Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« A Failed Coup | Main | And Over in the Lehigh Valley »
August 26, 2005
Northwest Strike: More Grist
[PUBLICATION ALERT: I'm at a wedding this weekend (pretty sure it's not mine) so may not post but maybe will...you'll live. But, if i'm not back here 'til Monday, by all means, keep debating the current hot topics]
Here are couple of more things that are worth thinking about. First, I meant to say something yesterday about Steve Greenhouse's profile of O.V. Delle-Femine, the national director of the Aircraft Fraternal Mechanics Association (AMFA), the Northwest strikers' union: it surprised me that the article made no mention of Delle-Femine's connection to a New Hampshire management consultant and a both-sides-of-the-fence labor firm. The guy has some questionable credentials and motivations, as I see it.
Second, I've gotten a hold of another letter that will blow your minds--or maybe not. It's an internal electronic newsletter that circulates within the International Association of Machinists. It gives you a real feel for the raw hatred for AMFA.
August 26, 2005 in Inside Labor | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d83424b00753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Northwest Strike: More Grist:
» The feeble strength of one from The Bellman
Over at Working Life, Jonathan Tasini has posted a link to an interesting document from the Northwest mechanics strike. This pdf includes the full text of a letter from Robert Roach, the General Vice President of the IAM. The letter was written to AMFA [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 26, 2005 6:22:56 PM
Comments
When AMFA first organized many people jumped on it as an example of the attractiveness of occupational/craft unions, when if fact it was simply an example of why certain workers are vunerable to raids by pseudo unions, which, in the case of AMFA, as John and others have correctly pointed out, have no real record of trade unionism, have even contracted out their union functions to a firm that does both labor and management business. The machinists, flight attendants, and others who joined AMFA years ago did so because they were disatisfied with the representation they were getting. This is most common with one occupational group in large dispersed units (eg in state wide public sector prison guard units). They get lured by promises that they will finally get away from all those other workers that are beneath them that are dragging them down and will get the servicing they deserve. And that all seems well and good until they face their first real fight, and then they discover the reason that the CIO came to be and why when you take on large powerful employers you need industrial unions and you need to have all the different occupations working together. You also learn that in fact that ramp worker, or ticket agent standing with you may decide the future of your job and your unions experience in running comprehensive campaigns, pulling together allies in the workplace and the community, doing the kind of strategic research and leverage that even if one affilate of either the AFL-CIO or CTW doesn't know how to do, others in either federation do know how to do and can help with, that's the stuff that AMFA doesn't even begin to know how to do.
Independent occupational unions do not work in the context of large multinational employers. There is a reason why we need industrial unions. Independent unions that are not real unions at all are even worse. But I believe the workers that made the move to AMFA were in the process of learning this, the hard way. This is no PATCO, Northwest is not trying to use the strategy of getting workers to choose independent unions and then force those unions out on strike, and time it just right so that the labor movement wouldn't cross picket lines. We already had the grocery strike as a tipping point in terms of strikes this year. But we could have had a tipping point in the other direction if unions were to honor picket lines and support the strike while still condemning AMFA for their short sightedness in not preparing a campaign and for all the things that are wrong with their model. If Northwest wins the strike it hurts the other unions as well. But if the only reason AMFA wins the strike is the solidarity and support of the other union workers than their whole reason for convincing workers to leave the established labor movement falls on its face, because it shows that in fact that they are useless without the rest of the labor movement. So my recommendation is that other unions assist but organize and educate as they do, talking with AMFA workers on the line about why going it alone doesn't work and why they need to be part of the larger house of labor, whatever part of that house of labor that may be. But we should neither romantisize AMFA nor exaggerated the historic magnitude of what is happening here, nor should the labor movement ever let itself justify doing managements dirty work.
Posted by: Kate Bronfenbrenner | Aug 26, 2005 8:32:14 AM
That's what I get for reading emails from Tasini before the NYT. So having read today's news that NWA has now hired permanent replacements let me say that as tempting as it would be for the IAM to watch AMFA be broken by it's like of strike fund, this is one of those times when the labor movement really needs to stand up and condemn NWA. For it will be today NWA tomorrow another airline. This is the first time permanent replacements have been hired by an airline since Eastern and that is a big deal. They can still do this without endorsing AMFA's history. It can be condemning management, solidarity with the workers, without offering anything to the leadership.
Posted by: Kate Bronfenbrenner | Aug 26, 2005 8:58:01 AM
Payback's a bitch.
Posted by: O.V. | Aug 26, 2005 9:13:02 AM
Thanks for the opening JT, this is a great entre to the link posted in another thread by one of the members of your weblog. This story http://www.freep.com/money/business/nwa25e_200508251.htm
at the Detroit Free Press is almost beyond comprehension. My apologies to anyone who has read it, but it certainly warrants a discussion.
I voiced my opinion on DePace's despicable actions and would love to hear others thoughts. Is brother bobbie (small caps intended) the saviour of Northwest airlines workers everywhere, or is he the executioner for the 4400 striking workers?
Posted by: Bill Pearson | Aug 26, 2005 10:02:30 AM
I'm not sure Kate gets what's going on here. The piling of slam on top of slam (and yeah I don't like all AMFA craft talk either) seems less like folks are talking about how to learn from lessons and build some kind of strategy, but more something like something more depressing.
And before folks start jumping on me--I'm not trying to defend AMFA here (NWA mechanics should vote Dell-Femine and others out for all I care)but make a point that people are crafting a line to rationalize why it's ok to not be involved in building some support for the strikers.
It's seems more and more that all of this is becoming the self-serving reason for paralysis--the hemming and hawing "one hand this, one one that"--or worse making excuses for the IAM. And the motivation seems to be able to give us all cover for why we either "too torn" or "too angry at those snakes at AMFA".
Worse is to turn around and read in the paper how Machinists are starting to take up struck work at the airline (see the Detroit Free Press)! I've been a union member for over 30 years and I can't count on the fingers of one hand when I've seen this level of pure self-serving bull.
My frustration is not coming here not from this blog discussion per se, but seeing an amazing amount of union members from all kinds (and some officers) come out to walk a picket, and yet we see this deafening silence coming out of the official unions. Big exception here in Detroit are people from my old local UAW Local 174. They are standing up, acting like a real union and pulling out the stops to help their brothers and sisters on the line.
Posted by: John Taylor | Aug 26, 2005 10:20:55 AM
Well the article seems like confirmation that IAM is doing struck work. Its members should be ashamed. The sense of shame should be that they've almost sunk to AMFA's level. Apparently, AMFA tried to cut the IAM's throat by convincing (or is that colluding?) convincing NWA to cut IAM jobs and wages for AMFA's benefit.
And as far as Brother Pearson's calling the IAM the "executioner" of 4400 jobs, let's not forget that AMFA "executed" 5000 jobs in its first contract at NWA. In order to get raises, AMFA allowed NWA to cut 5000 jobs. AMFA did this so that it could use the raises as propaganda to raid/grow its business at other airlines. AMFA willingly sacrificed 5000 of its own members at NWA so that it could have a cheap victory to parade at United, Southwest, American and the rest of them.
If AMFA can execute 5000 of its own members, and its trying to collude with NWA to execute some of the IAM's membership, it isn't surprising that things have taken the shameful, shameful, shameful route that they have.
Posted by: Mark | Aug 26, 2005 10:22:32 AM
In reading the material concerning this strike, something occurred to me. I read here that management (NWA) has been gearing up for this possibility for 18 months. Wouldn't it have been wise for AMFA to have done the same? Shouldn't they have contacted the various unions representing the employees in this industry, and saw that if they were to go ahead with the strike, they would be going it virtually alone? Or was that done, and other unions pledged support and they are now reneging on those promises? Having been a Federal Employee and an employee of AFGE striking is really an option of last resort for us, so I was wondering in other strikes, does the striking union line up support outside the rank-and-file BEFORE going on strike, or is just accepted that once a union does strike, everyone needs to support that union?
Posted by: Kevin F Droste | Aug 26, 2005 10:26:09 AM
Kevin, point well taken. Unions usually line up support before a strike. Typically, in factory land, a union, when it's confident it will strike, calls up the Teamster local and gets the local to authorize the strike and to tell its members to honor the picket line. I once visited a picket line by a sister local in my union and the Teamster local actually sent someone down as a show of support, and spoke with the drivers to tell them not to drop off materials, and not to pick up packages. (But see the So Cal grocery strike where it seemed the UFCW and the IBT did not adequately work things out in advance.)
But see, AMFA would rather raid than work with other air transport unions. Cutting off its nose to spite its face. Or is that curring off its members nose to benefit this bizarre business venture called a "fraternal association."
Posted by: Mark | Aug 26, 2005 11:13:06 AM
Kevin raises a good point that everyone who is blindly calling for solidarity misses: who is to say that suppoorting AMFA would change anything? They had no plan and they spent zero time building relationships over the past twenty years. If all of us walked out in solidarity, would that succeed in securing 4,500 mechanic jobs? Probably not. It will bankrupt NWA. Anyone out there ever deal with a company determined to get what it wants? They usually get it unless the union has a real, comprehensive plan in place first. Even then they sometimes would rather go bankrupt than capitulate. It would be suicide to support AMFA now. To think otherwise is theoretical fantasizing.
Posted by: Spike | Aug 26, 2005 11:20:34 AM
"It would be suicide to support AMFA now. To think otherwise is theoretical fantasizing."
AND SO DIES ORGANIZED LABOR...MAY ITS REBIRTH BE ONE WHERE WORKERS ARE AT THE HEART OF ITS ORIGINS AND THE EGO'S OF SELF-SERVING LEADERS AND INSTITUTIONALIZED LABOR BE LONG BURIED WITH ITS SULLIED AND UGLY PAST.
Posted by: Bill Pearson | Aug 26, 2005 12:21:21 PM
Suicide to support? C'mon. Suicide to spend a few hours walking pickets? Suicide to refuse struck work? Suicide to be out in public saying we support them? Suicide to thorw in a few bucks? Suicide to let the mechanics and cleaners march in a Labor Day Parade?
Let's not exaggerate how little we're talking about here.
Posted by: john taylor | Aug 26, 2005 12:37:47 PM
Mark;
Pearson didn't call the IAM a possible executioner. He was speaking of the AMFA.
Posted by: workin guy | Aug 26, 2005 12:47:51 PM
Not to put words in Pearson's mouth, but it seems to me that the IAM is indeed executing 4000 jobs. That article says that having the IAM perform struck work was an integral part of NWAs strategy to keep running at close to normal efficiency. Apparently I'm naive, but this pisses me off. The high level philosophical argument is interesting mental junk food, but the fact remains that 4000 regular people are striking for legitimate reasons - 50% layoffs, loss of defined benefit pensions etc. If Joe Sixpack reads about this, why would he ever want to buy into the union movement? This is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Carl
Posted by: Carl | Aug 26, 2005 1:50:57 PM
Thanks Carl, those were precisely my words. For the past twenty plus years institutionalized labor has been worrying about structures and leaders with little regard for workers. It is small wonder we are on the verge of extinction.
The very idea the IAM would sell their souls for forty pieces of silver is disgusting. Guess they are comfortable knowing their relationship with the employer will save them over the long haul.
Maybe that is our future, joint ventures with the employers. Wait, that's what we've been doing for the past 20+, so when is the big payback for having these great working relationships? I bet they'll say nice things at the funeral services.
Posted by: Bill Pearson | Aug 26, 2005 2:25:18 PM
Meanwhile ...
NWA Flight Attendant Refuses To Cross Picket Line
Aug 26, 2005 10:04 am US/Central
(WCCO) A flight attendant for Northwest Airlines said she will not be going back to her job because of her support for the striking mechanics.
When Northwest mechanics went on strike, they knew they many never go back to their jobs. On Thursday, a flight attendant said she lost her job by refusing to cross the mechanics' picket line, and joined the striking workers on the picket line.
"That's why I'm out here, you guys, to support you," said Peggy Lubinski. On Monday, Lubinski refused to fly.
"I called in Monday and said I wasn't gonna cross the picket line," Lubinski said. "They said I'm terminated, my flying benefits are revoked and I'm no longer on the payroll. I said 'OK, bye,' and I hung up."
Flight attendants voted against a sympathy strike, so Lubinski is supposed to be on the job. Her union said it will try to help her get her job back.
Lubinski said what she is doing is more than just solidarity with the mechanics. It's also about safety.
"All of a sudden, Northwest comes and tells us we're supposed to get on planes with mechanics that are all of a sudden certified overnight and have who knows how much experience," Lubinski said. "It's fear of flying, and I would not get on a plane with them."
Mechanics welcome the support and hope it can help end the strike for the sake of everyone involved.
"She sacrificed her job for this," said striking mechanic Richard Erickson. "There's a lot of other support that's been out here too, but she did the ultimate sacrifice and she feels unsafe about flying. I don't blame her."
When Northwest was asked about Lubinski's situation, the airline said it will not comment on personnel matters.
Even with mechanics off the job right now, Northwest maintains that the planes are safe to fly with the replacement workers on the job.
###
Posted by: pablo | Aug 26, 2005 2:59:55 PM
Normally, Bill, all your "solidarity forever" would make me all misty. But solidarity is actually impossible here because AFMA is striking for a divisive ends.
So what are ramp workers to do? Join AMFA's strike to demand that IAM jobs and wages be cut to the benefit of Air Maintenance Technicians (AMTs)? Solidarity is actually impossible because this is essentially a reactionary strike by AMFA designed to gain AMTs further economic advantage at the expense of other "less skilled" workers.
This is not NWA/IAM spin. This has always been AMFA's admitted strategy for winning higher wages. AMFA's mantra is: AMTs will do better when we jettison less skilled workers who the IAM and TWU have protected from the free market by insisting that they get the same increase as us AMTs. They've always said that they could get bigger raises if AMT wages did not have to help "pull up" the wages of the "unskilled." They've explicitly said that less skilled workers were overpaid at AMTs' expense becuse of the nature of the IAM's, IBT's and TWU's industrial model. Heaven forbid, a little bit of solidarity!
This stuff that AMFA is about militancy and democracy is crap. If that's so, why didn't they start a militant and democratic industrial union of AMTs, fleet service clerks, customer service reps, pilots and flight attendants? Militancy and democracy wasn't their plan.
Ironically, AMFAs plan was shown to be fantasy after the first NWA contract. They had to agree to let half of their membership get laid off to get the raises they thought would be so easy to get once they said, "Hey, NWA, you don't need to give everyone a raise, just us high skilled AMTs." You would think they would have learned by now. Yet, instead of working with the rest of the air unions, they're at it again, stabbing the less skilled workers in the back by demanding that the IAM take bigger cuts.
So, Bill, don't be surprised when the less skilled workers of NWA aren't lining up to stab themselves in the back under the phony solidarity banner you and AMFA are raising.
Posted by: Mark | Aug 26, 2005 3:06:13 PM
But the problem is that it is spin and a big pile of bull to boot. Who's stabbing who?
From the Detroit Free Press:
"Getting the machinists union to cross AMFA's picket lines was a
crucial part of Northwest's plan to defy the strike and operate a full
schedule of flights.
When the strike began Saturday morning, ground workers immediately
began doing some of the mechanics' chores, including pulling and
guiding planes from gates, and cleaning planes on domestic routes."
Posted by: rfc | Aug 26, 2005 3:13:06 PM
Kevin,
Yes, a union with competent leadership executes a strike as part of an overall strategic plan for building power and achieving their goals. The strategic plan ought to include member organization and mobilization (should be obvious, but ya never know), coordinating work with allies (e.g., other unions, the Central Labor Council, Jobs With Justice, community groups, religious/civic organizations), developing a media plan -- along with tons of research about the company and where its strengths and vulnerabilities lie. If every union leader did this, solidarity would be a lot easier. The problem is, lots of union leaders charge into strikes without bothering to do any of this -- and in fact, when you don't do these things ahead of time the boss is more likely to push you to strike because they see your weakness. So what do you do when some other union stumbles into this kind of situation?
The long-term answer is to prevent is from happening ever agsin, but that sure doesn't help in the short run.
Posted by: bigfall | Aug 26, 2005 3:15:44 PM
In response to bigfall's comment, I have another question. What was the rank and file's thinking when the issue of strike came up? Does anyone know why they voted to go on strike with no plan as to how to win the strike? It seems to me that without all the things stated by bigfall being in place, how did the rank and file think they were going to win this battle? Seems a lot like the scenario set out by GW Bush in Iraq. We're going to war in Iraq, and since you are our allies, you should come along too. We have no sensible plan for victory, but in order for you to remain our friend, you have to join us. I, like our friend Bill Pearson, believe that we need to stick together, but that solidarity has to be a part of our shared existence, not something you try to force upon us. I think a lot of this goes to this disconnect between labor "leaders" and the rank and file. I see that a fight with NWA was needed due to the givebacks they were requesting from AMFA, but this should have been a well thought out process, as the information here shows me that this strike was a long time coming. I wish we had an AMFA rank and file member on this site to tell us what he/she was told before voting for the strike. It just doesn't seem to me that this was an "informed" choice, but something that was foist upon the rank and file of AMFA at the last minute when the rank and file had very little time to think about the consequences of this action. I am just left with a lot of questions about this maneuver by AMFA and just as many as to the actions of other unions in response to the maneuver.
Posted by: Kevin F Droste | Aug 26, 2005 3:49:59 PM
It certainly seems like AMFA has their head up their collective asses strategically. And I tend to agree that their is no requirement for the rest of the labor movement to walk off the cliff with them. What I don't agree with is blatant collaboration with management to undermine the workers. I don't care what letters and numbers are behind someones name, you don't do that. Someone else said this I believe, but this is similar to the whole split in that its a big dick waving contest amongst leadership with no apparent care for the people they ostensibly represent. God this is pitiful.
Carl
Posted by: Carl | Aug 26, 2005 4:00:16 PM
Carl,
I'm not sure this is "similar to the whole split" -- many ordinary members of CtW and AFL-CIO unions had no idea what the dispute was about, and probably don't care much about the federations anyway. But I get the impression that both IAM and AMFA members do care about the raids over the past few years, and are plenty involved at a personal level. That is, I think the AMFA-IAM split seems to reflect an actual disagreement among workers, even if that disagreement was devised and nutured to a large extent by some schmucks who don't give a damn about labor as a social movement, and are just growing their business.
For you labor historians out there -- back during the days of the AFL and CIO split, how common was it for the "opposite" federation to cross its counterpart's picket lines? I doubt this is the first situation like this in labor's history, though previous incidents probably happened when labor in general was stronger.
Posted by: bigfall | Aug 26, 2005 4:09:50 PM
"Bigfall" gets at some of the thoughts swirling around in my own head around this today. What's the short-term plan and what's the long-term plan for all of us collectively?
In the short run, we need to be all thinking and acting on how we can solidarize with the workers (and I emphasize the workers) receiving the sharp end of the stick. Taking off from what John Taylor wrote earlier, this could run the spectrum from very soft support--like what's going on here in Detroit with local Machinist officers and members who balk at the talk coming out of the International--to much more ambitious efforts (pulling together solidarity committees, building broader support, etc). I know others disagree here, but I'm with those who think in the face of the deepening crisis all of us in the labor movement face, to do nothing at all is not an option.
And for the long run, yes I absolutely agree we need to spend some time analyzing how this was flubbed. We do need to really push for some accountability to learn from the sharp lessons of our failures and scattered strike victories over the last decade (plenty of blame to go around here).
Bigfall has a good starter list. I would add an important one to the mix: the absolute need for member-driven contract campaigns.
While the strike weapon declines in its clout we need to be building more and more around our “inside strategies”—to win a strike now you seem to need to be escalating a campaign months before you walk. Good campaigns would include (and this is a rare beast for many unions in this day and age): involving members early in the decision-making process about what they want to see (surveys and follow-up mass meetings); transparent negotiations that keep members both in the know and mobilizing (“fishbowl” negotiations, frequent updates, etc); creating member or contract action teams for stewards and rank and filers; escalating actions in conjunction with moves at the bargaining table (from the small shopfloor actions all the way up to the strike itself if it has to happen); etc.
Posted by: Chris K | Aug 26, 2005 4:36:12 PM
Also keep in mind that craft tensions inside the airline unions are not something exclusive to AMFA and IAM members at NWA they are all over the industry with most occupations divided by craft and subdivided among several different unions. It will take quite a bit to move beyond this.
As a former flight attendant friend put it so well in an article on how workplace changes had a downward effect on "shopfloor" strength:
"The airline industry, like construction, is divided into numerous craft unions. Pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, ticket and gate agents, trainers, dispatchers: everyone has their own union. Typically, everyone resents everyone else.
Flight attendants see pilots as overpaid and arrogant lechers. Pilots see flight attendants as a bunch of whiny children. The flight and cabin crews unite in their opposition to gate agents, whom they see as conspiring to keep them from flying home after a long trip.
Likewise, gate agents see the crew paid much more for easier jobs, and causing delays for which the agents are then blamed. And this doesn’t even begin to touch on the divide between those who work above the wing and the mechanics and baggage handlers down below, or the significant discrepancies between similar work groups in different airlines regarding pay, scheduling, benefits, and more. "
Posted by: Chris K | Aug 26, 2005 4:38:30 PM
From a New York Sun article about the May 10 Teamsters Unity conference. A hint about fun to come?
"There are bottom-feeding unions around like the Machinists that are out there trying to steal our members from the Teamsters, with lower, sweetheart contracts," Mr. Hoffa said.
Posted by: teamo | Aug 26, 2005 5:11:03 PM
The Minn. paper also covered the story of the flight attendant who got canned for honoring the AFMA picket line. But that article said she was furloughed, not fired, because the Rail Labor Act prohibits firing workers for honoring picket lines. Which is true? Does the RLA allow workers to honor lines without being fired?
The Minn. papers have decent strike coverage and it looks to me as if NWA is hurting; delayed flights, broken planes making quickie landings, etc. These take-backs coulda been stopped if the AFMA had humbled itself a year ago and got some other unions to help out with sympathy strikes.
Of course that would have forced NWA into bankruptcy, which IMHO is right where they belong.
To Bigfall--Regarding the history of the AFL and the CIO and each others picket lines, in many instances the AFL would cross CIO picket lines to take the CIO strikers' jobs, and management would then sign with the AFL union. Some of those strikes were CIO strikes for recognition after the AFL tried to impose a top down contract on the workers.
Jimmy Hoffa Senior personally worked as a scab to break the Brewery workers/CIO strike and insert the IBT at Coca-Cola and Dossin Soft Drink in Detroit in 1940. Aren't you sorry you asked?
Posted by: john williams | Aug 26, 2005 5:54:52 PM
