Airline Unions

jetmech1 · Joined: Nov 05, 2002 Posts: 15

There has been a lot of talk industry wide about “Who’s the better Union for AMT’s”.

I have seen all kinds of slamming on the other boards. IAMers slamming AMFA, AMFAers slamming IBT and so on. I don’t want to start another I’m better then you are argument with this topic, but a generic discussion about unions and what they have done for the industry.

Would it be better to have all AMT’s in one union?
Is it the Unions fault or is it the members fault?
Has the industry changed in some way that the Unions cannot understand?

The only reason I ask this is because I really would like some good Q&A about this. I don’t know much about the history and inner workings of unions and to be honest couldn’t tell the IAM from the IBT. The company I work for has a lot of employees really pissed now about current events that happened involving the union and company. It seems almost certain there will be attempt to change unions sometime soon. I want to educate myself. I have read stuff on the union’s website and they also slam each other. Who’s telling the truth?

Ok my beliefs:

I think the industry could use a single organization to act on behalf of all AMT’s. I think it would allow the head honchos to better understand it if they were only involved in the airlines. On the other hand the Industry is by its own right a group of different companies doing the same business, wouldn’t it be better for each business to have its own union? If the later is the case it would allow that organization to act specifically toward that company vs. acting generally or having to say “Oh yea, this is UAL I’m talking about I was thinking work rules from CAL”

If a single organization was in charge of all AMT’s that would lead to greater unity?
I don’t know about that. I don’t think the guys at UAL would make their company suffer for something that was going on at Southwest!

So who is to blame? I don’t know really, but I do know times are tough once again. I’ve been on this roller coaster ride once before. I know I looked at my union and blamed them for the crap that is happening, but does some of the blame have to fall back on me for not contributing in some way?

Is changing unions really going to make it better? I think it really won’t help. I read some where that changing unions would be like getting a new Airplane cause the engine wasn’t working right instead of fixing it.

How about this thought. Is the economy and country doing so badly and everyone is just looking to blame someone, anyone for all that’s happing. I know I’m pissed.

Seems I have more questions now then I do answers

737 · Joined: Nov 20, 2002 Posts: 43 Location: USA

You raise some good questions which I have tried to answer during my career in the airline industry and as a unionist. First, it's important to know where we've been to understand where we are going. The primary focus of a union has always been to improve the standard of living for it's members, collectively. And, that's where you have heard term "strength in numbers".

The problem of disunity amongst union members, ie. AMT's, pilots, fa's, is only hurting and not helping the cause. We literally have become a "me" society unlike our generations before us who fought very hard as a united group. And, as you said if AMT's were in an independent organization you still would'nt have a unified group.

Whatever the name of the union is, the membership is the union. And, unless the organization is a dictatorship, the membership makes the decisions through elections. Now, as to the assertion of having independence from others in the collective bargaining process is better, I'm not convinced it is the answer. And, unless you have the clout, both financially and politically, a new organization will not be the miracle cure for this ailing industry which we are in.

Which brings us to what has caused our industry woes today. I will repeat what I've said many times in conversations about our failures as well as successes. The passage of The Airline Deregulation Act in 1978 forever changed the financial structure of the airlines. Before, airfares where controlled by the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) by monopolizing what an airline could charge between two points. And, it was more expensive to travel for the consumer. What ensued after deregulation was almost like you throwing a million dollars into the air and telling people you can keep as much as you can grab.

Now, we can argue that there have been other contributing factors to the downfall of the airline industry up to and including corporate mismanagement. But, there's a glut in available airplane seats out there as it has become very cutthroat. And, until you solve that problem and bring all airlines back to profitability, there's going to be downward pressure on our wages.

planedoctor · Joined: Oct 08, 2002 Posts: 306

BLA BLA BLA Excellent I meant to say.
_________________

planedoctor · Joined: Oct 08, 2002 Posts: 306

Man would you believe after all that I forgot one ?

737 I get your point about deregulation. Is is your opinion that the airlines should once again be regulated?

_________________

737 · Joined: Nov 20, 2002 Posts: 43 Location: USA

Re-regulating our industry has been often debated and I myself have tried to visualize it. In a way it's a double edged sword. By that I mean, if airlines were to be regulated again it would translate into less competition. And, in turn would drive the airfares up which would increase profits, temporarily. Increased profitability could then allow the unions to bargain more effectively for increased wages & benefits.

As I stated it would be temporary. Because consumers, both business as well as leisure travelers, are only willing to pay a certain amount for the priviledge of flying. In effect, what you'd end up with is the law of diminishing returns: less travelers, airlines, airline employees, etc.

So to answer your question I would say that a form of limited regulation should return. More importantly, a method in which airlines can compete without killing one another. Elimination of outsourcing by employers if it's going to affect even just one single employee.

planedoctor · Joined: Oct 08, 2002 Posts: 306

I don't exactly know how or why regulation was started in the first place back then, but would that take away one of the founding freedoms we have in the US: Free Enterprise?

Better yet wouldn't it say to the CEO's " You guy's cannot seem to run your company's well enough so we ( the almighty government) are stepping in a telling you what to charge for seat 11A.

What about some kind of National or International organization kind of like NATO that evaluates the pricing and fares. I would go for anything privately ran. The Government has their hands in enough of my business already.

_________________

737 · Joined: Nov 20, 2002 Posts: 43 Location: USA

I'm not a proponent of more government controls and limits on free enterprise. However, the airline business is very volatile as we've just now seen with the UAL bankruptcy. And, I agree with a statement made by UAL ALPA president that the only winner in this whole fiasco was Osama Bin Ladin. UAL's problems did not start with 9/11 as we all know, it just compounded their problems.

Also, with the majority of the public shortly after 9/11 demanding tighter security, we are all paying a higher price. The consumer today is taxed at a much higher scale for airline tickets than ever before in the history of this industry. For example, if you are flying from PHX to LAS one way for a $100.00, you have to add 8% federal excise tax, $2.50 security fee, $4.50 passenger facility charge, $2.50 segment fee. For a grand total of $117.50. Now, keep in mind that an airline does'nt have an option as to these added fees(taxes). So you see it's a catch 22. It's easy to say that we can pass this on to the consumer, but are they willing to pay for it in the long run.

The one reason you're seeing the bargain airfares, as we have come to know them, is if you advertised the final ticket price with all these fees added in, it would scare most people away. Lower ticket prices translate into lower revenues. So we're back to the original question, is re-regulation the answer? And, if the answer is yes, what kind of regulation should be enacted?

I'm still doing my own research with respect to the answer. And, the fact is that all of us, whether skilled or unskilled labor, are paying a dear price.

The original post in this forum, so that we don't forget, had to do with the role of unions in the airline industry. But, as you see it's not easy to attain the goal of an improved standard of living, the goal of any union.

planedoctor · Joined: Oct 08, 2002 Posts: 306

Yea, we did kinda get off topic a bit.
Jumping back on:

I have a few questions.
Since there seems to be a lot of discussion going on now about unions at all the majors I had to ask myself the following.

Since the main goal of having/being in a union is to provide a improved standard of living how is it that the union is to achieve this? Is it only to raise the wages of it's members? I think, no!

How should it achieve the goals set by its members?

I believe they(the BA's and up) should support the union membership by providing information, generating involvement in union activities, motivating its members and compiling information from all corners of it's membership and delivering it to the members at the roots.

I feel any organization can achieve this given the right people to do the job. I think it's not always the right choice to change unions just because one isn't function correctly. I think that if the membership truly had a problem with the unions management they( the members) would force the union to make changes, and they union would comply with it's members requests.

I don't expect the unions to hold my hand while I vote on a issue, but I do expect them to provide me with ALL the information they used in determining my best interest. I want them to provide information on the big picture, while I look at the little picture. After all isn't that what I'm paying dues for?

I expect them to go out of their way to get me involved and motivated on a issue. I would like to think of them as cheerleaders for lack of a better word.

If the union leaders are not motivated to get involved, how am I as a member to get motivated?
_________________

737 · Joined: Nov 20, 2002 Posts: 43 Location: USA

You hit the nail on the head!

The union structure by design is to keep the membership informed by communication from the president on down to the shop steward. The problem I've seen is that there's sometimes a breakdown in that communication. Or, alot of misinformation being generated by self-serving malcontents who end up being some of our very own members.

Case in point, during one of our contract ratifications I heard several union members state that they're voting no on the tentative agreement. I simply asked one of them if they read the TA in it's entirety. To my surprise the person said "no, I'm voting it down because Joe Shmoe told me it was no good". My point is that if we base our decisions on conjecture and not the facts, then we are simply just cheating ourselves.

And, if there's even the appearance of impropriety in the union which represents you, it's up to you to get the answers from a knowledgeable source. More often than not, much of the apathy amongst the membership is due to misinformation. In addition, when a problem is discovered then you fix it and not destoy it. Much the same way when you remodel a home, the foundation is excellent but you may have to replace the windows or the roof. You don't burn it down.

The writing today is all over the wall. I fear that we're just seeing the begining of a trend in which airlines will be headed. That is, a demand for higher productivity amidst a more lean stucture, ie. wage reductions, fewer flights, and competition like you've never seen before. And, yes the increases in wages will occur if it's tied into the preformance of the company.

planedoctor · Joined: Oct 08, 2002 Posts: 306

It was brought to my attention about a little statement I made over a month ago.

737 · Joined: Nov 20, 2002 Posts: 43 Location: USA

What it boils down to is the membership within your union becoming proactive at all levels. And, yes that means attending your local lodge meetings and participating in the process from the ground up. Until you resolve the disunity amongst the grass roots (membership), the strentgh of your union will be compromised regardless of what name you put on it.

The union is not a hierchy of men and women who simply want to collect dues money. Think for a moment. It would make no sense for any organization in charge of representing you to not fulfill their obligations. Simply put, it would be suicidal not to service the membership. And, as a union member you have an equally important obligation to involve yourself in the democratic process.

My personal experience has been full of mistakes and successes along the way. Most of all, I've learned to become a part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

planedoctor · Joined: Oct 08, 2002 Posts: 306

Since I started this site and learned and watched the actions of the local members at my union I was very surprised at the lack of interest they showed.

No wonder things didn't happen. All that was going on was people bitching about this and that and a VERY small group voicing their opinions to the BA's and upper echelon of the union.

I was showing the response I got back from the division director (ref http://www.planedoctor.com/pd/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=46) to some guys the other day. We were discussing what was written and the changes that should be changed and how to get the ball rolling. I had asked them (there were about 6 or so in the room) if they had voiced their opinions and concerns to the union. Not surprising to me, NONE had made any effort to convey their dissatisfaction.

This statement by 737 is excellent:

sr71 · Joined: Dec 23, 2002 Posts: 3 Location: USA

I believe the biggest problem for unions representing A&P mechanics at major airlines is the requirement [by law] that other groups [utility, cleaners, related] MUST be included with the AMT's during labor negotiations ! I do not consider myself an "elitist" ,, But I think a group ought to be represented on their own merits.. I am sure everyone knows ALPA represents pilots and pilots ONLY,, AFA represents flight attendants and f/a's ONLY ! Until this law is changed,, AMT's will continue to be short changed at the negotiating table ! I understand that AMFA is the ONLY union that has approached the government about getting this situation changed..

planedoctor · Joined: Oct 08, 2002 Posts: 306

There was a point that was brought up to me (I cannot remember where now) about issues similar to this.

Yes, there has been numerous discussions concerning having a union that only represents one unique work group vs. the "catch all"(I made that up

) unions.

I would agree that a union that represented only one work group could by design provide better support for that work group. I also see the same happening with the divisions that the "catch all" Unions have.

The thing that differentiates AMFA from the IBT,IAM and all the others falling under AFL-CIO is their size, power and BIGGEST of all PULL IN THE GOVERNMENT.

Think if it this way:
If you were going into a major government battle would you want the support of a small group of top of the notch lawyers representing you or hundreds of government political activists and lawyers that had the finances to be there till the end?

Now I know your saying, shit that will never happen? How do you know? Do you really want to take the chance?

Alright here's my *(fine print clause)

* The above statement should not in anyway be biased toward any one union or group of unions. The above statement is meant to only create interest and promote discussion so as the end user(you) will be compelled to think on his/her own and possible get involved. It is not in this sites interest to proclaim one union better then the other, but only to assist the end user(you) in making a wise decision for himself.

I crack myself up!

_________________

mojo13 · Joined: Dec 24, 2002 Posts: 6 Location: USA

Here at a base that a major airline just acquired, we are going through some interesting changes.
For 50 years we were represented by the IAM. Many people believed that the mechanics were getting short changed because the majority of it's members were made up of ramp and other lower classifications. Thus we were forced to buy inferior contracts due to their numbers. Many of the people who held office were self serving and did not care or work for the membership. Many AMTs, feeling the frustration of a no win situation, started pushing for a mechanics only union. It never materialized though the company went out of business....
Now we are a different company, with a different union, although it is still an industrial union. Some of the union's ideas are better than the other, some are worse. We now have a fresh start and it is our duty to make it better for our members by getting involved. We will make the difference by not being complacent. I've heard over and over that you can't change a union from within, I do not agree. If you sit back and do nothing, than you will get nothing. It is for that reason that the union we had was so bad, because people just didn't want to get involved, they just wanted to gripe and let someone else do the work.

		Search
	The Online Community for Aircraft Mechanics!