I was catching up on all of my emails this week and a couple of them caught my eye. Before I get to that I wasn't sure whether to title this post "Bah Humbug" or "Sell Out". "Selling out" refers to the compromising of one's integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, "success" (however defined) or personal gain. It is commonly associated with attempts to tailor material to a mainstream audience. ... that definition is found here, and "Humbug" is defined as 1 a : something designed to deceive and mislead b : a willfully false, deceptive, or insincere person 2 : an attitude or spirit of pretense and deception 3 : nonsense, drivel… found here. Because of the season I went with Bah Humbug even though either would work.
The first one of these that I read was an email tree from Horsey tales and GT Davis promoting as "good information" a flyer from Jim Sietz and crew that really went past the limits of believability. As I read the flyer regarding the loss of the 20% outsourcing grievance and saw the blame for the loss was placed squarely on the shoulders of the IBT without regard to any previous failures, I knew that these individuals in their war against windmills had reached new depths and went beyond spin into outright lies. In his missive Jim tells of the IBT attorney not listening to him (this is done in third person to confuse the reader) as well as blaming the IBT for not being able to defend our horrendous scope language. (while I'm at it Jim, how many scope grievances did you successfully defend when you were the ACAC?) Having served as a board member on arbitration cases I can say if what Jim's saying was true (unlikely given past flyers), shame on you Jim. If Jim believed the union was making a mistake, he should have pointed it out either in caucus, or in session by cleverly asking a clarifying question of the parties. Of course if true, I guess Jim's shortcomings in this regard are either a result of inexperience or incompetence. Since he was recalled once in a previous Union for performance related issues, I assume both are understandable conclusions so take your pick.
Brothers and Sisters, when I wrote of the need for good defensible scope language this case is one of the reasons for my position. Let's look at the language of the 20% as negotiated in 1994 for the ESOP. Pre bankruptcy Article II D started with "The Company may contract out up to 20% of all maintenance work annually as measured by the sum of the Maintenance Operations Division's gross annual budget plus those portions of stations' total gross annual budgets attributable to building maintenance and ground equipment maintenance…." followed by some exception language. I agree with Jim in the narrow sense that this seems to be fairly straightforward language. The problem is the formula's numerator and denominator was not clearly defined in the language so that it could be easily defended. As a result the Company claimed they had a meeting with someone in the IAM and told them the calculations were not done correctly; therefore they were changing the formula to calculate the percentage. Whether the meeting took place in my mind is still in question, but what is not in question is the fact that the Company changed the calculation and the IAM missed it for several years followed by AMFA missing it for two years. This created enough of a practice in the arbitrators mind that he awarded the grievance to the Company. Had all the variables been outlined, even with the poor policing of the agreement, this case may very well have had a different outcome.
Like you, this decision disappointed me greatly. But you would think that even Jim knows the agreement is defined in negotiations, not in arbitration. To constantly rely on a neutral to tell you what the agreement the parties' negotiated means, is a failure on both sides. That's why arbitration is used as a last resort remedy. That's not to say arbitration should never be used. There are fights worth having even if the language is less than defensible, and this was certainly one of them. The results of these cases by any competent Union should be and are used as a basis for future negotiations.
The other email I received was apparently authored by GT Davis pleading with Louie Key of AMFA to ask help from the IAM which GT has espoused to despise, and it follows;
From: gtd53@comcast.net
To: Louie.Key@amfanatl.org
Subject: AMFA & IAM
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:23:42 -0700
Louie. As I write this email the IBT has been going hot and heavy organizing anyone and everyone. They're like a steamroller plowing everything down including those who are already organized by other unions. The Teamster's "Organizing Division" spends ten's of millions of dollars and will say and do anything to win those votes. They are unethical and a union that only represents their own interest. Sad truth is there is nothing stopping them and as we all know those workers they recruit are mostly uninformed and gullible.
AMFA was a victim of the ibt and could possibly be a victim again at SWA. My point is I fear AMFA's future could be put into question and their future success organizing Airline Mechanics and Related ended without an aggressive plan to fight the evil ibt. Bottom line is it costs money and takes a lot of clout in doing so. I am urging AMFA to reconsider meeting with the IAM leadership and coming to some kind of agreement that will benefit AMFA and the IAM and rid us of the IBT.
Currently the ibt has begun campaigning here in Denver going after the UAL Ramp personnel which are IAM and if they are successful could do quite a bit of damage to the IAM as the IBT did to AMFA. I am sure the IAM would be willing to at least talk about the possibility of some kind of an agreement or affiliation.
Our card drive here in Denver is going very well but I believe a card drive with the IAM involved could be the decisive act that could turn the evil ibt. I am going to forward this email to those at the IAM and hopefully something will come of it. GT Davis, a very concerned AMT.
Talk about politics makes strange bedfellows!
Do you read snopes.com or other similar sites that debunk what is basically folklore or legend, like the flashing of your headlights will result in your death because of gang initiations? If there is a question, I generally go to a second source when these emails surface just to check. Rarely are these things true. Why do they continue you might wonder? Really I think they continue because they play on our fears and the authors are entertained by, or derive some other benefit from those fears in some way. The email tree from the above group followed by the individual one is no different. Given our tumultuous history it's easy to believe that everyone is out to get us. This is especially true during stressful periods like negotiations. Hopefully however, you do your homework and find out that your uncle's, friend's, sister's, cousin Jim or GT is just an entertainer playing on your fears for his own entertainment and benefit. To do as these emailers implore, and regress, is insanity on a grand scale. And to them I say Bah Humbug!
