On the IAM and AMFA
I was glad to see the article in the December 7 Militant by two United Airlines workers urging airline workers at United and US Airways to vote against the proposed splitting of IAM [International Association of Machinists] District 141 into two distinct entities. As a former member of the IAM who recently left US Airways, I have some observations on how the AMFA (Airline Mechanics Fraternal Association) phenomenon is reflected there.

While there has been no visible AMFA presence at US Airways, there is significant sentiment within the ranks of the mechanics to separate themselves out from the Fleet Service (baggage handlers and caterers) and the cleaners. This attitude was fostered by the IAM international, which in the 1970s and '80s made little or only token effort to organize the Fleet Service. Subsequently, the Teamsters organized and represented the Fleet Service until just after 1990, when they were decertified in a union representation election.

When the Teamsters and the United Steelworkers of America began to court these workers, the IAM decided to get serious about organizing. The IAM had to convince two groups of workers that it was the best choice. One was its own members, who had developed the craft mentality that skilled workers were better off bargaining by themselves. The other was the Fleet Service, which had been ignored by the IAM previously. Written materials, buttons, and videos were distributed all over the system with the major theme being, "One Airline, One Union." A minority of mechanics and cleaners worked in the organizing campaign, convinced that one union made the work force potentially stronger in dealing with the company. To the credit of the Fleet Service workers, in a runoff with the USWA [United Steelworkers of America], the IAM was voted in as the bargaining agent. Once a contract was ratified, these workers would be in the same locals as the mechanics and cleaners.

The Fleet Service workers had high expectations that they would begin to achieve parity with the mechanics. Many of their benefits and rights as workers were taken away by the company during the period they were nonunion. These expectations have not been met and the frustration level of this group of workers with the IAM is great. The IAM won its representation election in 1993 and to this date has not yet secured a first contract. A totally inadequate contract proposal touted by the international was overwhelmingly rejected by the Fleet Service workers earlier this fall.

The IAM international, adapting to AMFA, is now proposing that the two groups of workers be completely separate, a 180- degree turn from their position during the bargaining election. This view reinforces the craft mentality of a layer of mechanics. It cuts across the idea that one strong industrial union, representing all workers at a particular company, is the most effective way to defend workers' interests.

AMFA's divisive strategy can only aid the airlines in their drive to lower wages and benefits and worsen working conditions.

Frustration with the IAM has also led workers to say they'd be better off in the Steelworkers or the Teamsters. However, the bureaucracies of these unions are no different than the IAM. It is only the rank and file in a single organization, bringing together workers in all job classifications, that can wage effectively the future battles with the bosses that are surely on the horizon.

One other point. I am a bit confused about how to characterize AMFA. At least one person I know has said that it should now be called it a "union." The Militant had described it as a company-minded union busting outfit. Has the vote at Northwest changed anything?

Edwin Fruit

Des Moines, Iowa

More questions on AMFA
I have been reading with interest the Militant's coverage of the struggle against AMFA. Although AMFA does not actually exist in Canada yet, its ideology is having a big impact at Canadian Airlines. I work there as a cleaner in the Vancouver Maintenance Hanger. We have faced seven years of concessions, threats of bankruptcy, and lack of leadership from the IAM.

In this context there have been attempts by aircraft mechanics in particular to win a wage increase. This spring the head of Maintenance and Engineering said the company would offer the skilled trades a raise to address this problem. However, because our last concessions agreement was jointly signed by all of the unions (pilots-CALPA, flight attendants-CUPE, passenger agents-CAW) and included a clause that if one group got a raise all would get one, the other unions refused to go along with this proposal without comparable increases. The company of course was not interested in doing that.

This resulted in a series of petitions, some directed at the company and others at the IAM, urging various forms of increases or skill pay. The division of the IAM district at NWA [Northwest Airlines] gave impetus to those who advocated a separate union as the solution to the problems of the skilled workers. This has culminated in a petition calling on the IAM to give them a separate lodge or district lodge and a separate collective agreement.

There has been room for a lot of discussion in light of these events. Unfortunately I have found that the Militant articles have not been very helpful to me in carrying out this discussion. I have several questions:

Why has so much of your coverage of AMFA focused on the argument that AMFA is not a union but a union-busting organization? Whatever it may be, in my observation AMFA's conduct is not notably different from real unions when they conduct raids against other unions. They put their narrow interests ahead of those of the class as a whole.

Why have you not taken up the issue of the true interests of the skilled workers? There are many references to AMFA's claim that the interests of the skilled and unskilled are different and to workers who say they aren't, but little analysis of why their interests are the same. Is that not the way in which skilled workers will be won away from AMFA and its craft mentality?

How can you address the issue of the unity of the skilled and unskilled without taking up the issue of the wages system itself? The value of labor power, how it is determined, what happens if the value of average labor power is diminished (as AMFA would like)? What is a reasonable difference between skilled and unskilled wages?

How can AMFA be defeated without posing an alternative that is better than the IAM as it exists today? Isn't the alternative to AMFA an IAM that is more under the control of the members, an IAM that addresses the needs of all members, a fighting IAM?

Larry Johnston

Vancouver, British Columbia

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home