The visit was organized by local 501, they invited Local 591, Local 504 and the AE Local and we visited Title II, Title III, Maint at the terminal and American Eagle. I believe they visited some TWU members that worked for the Port Authority prior to coming over. At all the AA meetings the members expressed their frustration and outrage over the lousy contracts we have had to endure. While these guys are used to lively internal political debates I believe that they were shocked at the image the TWU has among all class and crafts at AA. They may have seen where members would come and make personal attacks such as "we dont like you and want to get rid of you" but rarely saw where the guys said "We don't like TWU and want to get rid of TWU". In the transit world the TWU has a good reputation. Local 100 successfully bucked the trend for zero-zero-zero contracts and concessions and were able to get small but significant retroactive increases along with some other gains, one being free transport on anything under the MTA, Concessions were minimal, one concession is where they have to pay a very small amount compared to what we pay into their far superior Cadillac health benefit plans. The MTA pass is the equivalent of several thousands of after tax dollars per year that goes into members pockets. Some members were paying over $500/month (after tax money) to get to work. When the MTA demanded that Local 100 open their contract early and agree to concessions or face a layoff Samuelson told him to go pound salt, they laid off a few hundred workers and all of them were back within a year. Contrast that to what Jim Little and Sonny Hall did at AA in 2003.
Are they different? Little would on the one hand say "we got to fight" then turn around and say "Don't do anything to upset the company". During negotiations Videtich told me not to fight with the company. When AA locked out JFK passengers and told the media that the mechanics were staging a 24 hour job action and I went and exposed the lie to the media Little called, but he did not say "good job" , in fact the opposite. Harry openly says we will go after AA's image publicly in order to get us a fair deal. He has said he is willing to use the same tactics he used in PHL. Under Little it was "Never turn down a TA" and "dont piss off the company", under Harry its "we will shut them down if he have to". Yes they are different.
They stated that they wanted to rebuild the union, told the members they have eliminated scores of patronage appointments in the 9 months since they took over, fired Videtich and Gless and admit they still have a long way to go. Not once do I recall them uttering the words "Give us a chance", instead he said he wishes whatever representation votes are coming to go forward and get done, let the members make their choice, then whatever the outcome is focus on fighting the company instead of each other. Did they blame everything on Little? Yes, and they should, Little and his team at the AATD did everything they could to make sure that American Airlines got everything they wanted and preserved their AA pension based on " the wage reported by the union" and A-5 passes.
Harry and John are from transit and for many years there were barriers between the divisions, nobody knew what was going on in the other divisions and it was kept that way. Even within the ATD other Locals outside of the AA system referred to it as "the AATD". Little guarded AA as his own private little empire, the transit divisions saw that, saw that within the AATD there was serious discontent and realized they had the opportunity to oust him, and they did just that.
Here is the thing everyone has to remember, ultimately no matter what union we end up with its the members that have to do the fighting, People like Overspeed don't like Harry because Overspeed only supports the TWU as long as the TWU gives AA everything they want and AA wanted Videtich exactly where he was, or even higher. What we need from the Union is leadership, leadership that will lead us to get what we expect from a career, good wages, good benefits and good workrules. You get whatever Job security there is to be had through seniority and language-NOT CONCESSIONS!!!!! Harry Lombardo and John Samuelson both have good track records on those points, that's why in 2009 I asked Little to oust Videtich and put Harry in charge of our negotiations. I agree that the membership should choose our leaders and have serious issues with flaws within our structure and the Constitution, but if we have someone who is willing to lead us where we need to go then at least as long as that someone is the only option why not support him? Right now he is what you have. So do what you will as far as representation, but in the meantime if you have leaders that are willing to lead and fight the company why not support them? Whatever differences we have as Unionists should be put aside when it comes to fighting the company. In reality the AMFA vs IBT vs IAM vs TWU debate is not the battlefront for the struggle for better contracts, its the contest to see who leads us there. Voting for a different union and leadership isn't going to stop the company from threatening to outsource your jobs its not going to stop guys who will slit each others throats for OT, guys who say yes to OT when the leadership asks that they send management a message, guys like Overspeed who spill poison telling the DFW guys that guys in MIA and JFK are trying to steal their work, these are conditions that each individual member has to confront because if you wont do it now then you probably will find an excuse to do it later regardless of whether you end up in a new union or not.
