What Is This Amfa Has A Concessionary Agreement

[seed]

I do not have the same anger with the TWU as you, nor do I have any anger against AMFA. But I see some members lay blame to the TWU, not the membership within the TWU. Mention AMFA and it's a whole new ball game. Just my 2¢.

I'm not wanting to determine the better union. I'm wanting to assist in waking up our membership and spreading the word that it's now time to act. Re-call accountability will mean absolutely nothing to me, or others, after I and others are furloughed. I intentionally stated AMFA, not the members. I do not see where Delle or his constituants have knocked the bargaining world for a loop. The membership gets involved after a TA is presented. Wasn't it NW that sent the 25 observers packing? (ref. Local 33 news update). And it wasn't that long ago that a LOA of AMFA was struck without vote, failure and fault are not owned by the TWU.

Decision, again, I am not here to debate, but to request help in saving our profession. I can "google" my way well enough to find and quote
faults with every union that has ever been formed. That is not progressive with my future.

I do not need to look at anybody's constitution. AMFA's constitution is not going to save jobs from going overseas or to 3rd party vendors. The TWU's constitution is not going to send a message to our government that "enough is enough". You want to start a "slap fight" when there's a war going on.

The time to act is now.

 

[Bob Owens]

Actually I do not think AMFA has proved, one way or another, their ability just yet.

Thats true because the AMFA concept of uniting all, or at least the overwhelming majority, of mechanics into one union has not happened yet. Until it does and we can whipsaw wages back up we will not see AMFA full potential.

Certainly our industry is the item in the downward spiral, and the unions are cought in the swirl pattern. This also ties in with the voted upon concessions with AA.

The TWU leadership, with the immediate knowledge they held, presented what they felt was the best go for the numbers represented.

Did they or did they do what was best for the International? The fact is the concessions we gave far exceeded what everyone else gave, even those whose employer was in far worse shape than AA. Jim Little even admitted that the concessions were "more than adequate".

What the TWU did was torpedo USAIR and UAL in an attempt to give AA an advantage. Unions should not take deliberate acts in order to kill off other employers and put workers in a race to the bottom.

Though many of us voted NO, we have to go with the majority, as AMFA will with UAL.

Did we? We will never really know with the screwed up ststem the TWU used.

 

[Decision 2004]

I do not have the same anger with the TWU as you, nor do I have any anger against AMFA. But I see some members lay blame to the TWU, not the membership within the TWU. Mention AMFA and it's a whole new ball game. Just my 2¢.

I'm not wanting to determine the better union. I'm wanting to assist in waking up our membership and spreading the word that it's now time to act. Re-call accountability will mean absolutely nothing to me, or others, after I and others are furloughed. I intentionally stated AMFA, not the members. I do not see where Delle or his constituants have knocked the bargaining world for a loop. The membership gets involved after a TA is presented. Wasn't it NW that sent the 25 observers packing? (ref. Local 33 news update). And it wasn't that long ago that a LOA of AMFA was struck without vote, failure and fault are not owned by the TWU.

Decision, again, I am not here to debate, but to request help in saving our profession. I can "google" my way well enough to find and quote
faults with every union that has ever been formed. That is not progressive with my future.

I do not need to look at anybody's constitution. AMFA's constitution is not going to save jobs from going overseas or to 3rd party vendors. The TWU's constitution is not going to send a message to our government that "enough is enough". You want to start a "slap fight" when there's a war going on.

The time to act is now.

[post="238551"][/post]​

Hmmm,

When I search your alias and read your past postings, I find a different (not neutral) seed.

You are likely a TWU Officer, here now seeking help because your own ass is on the line.

If your base was safe and AFW was on the chopping block, you wouldn't be here now.

Just my 2 cents.

Industrial Unionist are all predictable and easy to read.

 

[seed]

Decision, to answer a previous question of yours in another post, yes, I know several Johnsons. I am not even a steward, and by researching your previous posts I have found your detective ability has been over rated on several occasions.

I am not seeking help from you, solidarity=help? To stand and fight BK judges, CEO's and young college lawyers they have on payroll is seeking help? Your type of "help" is misguided. Focus on events in our profession and not your obvious tunnelvision of hatred of the TWU. Put your fight with the TWU on hold, or start a new front.

Just FYI, not all that are indifferent with AMFA are TWU representatives.

 

[Bob Owens]

Put your fight with the TWU on hold, or start a new front.

[post="238669"][/post]​

Unfortunately you can not start a new front unless you fight the TWU.

The TWU though its actions has chosen its position, "give the company whatever it wants". They will lie, cheat and steal whatever they feel they must from us in order to meet that objective.

That makes them the enemy.

You guys have only been in the TWU a few years, but how many times have they decieved you already?

Look at KC. "Best performance in the system", and I know that Gless was running around saying that the company was going to send the work to the ststions that get it done. So what happened? Best performance in the system and they took away the work and laid half the people off.

Look at the shrinking MCI. Concessions for jobs right? But is the company committed to keeping any more workers than they agreed to as a condition to the lease?

Look at the lawsuits filed by TWA workers. Do you realize that while TWA-LLC was laying off people they were hiring at AA and would not simply just hire the TWA workers? They left them on the street!

The International was well aware of this yet they did nothing.They did nothing because they do whatever the company wants them to do.

 

[scab scraper]

YUP that's the way i read too JTK

AFL/CIO/ATD/TWU=UNION=SCABFREE

 

[High Speed Steel]

Name: Terry O’Rourke
Email: AMFA Local 9 - Way Points Managing Editor
Employer: UAL
Station: SFO
Date: Saturday January 22, 2005
Time: 09:05:11 AM


Comments
Vote to Yes to Accept United Airlines Tentative Agreement – Letter of Agreement;
Vote Yes on "Self-Help"

By Terry O’Rourke

Published: January 21, 2005

The AMFA/UAL members now face an important choice. We must decide whether to accept or reject the company term sheet as specified in the January 9, 2005 Letter of Agreement (LOA). In addition we must decide whether or not to seek "self-help" if the company abrogates our contract.

I attended the entire 1113© negotiations as an observer. Each day I wrote a report and published it via the Internet and/or email so that the membership could follow the negotiations and understand thee bb and flow of the issues. I was honored to play that role for the membership and I hope my notes proved useful.

Now we must each make a decision. I have carefully considered the issues before us and have arrived at my decision. I will vote to accept the company term sheet as spelled out in the LOA. I will also vote to authorize AMFA to engage in "self-help" methods against United Airlines should the need arise.

Why? My vote is not about concessions. If this were a Section 6 negotiation then I would never consider a vote for any concessions. This vote takes place in the cold hard reality of the 1113 bankruptcy process. None of the negotiators like this process and neither do I. The negotiators simply worked to mitigate the November 4 company term sheet and bring a choice to the members. This vote is about the survival of United Airlines. UAL’s survival offers hope of a successful bankruptcy exit and a viable company.

While I considered the terms of the agreement including health insurance, pay, and time off, my entire decision hinged on only one assessment. Is this membership now ready to do whatever is necessary and risk putting United Airlines out of business? Is this membership now willing to make a deadly serious commitment to themselves and each other, walk out the door and never look back? Will this membership now hang tough when faced with the pain of economic hardship and uncertainty? Is this membership now prepared to do whatever it takes to stay that course?

I have always sympathized with idealistic causes. I have a soft spot for Pyrrhic enterprises. Fighting for a just cause while sustaining staggering losses but eventually gaining ultimate victory appeals to the romantic side of my nature. Nonetheless I have come to realize that real world victories usually go to the pragmatic.

The questions posed above are not simply rhetorical. I had to answer them in order to arrive at my ultimate decision. During the last seven weeks I sat though all the negotiations, visited with dozens of fellow observers, and corresponded with many more via email. I could only come to one conclusion about the resolve of my fellow AMFA/UAL members. I am firmly convinced that this membership does not at this time have the "fire in the belly" to take this company down. In my judgment it’s not even a close call.

Actions speak louder than words. Consider this:

• In one election, only 17% of one Local chose to exercise their right/duty to vote. And this in the context of telephone/internet 24/7 voting. This percentage, unfortunately, is typical.

• In six weeks of open negotiations, the observers’ chairs (25 or so) only filled up once or twice. Typically ten observers were present but there were often fewer than that. The week of San Francisco negotiations produced fewer observers on average than the other weeks in Chicago.

• The Local monthly membership meetings drew only a handful of members even as our jobs and livelihoods came under serious fire.

These observations convinced me that this membership is not yet ready to make good on a "no" vote. The inconvenience of casting a vote or attending a meeting pales in comparison to the emotional, physical, and mental fortitude required to do the heavy lifting of "self-help." Once I concluded that the membership was not yet ready to accept the consequences that a "no" vote entailed, I considered the key terms of the proposed LOA. I understand that this proposal represents a concessionary agreement. None of its terms can be considered a negotiation success by any measure. Recognizing that, let’s examine some of the important terms of this proposal: health coverage, wages, and time off.

Unions all over America have fought to protect their health coverage. More than a few strikes occurred recently due to this item alone. We all see continuous coverage in the media about out-of control health care costs. Over 45 million Americans currently have no health coverage. Good health care comprises the very core of quality of life.

The current LOA proposes no change to our health care coverage. The November 4, 2004 company term sheet proposed taking the annual price increase cap off of all out-of-pocket health costs. This item alone amounted to the biggest single threat to our paychecks. This would continually erode our paychecks at the rate of medical inflation.

Under the proposed LOA our pay would decrease by 5%. Compare this to all the other employee groups on the property:

• IAM 11.5% cut
• AFA 9.5% cut
• ALPA 11.8% cut
• SAM 10% cut (average)

No pay cut deserves celebration but I’m certain other employees wouldn’t mind swapping.

The vacation time in this proposal remains untouched. The company had proposed limiting vacation accrual to four weeks at 20 years. We all value our time off and this proposal protects our vacation.

The holidays, however, were reduced from ten days to six days. While this diminishes our time off by four days, maintaining the current vacation accrual schedule substantially mitigates this damage.

The "job security and scope" clause will cause drastic changes for some of our members. The union successfully defended the seniority protection date of 10-31-89 for most, but not all, members. The Utility and Computer Technician groups, however, will be phased-out under this proposal. The union negotiated enhanced severance packages for both of these groups and a one-year bridge to retirement for the Utility members. In addition the phase-out time for Utility will last three years. The Computer Tech phase-out will take place over two years.

I take no pleasure in seeing any of this work leave United – particularly in light of the current round of furloughs. The company, however, strongly resisted union attempts to protect this work. The double severance package along with up to one year paid medical benefits should help this group transition to another career. We must remember that these terms are superior to any negotiated for the thousands of mechanics furloughed in recent years. We need not be ashamed of the exit terms we secured for these two groups.

As far as the offshore outsourcing of 747/777 HMVs, I have little to say. The time to defend that work from leaving UAL occurred in 2003 during the first 1113 filing. I for one am not ready to take a pay cut to save the job of a non-UAL non-union worker in Alabama. Most of the arguments I hear on this issue should have been raised in 2003, not now.

Some argue that we should vote this down and force the company to come back with a better deal. This attempt at brinkmanship invites disaster. This is not a time for games; this is not Section 6. If we vote this proposal down then the company will likely proceed directly to court with an 1113(e) motion or choose to go straight to an 1113© hearing to abrogate our contract. An 1113(e) motion will probably leave us with an immediate temporary (and retroactive to January 1) 11.5% pay cut along with the 70% sick leave pay. An 1113© hearing risks landing us in the courtroom of an angry and impatient judge only too willing to grant the company whatever term sheet it wished.

One final point. We must remember that the judge has the final say. Even if we choose to accept, the judge may reject our agreement. The judge only has one responsibility: ensure the financial viability of United Airlines and its successful exit from bankruptcy.

In conclusion, we must now vote to accept or reject this LOA. If one chooses to reject then the argument must be made that this membership will follow that path to its logical extreme. That is, if you vote to reject then you must be committed to take self-help action that results in the demise of United Airlines. You must accept the consequences of that decision. You must be willing to accept terminating the health insurance of all employees and retirees. If you are not ready to accept all the consequences of that choice then your commitment will not endure.

Given the option of the palatable package negotiated by our own committee, I will choose to accept the proposed LOA. I encourage my fellow AMFA/UAL members to join me in casting a vote to accept. Whether you choose to accept or reject, a yes vote for "self-help" must be selected. To do otherwise threatens the very foundation of our Association. Last, but not least, please vote. Now is not the time to give up.

 

[UAL_TECH]

This is 'one man's opinion' and that is all it is (as is mine).

OK, call me an 'idealist' but capitulating in to this 'global economy' rhetoric is what is ruining this country and I will not be 'party' to this action.

Except for the 'fact' that we voted down a LOA recently to exchange HMV for engine work to Air Canada. Passage of this LOA would have resulted in increased headcount in the turbine shop but it was voted down because our contract language keeps the work in the United States. At least if we keep the work in the US, someone can eek out a living, feed his/her children, pay taxes and social security. I would rather see our work go to anyone else in the US, but not out of the country. The catch phrase of ‘it will happen anyway’ to justify a personal decision to capitulate means that you have given up and are onboard with the program. You have given up you right to complain in the future in regards to US jobs going overseas.

At best, acceptance of this TA is a stop gap measure as UA will surely come back to us once again in the fall to ‘save the company’ to exit BK.

Where do we draw a line in the sand? When do we say ‘NO’?

For myself, the answer is easy.
The line is drawn and I say ‘NO’!!!

B) UT

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

 

[xUT]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
 

And the tide just keeps on moving...