Yes, I am looking for change from within, and faced criticism for it, ironically from the same people who come hear and tell guys "dont sign IBT/AMFA cards, seek change from within". I made proposals, nearly four years ago, as to how we could make changes to better meet our expectations and these proposals were twisted and contorted into something worse than what we have now. Then I hear from those same people who often say “Don’t sign cards for another union, just seek change from within” come back and tell those of us who try to change from within “you better be careful what you ask for”. Why? Why should we be careful when we ask our union for changes? Be careful what you ask for is normally advice given to people who are in an adversarial position, not allies. The implication is that if you ask for something they will screw you while claiming they are meeting your request. Is that what these people are saying, be careful what you ask from the IAC because if you open that door they will take advantage of it and screw you? So what is basically being said is that if you seek change from within, don’t, and don’t seek change externally either just be happy with what you got or else?
Once the EOs leave I think it’s a fair assumption to say that the majority of those who remain voted against this contract and are unhappy with the performance of their union. They want change, so what should they do? Just trust the same people who jammed the latest eight year concessionary deal down their throats, as the IEC ignores the people they elected and decides to liquidate every local where the leaders were against the TA, to come up with change that will be to their benefit? Tell us how taking Title II out of the Maint locals, except OH, helps make things better? Tell us how cutting the number of maintenance local representatives in negotiation down to just two and increasing the presence of Fleet Service Dominated locals to ELEVEN helps ensure that whatever leaves the table will be determined by people elected by mechanics? So If line mechanics, both AMTs and Title II want to remain in the same locals you are basically telling them to sign a card for the IBT or AMFA aren’t you? I have to wonder, are you guys deliberately trying to get the mechanics to leave by making things so bad? Telling them to accept what ever the IEC determines they should have and don’t dare ask for anything because they will most certainly make sure you won’t like what they come up with?
By the way, show me the language that secures our ratio of mechanics to aircraft at 13 to 1. SWA only has narrowbodies, widebodies tend to use up more heads. What is the ratio of A&P mechanics? Sure AA may have 13 AMTs but three of them may be OSMs, parts Washers, Cleaners making much much less than our much much less paid A&Ps. what we should look at are labor costs when things settle down, AA may end up having labor costs that compare with other carriers but they will be getting A LOT MORE LABOR for their money. If UAL spends $500,000,000 on maint labor and only gets 5000 AMTs and Aa spends $500,000,000 on labor and gets 8000 AMTs which airline is getting the better deal and which group of workers is getting screwed?
