And certain leaders DID speak out with much fervor against these types of nonnegotiable concessions.​

 

[Tim Nelson]

PITbull,

Actually the timing of the UA petition might be more to do with the industry trend as opposed to Bankruptcy.
Or if Lavman is correct, then maybe some AMFA cards were set to expire soon [12 month limit] which would explain the petition.

 

[usfliboi]

why is this on us board?

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 829 PM Tim Nelson wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/8/2003 1204 PM diogenes wrote:

Plenty of finger-pointing to go around on this one.

1. Obviously, if the IAM were more responsive to the membership, and created an environment of open, honest debate, there would never be a successful drive to replace them.

2. I'd be careful about anointing AMFA the saviour. They generally pop out of the woodwork when the target union is going thru a rough patch, a la the IAM at UA. Didn't here a whole bunch about AMFA when UA and the IAM were riding high in the 90's. Moreover, I'd be extrememly concerned when the stated position of AMFA is everyone would be better off if UA went under. Sounds like AMFA's throwing a drowning UA an anchor.Lastly, I don't see AMFA, or anyone else being able to do any better in this climate. Look how mighty ALPA is getting b***h-slapped at US.

3. Lastly, even if AMFA is the cat's pajamas, the timing sucks...........if you want UA to survive.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Diogenes,
I think your judgement on ALPA might be premature. At any rate, a few points on your comments.

1. A few months ago, we were led to believe that the judge had horns that go all the way to the ceiling. The end result was misinformation and fear.

On the other hand, we see how ALPA went to the judge, and the judge ruled in ALPA's favor in its main objection to the US AIRWAYS position. So now, ALPA forced an arbitrator to decide the pension issue.
For that I must applaud the ALPA members for taking the case to the judge instead of coiling up in the fetus position.

At any rate, it is premature to make a final judgement on ALPA and how they will make out with all this. We know that going in, US AIRWAYS wanted to fund only $850 million in a new pension over 7 years.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the fruit of negotiaitons boost the funding up to over $1 billion dollars. There is plenty of wiggle room for US AIRWAYS on the back end of the 7 year period. After all, they project hundreds of millions in net profit after the next 18 months.

2. The timing sucks if you want United to survive???
Exactly how will a union petition tank United?
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------

Hi Tim,
Sorry I missed the post;been away for awhile.

Briefly, the AMFA petition at UA is deadly for one reason. It takes time, and UA doens't have any. All management has to do is say we are not going to negotiate with a group who's representation is in question; get back to us when you sort it out. Takes at least a year to decert/recert, and historically takes longer, and UA doesn't have a year. In the meantime, I'd guess contracts get abrogated.

I certainly support the right the workforce to choose/change their representation, but the timing could not be worse.

PITBull, you sure got my back, girl. Gracias, mi bonita amigo.