Questions and Answers
APFA Members have Questions and We have Answers
Rick McGraw (IDF) writes:
QUESTION: How do you plan on paying for the lawsuit against AMR regarding your contention that they filed bankruptcy with too much money in the bank?
ANSWER: We're not going to file a lawsuit over the "venue shopping" issue, Rick. What we're going to do is go after the banks that instigated the filing in the first place and demonstrate how these banks want to dump AMR's employee obligations on the U.S. taxpayers. We're going to make our issue a political issue, and we even have two bipartisan congressmen supporting our issue. They've been trying to pass legislation that would put a stop to exactly what AMR is doing. For once we have politicians on our side. We need to work with them.
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=252018
QUESTION: What happened to the money contributed to the RPA suit that ended up being Pro Bono?
28 minutes ago via mobile · Like
ANSWER: We raised $20k for the printing associated with the Supreme Court Petition. It was very expensive because all the Justices had to have exact copies printed in a certain way and those copies have to be extended to the defendants as well.
The $7k raised originally was returned to those who donated. Attorney Bass wanted to make sure there were real plaintiffs and not just a bunch of people who really didn't care. Money talks and bullsh*t walks, and we showed Attorney Bass that we wanted to fight back. She then took the case pro-bono.
Charles Ashley (DFW) writes:
QUESTION: Where do you stand on combining domestic & international?
ANSWER: It would depend upon whether we're growing or shrinking. I'm against job loss. We've lost too much already. As much as I'd like to be able to bounce back and forth based on computer preferences, I would not want the luxury to come at the expense of jobs.
I hope that answers your question.
DeeAnna J Green (IDF) writes:
QUESTION: I received my ballot and read every page for every candidate . For each slate there are a total of 40 references of F/as that are on their willingness to serve. on the ROCK slate there are zero.
ANSWER: I chose to go with ZERO supporters on my Willingness to Serve Statement because I didn't want to demonstrate favoritism by having to select 10 when there's more than 10 bases. Most candidates pander to the big bases so as to garner the most votes. I decided to take my chances by demonstrating that my administration is going to be made up of those who offer skills and a willingness to work, not those who are simply my friends.
It was a gamble, but I stand by my decision. I hope that voters see my decision for what it is — an attempt to break the polarizing cycle of exclusion which owes its start to the Willingness to Serve Statement.
Marcus Gluth, Candidate for APFA Vice-President writes:
QUESTION: Did you support a full seniority integration of TWA Flight Attendants into the APFA seniority list?
ANSWER: NO. I didn't even want TWA purchased. Unfortunately AMR won the bidding war against Continental and Northwest and none of the unions on the AMR property (including APFA) opposed it. In my opinion, the TWA flight attendants would have been better off had Continental or Northwest purchased them. Continental was IAM and Northwest was Teamsters. Both were AFL-CIO.
Read: "Continental, Northwest Bid For TWA Assets," ABC News, January 24, 2001
QUESTION: Did you picket outside of the AFPA Board of Directors in Boston with the TWA Flight Attendants?
ANSWER: NO. I went to the Boston Convention to learn more about Glading's "Mobilize to Maximize" campaign and I saw former TWA flight attendants picketing all the entrances.
I asked them why they were picketing, and they stated that they're weren't happy with the way they were being treated by the Glading administration. I asked them why they were so unhappy with Ms. Glading considering that they were told by their STL Chair and Vice-Chair to withhold votes during the Primary election so as to support Ms. Glading in the Runoff, and they stated that they were expecting more from her administration — what exactly "more" constituted is still a matter of debate.
This disillusionment with Laura Glading was soon exacerbated when Laura Glading referred to them as "terrorists" because they were picketing the meeting and causing a media ruckus at a time when APFA was honoring Senator Edward Kennedy. Apparently Ms. Glading felt that their presence might embarrass the Senator, and rightfully so — it's not often that members picket their own union.
Anyone entering the building had to pass by the picketers. In my opinion, passing by picketers is not technically "picketing" unless you’re holding a sign and yelling chants. If we want to misconstrue my entering a building as picketing, then I believe just about everyone at the meeting would be considered a picketer unless they used the Service Entrance which wasn’t being canvassed.
Read: TWA Flight Attendants To Picket APFA Annual Convention
Tamara Austin (JFK) writes:
QUESTION: If the Liz Coulter Geiss slate wins. Would you be willing to do work at the APFA so your voice and the voice of your supporters can be heard ?
Is the President position the only position you are willing to hold within the APFA ? I feel elections are not just for this election but rather a step towards positioning for the future. Example, if I want to be the Gov. of my state...I would try to get elected to a town, school dist., or something at a local level then make my steps towards my goal.
I just want to know if you lose, are you willing to do this ?
ANSWER: To answer Tamara Austin's question, YES, I would be willing to work in any capacity for any administration that truly wanted to challenge this company and bring about change.
What I won't do is get behind bag-tag campaigns and pillow campaigns that make us look silly in the eyes of the company, the media, and more importantly, our fellow flight attendants.
Laura Glading's "Peace for Passengers" campaign is EXACTLY what I won't do. To think that flight attendants were handing passengers pillows made in a country that doesn't even allow unions — China — and then complaining about a job that pays $40+ an hour is absurd. And the fact that our union governance had these China-made pillows affixed with the APFA union logo is nothing short of mindboggling.
This is a perfect example of what's wrong with our union: the leadership simply doesn't understand the basic tenants of unionism.
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/american-airlines-flight-atten-4.html
Rick McGraw (IDF) writes:
Geiss supporter, Rick McGraw (IDF) believes that my second cousin, Ray Rogers, is tied into Patt Gibbs and Tommie Hutto-Blake. As you can see from the photo, John Ward was far more tied into Tommie Hutt-Blake and Patt Gibbs than my cousin, Ray Rogers, was.
QUESTION: It has come to my attention that Ray Rogers, your uncle/cousin was actually the "right hand man" to Patt Gibbs. The same Patt Gibbs that ran the crusade to get Tommie Hutto-Blake into office. She also had a following in Laura Gladding.
ANSWER: Ray had nothing to do with anyone's election. He was simply a retained strategist. It was a business relationship, that's all. if anything, John Ward had a closer relationship to Tommie and Patt than Ray did. Look how John Ward is sandwiched between Patt Gibbs and Tommie Hutto-Blake.
QUESTION: I have been told that part of your anger toward John Ward comes from him not hiring Mr. Rogers at the request of Patt Gibbs because he could not pass the required background check. Is this the same relative you intend to use at APFA if elected?
ANSWER: I have no anger toward John Ward. I've always given him the handicap of being in the seat making the tough decisions.
Where I fault Mr. Ward is when the executives admitted they lied to us in court depositions. At that very moment John Ward should have challenged the Restructuring Agreement on the grounds that the airline bargained in bad faith. The foundation of any contract is good faith bargaining. John Ward had the company over a barrel and a lawsuit backing him. John Ward would be our president today if he'd listened.
QUESTION: Also, you claim that you want to file suit against AMR because you claim that their bankruptcy is illegal. That is absolutely false. AMR was well within their rights to file for bankruptcy under the bankruptcy laws. Who is going to pay / fund this lawsuit if you are elected as APFA President - the membership or yourself ?
ANSWER: I never said that we were going to sue AMR. What I said is that we were going to challenge the need for bankruptcy. There's no math to support it.
QUESTION: Lastly, is it not true that your lawsuit against the RPA called "We Want Our Money Back" was only filed to benefit you and a handful of your friends? That it was not a class action lawsuit brought on by your but an attempt to gain from our misery.
ANSWER: The RPA Lawsuit was a class action. Had I simply sued APFA myself, I'd be retired right now. But I didn't want to sue APFA, I wanted to overturn the 2003 Restructuring Agreement and closed Pandora's box — the Side Letter of Agreement.
QUESTION: I am not trying to be confrontational. These are legitimate questions that have been posted or mentioned. I\'m just trying to find out the truth in order to determine if your are actually going to serve the flight attendant membership of APFA or if your are just telling voters what they/we want to hear in order to get elected. The facts are important to make that decision. I appreciate your response.
ANSWER: Either people believe what I'm telling them or they don't. I'm not a preacher. I suggest you look at the Corporate Campaign website before passing judgment, and also Ray's campaign against Coca-Cola: http://www.corporatecampaign.org/history.php and http://killercoke.org/
Kelli Nichols Harrington (LAXI) writes:
QUESTION: So your selection process was first come first selected not what experience they bring to your slate?
ANSWER: I wanted people with backbone, Kelli. We're going to entering the battle of our lives in an effort to protect our pay, benefits, work rules and retirement, and I wanted to make sure that my team had the nerve to stand up. Policies and be read and procedures can be learned. Backbone is something innate. It can't be learned and it cant be read -- it can only exist in the heart. My team has the heart, and they proved it by stepping forward without being asked.
QUESTION: What unique abilities are YOU bringing to the table that can benefit the f/a's on your OWN?
ANSWER: The willingness to fight back, the backbone to do it, and the ability to motivate others to join in.
Very few employees have ever stood up to AMR's corporate browbeatings. Those who did were quickly put down. As our movement will attest, we are an anomaly here at APFA. While union leadership for the past eight years has preferred to "work together" with management, we have decided that it's better to fight back. Voters apparently agree, which is why our movement has become relevant in this election. The fact that you're even asking this question supports this theory.
QUESTION: Rock are you running or is your relative?
ANSWER: My political opposition is trying to suggest that my having a second cousin who worked for APFA three times in APFA's history is somehow a conflict of interest. Mind you, my political opponent is married to a pilot at a time when pilots and fight attendants are BOTH going to be vying to protect their own members' interests in bankruptcy.
Understanding that Former APFA Treasurer Juan Johnson and Executive Committee Member Cheryl Walters were BOTH married to pilots during the 2003 Restructuring, and understanding that pilots were invited to APFA's Restructuring Roadshows to terrorize members on what would happen if they voted NO to concessions, I have to admit, having a union president married to a pilot is something that shouldn't be dismissed as political rhetoric. When I consider that Cheryl Walters and Juan Johnson BOTH used their positions on the Executive Committee to stonewall the charges brought against APFA leadership by members who were outraged over the trampling of their union constitution, the two being married to pilots raises one very important question: Whose interests were really being represented?
If this were simply an administrative term, this issue would be moot. But this is bankruptcy, and we need to know that the memberships' interests are going to take priority over those of the spouse. For Ms. Geiss to suggest that she'd put the membership's interests before those of her husband's make no sense. Why would anyone ever chose the interests of those they've never met over those whom they share children? They wouldn't.
Considering that Liz Geiss has a vested interest in protecting her husband's retirement, the idea that flight attendants interests could be sacrificed in an effort to do that is a major concern. This has NOTHNG to do with being a parent as Liz Geiss has suggested. This is about making sure flight attendants are the #1 priority being represented in bankruptcy. We've already been sold down the river once by this group. For Ms. Geiss to find Linda's question offensive raises more concerns at a time when she should be building the members' confidence.
QUESTION: What do we need [Corporate Campaign's] services for at this time since [the firm] does union campaigns?
ANSWER: We need to develop a strategy for making this bankruptcy filing a political issue at a time when AMR is going to be using all of their advertizing might (our concessions) and political clout to promote the idea that American's flight attendants are paid too much, work too little, and are given too many benefits that employees at other carriers don't receive. If we don't come up with a plan to counter this attack, then we ill pay the price for it in bankruptcy. Corporate Campaign is the only labor strategy firm I know of that can handle such a task. I know of no other -- none.
QUESTION: This process is controlled by the courts so what would you or your cousin/uncle be motivating us for? If you're so against wasteful spending then why would you be promising to spend money on a job that is not needed at this time at the union?
ANSWER: No, the process is controlled by AMR's lawyers, the banks that finance AMR and the board members with affiliation with those banks. This bankruptcy filing is nothing more than transfer of wealth. It's about taking money from employees and giving it to executives by claiming that employees and creditors (banks) are all in this together. That simply isn't true. As we've seen repeated over and over again, the banks will get the company's new financing contracts and they'll recoup their losses even after taking their write-offs. Employees, on the other hand, will have to try and negotiate them back over the course of the next thirty years.
We say fight now, not later!
QUESTION: How are you planning on changing the fact we are in bk? You continue to campaign that it was wrong to file but amr did so here we are in bk without any way to change that fact.
b: We're not going to try and change reality. What we're going to do is fight the company's assertions that it needs to dump their employee obligations on the taxpayers, and we're going to challenge AM's choice to file in a court that's considered "corporate friendly" simply because they own a small piece of real estate in lower Manhattan. It's called "venue shopping," and some political leaders, both Democrat and Republican, would like to see this loophole changed. Ask yourself why APFA spends so much money on political lobbying yet doesn't support two congressmen who share our exact sentiments about how AMR filed in the Southern District rather than the Eastern.
Complacency will get us nowhere.
Neil Fernandez (IMA) writes:
QUESTION: Rock, Thank you for answering ALL my questions in a timely fashion. All APFA members deserve clear and honest explanations of each slate's platform and vision, so that we can make an informed decision in this crucial election. I was particularly interested in how you plan to deal with the Voting BOD since no one in this body is supporting you (at least to my knowledge). After all, the BOD is the governing body of our union and has the constitutional power to do much more than just set policy or approve annual budgets; it also has the "...right to reverse an action or decision of...National Officers..." So, if elected, you would have to contend with a board that doesn't appear to favor your mission (specifically challenging AMR's bankruptcy filing). It is in our membership's best interest to have a cohesive unit of leaders as we weather the storm of bankruptcy, especially during the transitional period!...Also, I do believe it is relevant to question your cousin's, Ray Rogers, past association with APFA, and if you would propose to hire his firm to aid in the formulation and execution of a corporate campaign. If the BOD approves your plans, then my, and my colleagues', union dues would be paying for this planned effort; so knowing more about your cousin and his firm is very relevant to me...But once again, thank you for your detailed answers. I look forward to seeing a continued dialog on the issues between the slates and the membership. In Unity, Neil Fernandez
ANSWER: Our union's problem in a nutshell is the "working together" relationship, Neil. This corporate strategy has destroyed our union from the inside out. The organization has no vision whatsoever, and because of that lack of vision, the board has no direction.
Look, it's leadership's job to set the course, the board's job to hoist the sails, and the membership's job to man the decks. (I like sailboats). But it's a good analogy. Our problem is that the leadership has no direction. That's left the board with no place to go and members left to sit stagnant waiting. This is what's killing our union.
Ray Rogers is a motivator. What he does is develops strategies that involve and engage the membership. He helps union leadership build the vision which the board then tailors to the union's needs and then implements. It's not a dictative relationship, it's one that involves anyone any everyone willing to work.
We don't have a lot of options, Neil, and we don't have a lot of time. We can either stay the course with Rob Clayman or we can take a chance on someone who not only has a fantastic track record, but one who's also had two major victories with APFA. Mr. Clayman's made a lot of money off us these past several years and we've seen no results. At what point do we try something new?
QUESTION: Who are the "professional" team members you've assembled to challenge the legitimacy of AMR's bankruptcy filing? Please elaborate on each team member's experience.
ANSWER: I can't talk about the bankruptcy attorney because I'm afraid that he'll be harassed by our opposition at his place of business. I can't afford that risk.
I asked labor attorney Emily Bass if she'd join us as our general counsel, and she says she's interested. She spent eight years fighting for us for FREE, which in my opinion makes her worthy of general counsel. She took our case to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court and didn't ask us for a dime that wasn't spent on printing costs.
I also want to replace Negotiations Strategist/Bankruptcy Counsel Rob Clayman. Having been our negotiations strategist for the past four years, he's yet to deliver us anything better than a ZERO-SUM offer. For this he's been paid more the one million dollars. He also represented Northwest, U.S. Airways and United through bankruptcy and none of the those flight attendants faired well. I believe we can do better by having separate legal counsel and strategic counsel. I want Corporate Campaign to handle our strategy. While Mr. Rogers is a distant relative of mine, his firm has an impeccable history of fighting on behalf of labor unions, and this includes two victories with APFA. His relationship therefore is irrelevant.
http://www.corporatecampaign.org/history_apfa_aa_1986.php
QUESTION: Why do you think the APFA, APA, and TWU are not challenging the legitimacy of AMR's bankruptcy filing?
ANSWER: APA and APFA have different interests. Remember APA was a huge proponent of the 2003 Restructuring Agreement. Why? Because APA received a $26 million dollar kickback after it was signed off on. That $26 million should have been included, not given back. As far as TWU is concerned, when have they ever fought back? They do some picketing and then capitulate.
http://wewantourmoneyback.net/downloads/aa_waves_sickout_fine_settlement.pdf
QUESTION: What evidence do you have to suggest AMR's bankruptcy filing is illegitimate?
ANSWER: There's too much cash and too many assets. Many media outlets are questioning AMR's need to file. Suggested reading:
American Airlines: Bankrupt Companies Are Healthier Than They Used to Be
Also read the Boyd Group's report. As it clearly shows, AMR has made no efforts whatsoever to turn this airline around other than by turning the employees around. The airline is as top heavy as it was in early 2001.
http://wewantourmoneyback.net/downloads/amr_bankruptcy_time_for_reality.pdf
QUESTION: If you win the election, you would not assume office until April, 1, 2012; however, concessionary talks will most likely commence in January 2012. So, by the time you assume office, it is very likely that our contract will have been modified either by membership ratification or by court-imposed modifications. If this happens, how do you intend to challenge AMR's bankruptcy filing when you are currently not even a member of APFA's Board of Directors (BOD)?
ANSWER: We don't have to ratify anything because we work under a Side Letter of Agreement called the 2003 AAL/APFA Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA). Laura Glading and Anne Loew can amend the Restructuring Agreement without membership input or approval. This is what we spent eight years fighting over in Federal Court. We wanted to close Pandora's box. The idea that APFA governance can make changes to pay, benefits, work rules, retirement and seniority without membership consent is extremely dangerous. Does anyone not see this? She can give away the store and members have no legal challenges because APFA argued that employees have no right to sue their employer, only their union does.
As far as challenges during the transition period, this would require counsel input, therefore any comments would be conjecture.
QUESTION: You've stated on your website that our Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA) is a "Letter of Agreement," which empowers the BOD to acquiesce to further changes in our "pay, benefits, and work rules" without the membership's approval. However, APFA has clearly stated in its Bankruptcy Q&A that a concessionary agreement will be subject to membership approval, thereby, making us an essential part of the process. Are you suggesting that our current BOD will likely renege on its promise and unilaterally acquiesce to changes in our contract?
ANSWER: They reneged on our promised revote didn't they. They then accepted the company's terms uncontested against our NO vote. I suggest reading the Resolutions that gutted our contract:
http://wewantourmoneyback.net/downloads/apfa_resolutionss_gutting_our_contract.zip
QUESTION: Since APFA is not challenging the legitimacy of AMR's bankruptcy filing, how do you intend to work with our Voting BOD (the ultimate governing body of our union), when it already appears that it is, as a whole, diametrically opposed to your mission?
ANSWER: APFA's board has historically swayed like the wind when it comes to aligning itself with a popular administration. We witnessed staunch Ward supporters swing to the other side when it looked like he was going to be removed.
My administration will be the first of its kind. It will assume office with no political ties. That said, we plan to redraw the political lines between those who want to fight back and those who don't. Those who don't will probably be voted out in the next election.
QUESTION: For Rock specifically: One of your goals, if elected, is to employ the "corporate campaign" strategy when dealing with AAL. Your cousin, Ray Rogers, was a co-creator of this strategic method. Will you hire your cousin to assist APFA in the execution of its own corporate campaign? And how will you convince the BOD that APFA needs to adopt this method immediately?
ANSWER: It will be up to the board to decide on Ray Roger's involvement, not me. I will push for his involvement based on his track record, which speaks for itself. If the board says NO, then they'll have to provide me with strategic counsel of equal caliber.
As far as convincing the board of Ray's need, I think they can already see it. As I recently wrote:
"Tom Horton is no friend of labor. His tenure at AT&T is highlighted by the outsourcing of 4,600 overseas. It was only after Horton left AT&T and returned to AMR that the CWA was able to return 2,000 of those jobs to the U.S. Why this matters is because Horton was the proponent behind joint business initiatives with British Airways and Iberia and the code-share with JetBlue. We've given all of our Caribbean flying to JetBlue and now JetBlue is going to be flying BOS-DFW. In a nutshell, passengers can go from Europe to Dallas through Boston and AMR can generate revenue even though ZERO American Airlines employees were used in the process. And Laura Glading single-handedly endorsed antitrust immunity, against the pilots, and did so for FREE. Can you imagine her representing us in bankruptcy court?"
QUESTION: For Rock specifically: When Patt Gibbs was APFA's President, she once worked with your cousin on an APFA corporate campaign strategy against AAL. However, in the interim, 20 Dallas-based flight attendants (usually referred to as the "Dallas 20") were terminated as a result of your cousin's counsel. This unfortunate event has left many people very weary to employ your cousin's services at APFA. How will you persuade the BOD and our membership that this incident should be overlooked and that we should once again put our faith in the corporate campaign strategy?
ANSWER: The DFW 20 were illegally terminated, which is why they got their jobs back. Think about it, why would American return 20 flight attendants to work who intentionally violated corporate policy. They wouldn't. They brought them back to work to avoid 20 wrongful termination lawsuits. The company was concerned about litigation.
My former running mate Linda Luebs was one of the Dallas 20. Not only did she want to run with me, but she also wanted to work wit Ray Rogers again. She never blamed Ray, she blamed the company for using her employment as a scare tactic. She saw her termination for exactly what it was -- corporate intimidation. The company saw that flight attendants were flexing their collective muscle and they decided to use their employment as a tool to scare everyone. It didn't work. Flight attendants became incensed, and American conceded on the terms of B-Scale. Read about it:
http://www.corporatecampaign.org/history_apfa_aa_1986.php
++++++
QUESTION: What is our bargaining chip? Do we have any leverage? Can courts dismiss previous testimony (2003 restruct. agreement) as irrelevant to current BK conditions? To fight a good fair fight you need to bring it, just like your opponent, so without revealing too much (spies everywhere!) what is the strategy?
ANSWER: (1) Our barging chips are virtually nonexistent because the incumbent administration gave away what few bargaining chips we had left. The biggest chip was APFA’s endorsement of antitrust immunity with British Airways and Iberia. APFA went against the pilots’ union in supporting antitrust immunity and offered it up without demanding anything in return. It was another freebie.
(2) We do have leverage, but it will take an administration willing to go after the board members who instigated the bankruptcy filing. This is what we want to do, challenge the need for bankruptcy and the also the demands. We’re going to play offensively rather than defensively. Complacency will only decimate our workgroup.
(3) No. they’re public record and testimony. But the union can also opt not to challenge the company with the use of the RPA Lawsuit testimony. The Glading slate and Geiss slate will NOT use the RPA Lawsuit to protect member interests during these bankruptcy proceedings. Our slate will.
(4) it’s easier to read it on the website under Q&A. We’re still writing the Plan page at this time, but this member’s question addresses your question very similarly.
If I could summarize our campaign goal, it’s to challenge this company in bankruptcy. Remember, Tom Horton is no friend of labor. His tenure at AT&T is highlighted by the outsourcing of 4,600 jobs overseas. It was only after his return to AMR that the CWA was able to return 2,000 jobs to the U.S.
Raisa Mayor Berriz (DCA) writes:
QUESTION: I have a question for Rock Salomon and Liz Coulter Geiss, it seems what little what had left of a contract was decimated by side letters of agreements. Would either one of you be open to either a)removing this power from the BOD/EC or B)having it presented to the membership before anything is signed? I know that years ago I was part of CWA and there were never any side letters.
ANSWER: I agree, Raisa, you can't simply challenge the filing and make that your only strategy. What we need is a multifaceted strategy, one that challenges the validity of the filing and also challenges the demands. And I'm not talking about legal action either. I agree with you, there's no place for it here.
What I'm saying is that we need to go after those that instigated the bankruptcy filing: the AMR Board of Directors. We need to go after THEM and the economic and political interests THEY represents: banks, investment companies, insurance companies, and other businesses. We need to make OUR problem THEIR problem. By doing this we can force the directors to have to make a choice: either remain on the board of AMR or remain on the board of the other companies they represent (i.e. Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Brinker, Pepsi, etc., etc.) Board members don't like this choice, which is why they don't like the corporate campaign strategy. Bear in mind that this filing was about attacking employees, not saving the airline. It's 2003 all over again, only this time with the aid of the government.
The corporate campaign strategy is about attacking those who attack you; it's about fighting offensively rather than defensively. This is exactly how APFA dealt with B-Scale: APFA went after the top executives at American as well as the economic interests they represented at the time (i.e. Republic Bank, Equitable Life Insurance, etc.) and in doing so forced pressure on American to concede or else face the economic backlash that would have resulted when those institution's reputations were called into the spotlight. Banks don't like bad press and neither do insurance companies. Robert Crandall was hit with something he simply didn't know how to deal with -- flight attendants attacking his banks.
What I like about the corporate campaign strategy is that neither the Federal Government nor the company can control it or block employees from using it. The government tried to outlaw it but they were unsuccessful because they couldn't actually define it. Not even Ray Rogers controls it, and he developed it. They actually teach the history of the corporate campaign strategy at Harvard Business School so that future execs will understand it if confronted with it.
While we all know that the corporation can use the NMB to stonewall employees and the bankruptcy courts to extort from them, employees have a powerful tool in the corporate campaign strategy. I like to think of it as the boxer/kick-boxer analogy: A boxer will always beat the kick-boxer in the boxing ring, but take that boxer out into the back ally, and now the boxer is going to have a lot of trouble because the kick-boxer can now use his feet. That's how you deal with a corporation, by changing the venue, by forcing the company to deal with you on YOUR terms, not theirs.
I guarantee that the strategy that we envision will maximize the participation of every every APFA member as well as their families. Think about it, we're protecting our livelihoods and our profession. This isn't a game -- or as the company would like to say, "union rhetoric." While we are forced to abide by the rules set forth by the NMB and the bankruptcy courts, by no means are we obligated to play by those rules when it comes to challenging a threat to our livelihood.
Because we are taking on adversaries that are extremely powerful, we not only need a very powerful strategy, but we are also going to have to increase our resources in which to fight. This means that our union needs to set up a defense fund. This will send a clear message to AMR that flight attendants mean business. Nothing terrifies a corporation more than knowing that employees are being rallied behind a strategy with a proven track record of forcing board members to resign.
Most importantly, flighty attendants aren't going to allow the bankruptcy courts and the company to make decisions behind closed doors that will place the major burdens created by management on flight attendants. Flight attendants have subsidized poor business decisions long enough.
The WWOMB slate has a team ready to assume office: general counsel, bankruptcy counsel, strategic counsel and financial counsel. They're going to be replacing our current team, therefore there will be no extra cost to the union, more than likely a considerable savings.
Simply put, we're ready to fight.
Todd Farrel (BOS) writes:
QUESTION: How, exactly ARE you going to get us our money back? It has been 8 years... No results.
ANSWER: We Want Our Money Back is a movement of WE's not I's, Todd. It's flight attendants who want to FIGHT BACK AGAIST CORPORATE GREED. That's it. We're the assertive faction as opposed to the pacifistic faction that's represented us for the past eight years.
Eight years of watching union governance circumvent our 1998 Agreement with side letter after side letter has got to stop. We tried to stop in Federal Court, but APFA leadership (our last three union presidents) all sided with AMR against flight attendants. APFA argued that those who want their "money back" are nothing more than a "disgruntled minority faction" and that the "majority of flight attendants support the 2003 Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA)" even though it grossly enriched executives at the expense of flight attendants.
APFA spent $2.5 million in membership dues defending the company from those who felt that the 2003 Restructuring Agreement was an invalid agreement because it was never properly costed, properly negotiated, or properly ratified by the APFA membership. APFA literally spent four times more defending the RPA then the organization did preparing for it.
If you're looking at the We Want Our Money Back name from a technical standpoint, you may very well be correct. But this viewpoint could also be applied to the "New Leaders" as well. Quite frankly, there's nothing "new" about them. They've been working at APFA for the better part of the past two decades. And with all that internal experience have brought us nothing of benefit in way of pay, benefits and work rules. All they've brought us is more concessions.
These are tough times, Todd, and we need a new plan with new people. We simply can't afford to be represented in bankruptcy by the very negotiator (Laura Glading) who gave away our 1998 Agreement on a bluff. It will be absolutely disastrous.
Our slate has a new team of professionals including a top-notch bankruptcy firm, new general counsel, and a nationally renowned labor strategist, ready to work with APFA the day we're elected. (It's important to note that our choice for general counsel spent eight years fighting to defend the rights of American Airline's flight attendants/APFA members for FREE. She's truly committed to labor.
Simply put, we're ready to fight. If the membership wants to fight back, we're the ticket!
