IAM or TWU

[CMH_GSE]

If ever there was a thread that needed bumped, it's this one.

I apologize for missing this thread when it came around, it was a time I wasn't following the forum.

Bob, you were right on the money with post #4 as to the basic reasons why there should not be an Association.

In Post #6 Bob, talks about an election we were promised by the Association, one that NEVER happened, btw. We all were expecting to get balloted by our unions for approval of the Association, before they filed for representation with the NMB, you know, like it's ALWAYS BEEN DONE BEFORE.

The membership approval election NEVER happened.

Post #7 by swamt AND post #13 by Tex-Mech NEED TO BE READ BY EVERYBODY!

They very clearly spell out how the NMB handled an Association of two unions in a merger recently.

They investigated if there was APPROVAL BY THE MEMBERSHIP for the Association.
And pay attention here NYer and 700, it wasn't just two guys saying it was cool.

There were internal elections by both unions and memberships, both approved, showing of interest, affirmative.

That has not happened here with the TWU and IAM, a few on here seem to think the NMB will conduct that election for approval of the Association.

I have yet to see ANY evidence that will happen, contrary, there is nothing but evidence it won't happen that way.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

 
Said it before, I'll say it again, &^%$ both of these unions for trying to have their cake and eat it too.
 
Couldn't simply split the take, oh no, have to have ratios and assorted other bovine excrement so both companies ( that is really what they are) can continue to operate their own little fiefdoms status quo with the same level of income from the rank and file.
 
By the time they get their sh!t together the company is going to be looking for concessions, not talking raises or other improvements to our respective contracts.
 
Thanks Jim,I hope the seven plauges are visited upon your retirement.Douchebag.

 

[swamt]

If ever there was a thread that needed bumped, it's this one.

I apologize for missing this thread when it came around, it was a time I wasn't following the forum.

Bob, you were right on the money with post #4 as to the basic reasons why there should not be an Association.

In Post #6 Bob, talks about an election we were promised by the Association, one that NEVER happened, btw. We all were expecting to get balloted by our unions for approval of the Association, before they filed for representation with the NMB, you know, like it's ALWAYS BEEN DONE BEFORE.

The membership approval election NEVER happened.

Post #7 by swamt AND post #13 by Tex-Mech NEED TO BE READ BY EVERYBODY!

They very clearly spell out how the NMB handled an Association of two unions in a merger recently.

They investigated if there was APPROVAL BY THE MEMBERSHIP for the Association.
And pay attention here NYer and 700, it wasn't just two guys saying it was cool.

There were internal elections by both unions and memberships, both approved, showing of interest, affirmative.

That has not happened here with the TWU and IAM, a few on here seem to think the NMB will conduct that election for approval of the Association.

I have yet to see ANY evidence that will happen, contrary, there is nothing but evidence it won't happen that way.

700 is now all of a sudden saying that the rules have changed since the combination of the IBT/CWA. I still call BS 700.  It is a fact that the TWU and IAM is installing the "No-union" choice on the ballot as a scare tactic.  The NMB will not handle any "internal election" to see if the membership would support an alliance, therefore the NMB will not control what is on the ballot, "THE UNIONS WILL" hence the "No-union" or "NON-Union" option we are being told by 700, scare tactics gentlemen, it takes the NMB to conduct an election to de-cert a union just like Bob and myself have been telling you guys.  The union cannot de-cert itself with-out the memberships voting for it.  What I am not sure of is if this No or Non-union option would be reason enough for the NMB to de-cert the union, so be very, very carefull here guys.  If I were you all I would use the "write-in" option to voice your concerns about how you do not want this alliance.  Write-in the union that you guys really want instead of putting an "X" by the alliance choice.  At least with the "write-in" option you are assured not to be non-union going forward, even if you could be.  That's right guys "write-in" TWU, IAM, AMFA, or IBT what ever union you guys want, by writing in a union of choice is a no vote for the alliance and it will show a better view of what the majority of the membership really wants, and will force a run-off election if there isn't a rather large overwhelming vote for one union.  Think about all this guys, why would a union (2 in this case) want the option of "no-union" or Non-union" to be the final outcome? Because it is a "scare tactic" by the unions to get the alliance voted in. So use the "write-in" option and tell them what union the membership really wants.  The entire membership needs to start getting educated on this "write-in" option as most still don't know what it means or how it works, educate the membership or you guys will be in this alliance even if there is a vote.  If you guys don't get control of this you will be screwed for the rest of your careers, period...

 

[NYer]

You get to vote on it and its true that Jim Little, as President of the TWU, signed a binding agreement with the IAM, but the membership didn't. We have the final say on whether we accept it and I say "NO".

To me this "alliance" deal is totally unacceptable and the two Unions need to scrap this horrible plan that was dreamed up by appointees who were more concerned with internal union politics and Union Dues than coming up with a plan that would benefit the members and that the the members could accept. First off splitting us up between two different Unions is about the worst plan anyone could think of, if both unions are too meek to fight to get us then then split up the membership by class and craft, not location. One Contract group goes to the TWU, the other goes to the IAM. that I could support, but there is no way I can support a deal where if a member transfers from JFK to BOS he ends up in a different union paying different dues and having a completely different Constitution. I can not support the two Unions deciding who will negotiate for us and the content of the contracts, what we will end up with is one blaming the other, in the end we will be as bad off as we were with Videtich running the show.

Your elected representatives had ZERO input into this deal and we are a big enough majority to let both parties know that if they put us in a position where we have to accept this deal or neither one of them want us they may not like the outcome. Like I said, it may be binding in that the TWU cant unilaterally change the deal but if both agree that's its not acceptable to us they can make any changes they want, in the end we get to vote.

If both parties realize its a bad deal then the deal can be scrapped. I would suggest that we all start letting our respective unions know that what they dreamed up for us is unacceptable. Right now the plan is to try and force us to accept the deal by saying the vote will be either for the alliance, or no union. Lets not be bullied into accepting this, and make it clear that if that's the way they want to play it they may not like the result, there are still at least two suitors out there so my bet is if we make it clear that dividing us up and making us easy pickings for even more abuse from our employers simply will not be acceptable they will change the plan. One Union, I'll even say let them decide who they want to put on the ballot, but the "Alliance " with its incoherent structure where each area of the country is all split up between two different Unions is a NOGO.

 

You get to vote on it and its true that Jim Little, as President of the TWU, signed a binding agreement with the IAM, but the membership didn't. We have the final say on whether we accept it and I say "NO".

To me this "alliance" deal is totally unacceptable and the two Unions need to scrap this horrible plan that was dreamed up by appointees who were more concerned with internal union politics and Union Dues than coming up with a plan that would benefit the members and that the the members could accept. First off splitting us up between two different Unions is about the worst plan anyone could think of, if both unions are too meek to fight to get us then then split up the membership by class and craft, not location. One Contract group goes to the TWU, the other goes to the IAM. that I could support, but there is no way I can support a deal where if a member transfers from JFK to BOS he ends up in a different union paying different dues and having a completely different Constitution. I can not support the two Unions deciding who will negotiate for us and the content of the contracts, what we will end up with is one blaming the other, in the end we will be as bad off as we were with Videtich running the show.

Your elected representatives had ZERO input into this deal and we are a big enough majority to let both parties know that if they put us in a position where we have to accept this deal or neither one of them want us they may not like the outcome. Like I said, it may be binding in that the TWU cant unilaterally change the deal but if both agree that's its not acceptable to us they can make any changes they want, in the end we get to vote.

If both parties realize its a bad deal then the deal can be scrapped. I would suggest that we all start letting our respective unions know that what they dreamed up for us is unacceptable. Right now the plan is to try and force us to accept the deal by saying the vote will be either for the alliance, or no union. Lets not be bullied into accepting this, and make it clear that if that's the way they want to play it they may not like the result, there are still at least two suitors out there so my bet is if we make it clear that dividing us up and making us easy pickings for even more abuse from our employers simply will not be acceptable they will change the plan. One Union, I'll even say let them decide who they want to put on the ballot, but the "Alliance " with its incoherent structure where each area of the country is all split up between two different Unions is a NOGO.

 
That's funny. First you say you're in favor of being in one union or the other, but what you can't accept is a member transferring from one city to another and thereby having to pay a different amount in dues based on location....which is exactly what would happen if they choose to have the AMT's go into the IAM, or any other Title Group. At that point ALL AMT's would pay a different amount in dues, not just those that freely choose to make that move via a transfer.
 
Then it gets better, you freely tell us that you, as an elected representative had ZERO input into this deal, but we are a big enough goup that we can exercise that majority and they may no like the outcome. This coming from a representative that has been telling us for years, no decades, they haven't been able to make the changes we supposedly deserve because of a loooooong list of co-conspirators that have handcuffed the representatives that want to make change, like yourself.
 
Get your medication, because this Association is going forward and there is NOTHING you can do about it. You haven't been able us a contract you say we deserve, you haven't been able to get rid of issues you say hold us back, and you have been able to get us the representation you say we deserve. How on earth are we supposed to believe that after DECADES of rhetoric with no substance, you'll be able to send some kind of message.
 
Let me make a correction, I will give you credit because it was your idea to have all the Line Locals consolidated into one big Line Local...so I guess we owe you a "thank you" for Local 591.

 

[NYer]

Yes you guys are screwed. Membership has no say so about the association coming into the combined carrier. Now according to 700 you guys will have 3 choices when you vote for on having the association or not, 1-Yes to accept the association, 2-No, which means NO-Union (this is per 700), and 3- other, which usually means a write-in and speak-in option IF the NMB were running the election. But, as most on here know I have contacted the NMB and they gave me a response in writing that they do not have the jurisdiction to run the election between 2 unions that want to combine, merge or become an association, and that that would be between the 2 unions not the NMB. Yes the NMB will be contacted about the combination of the association as they have to certify them (if they win) but the NMB will have nothing to do with conducting or running the vote for the association. You guys better hope there really is an option for write-in and/or speak-in, it will be the only option to get AMFA in unless the new card drive does it first. Otherwise you guys may have to go unrepresented for a little while. With the TWU in charge it would be worth it, it time to fire them...

 
The best option for AMFA has been to get cards signed since the application for the Single Transportation System was submitted last August. If they would have gotten the cards signed over the last 7 months, then a "write-in" would not be necessary. Of course, most of the AMFA supporters have been on these pages complaining, but there didn't seem to be a big effort in trying to get cards submitted.
 
This may have been the last chance for AMFA and looking back, it seems their supporters blew it by not taking advantage of all this time it has taken the NMB to issue their response to the application.

 

[NYer]

So the NMB is saying that they would have no say in an election that 700 is claiming could result in decertification? Obviously then if we vote against the Alliance then we would stay where we are because according to the NMB there was no vote, so the No-Union option is more of a bullying tactic than anything, in reality we would simply be voting against the Alliance. Both organizations need to be honest with the membership for a change. Lets face it, 700 and others can say what they want, neither Union is going to simply walk away from Millions in dues just because we didn't accept their divisive plan that would leave us split between two unions in a Bullshit "alliance". "Alliance", even sounds weak. They need to come up with a plan that gives the membership control, this alliance deal strips the membership bare as far as control and gives it all to the Internationals of two different Unions. They need to come up with something where each class and craft is in one Union and take some input from people who the membership actually elected.

 
You're a leader. Why don't you write a letter to the NMB and ask them exactly what happens if the No Union option wins the vote. Isn't that the way to make your current hypothesis a fact. At that point, no one could dispute you assertions.
 
Write that letter and post their response on these pages. If you do that, you win the argument hands down.
 
Not doing that, however, will put another chink in that armor of rhetoric you carry around.

 

[700UW]

The rules were changed in 2010.

Thats a fact.
 
My god some of you are so blinded with hatred you cant even accept the truth.
 
It use to be you had to garner 35% of the work group to sign cards for an election, and a union had to get 50%+1 of all eligible voters to be certified.

The CWA/IBT were certified in 2006, the rules changed in 2010.
 
http://files.cwa-union.org/CwaNet/NMBCertification4-20-06.pdf
 
The NMB changed the rules that a union had to get 50%+1 of all VOTES CAST in 2010, DL lobbied Congress and got them to put in the FAA Spending Bill that now in order to call for an election, you had to gather 50%+1 of all eligible members of the work group to call for an election.

Thats a fact.

Now go eat crow SWAMT.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
That's funny. First you say you're in favor of being in one union or the other, but what you can't accept is a member transferring from one city to another and thereby having to pay a different amount in dues based on location....which is exactly what would happen if they choose to have the AMT's go into the IAM, or any other Title Group. At that point ALL AMT's would pay a different amount in dues, not just those that freely choose to make that move via a transfer.
 
Then it gets better, you freely tell us that you, as an elected representative had ZERO input into this deal, but we are a big enough goup that we can exercise that majority and they may no like the outcome. This coming from a representative that has been telling us for years, no decades, they haven't been able to make the changes we supposedly deserve because of a loooooong list of co-conspirators that have handcuffed the representatives that want to make change, like yourself.
 
Get your medication, because this Association is going forward and there is NOTHING you can do about it. You haven't been able us a contract you say we deserve, you haven't been able to get rid of issues you say hold us back, and you have been able to get us the representation you say we deserve. How on earth are we supposed to believe that after DECADES of rhetoric with no substance, you'll be able to send some kind of message.
 
Let me make a correction, I will give you credit because it was your idea to have all the Line Locals consolidated into one big Line Local...so I guess we owe you a "thank you" for Local 591.

 
 
I have always said One Union for our contract group, and back then, before the IAM agreed to a concessionary deal with the new AA which was reporting profits in the billions I would have been Ok with them saying One title group in the TWU and the other in the IAM, but after that deal my opinion changed, I want no part of the IAM.
 

Get your medication, because this Association is going forward and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
 

Perhaps, but what does that say about the mentality of the people running todays unions when they tell their members that this is what they are doing and there is nothing they can do about it? 

 

[NYer]

If ever there was a thread that needed bumped, it's this one.

I apologize for missing this thread when it came around, it was a time I wasn't following the forum.

Bob, you were right on the money with post #4 as to the basic reasons why there should not be an Association.

In Post #6 Bob, talks about an election we were promised by the Association, one that NEVER happened, btw. We all were expecting to get balloted by our unions for approval of the Association, before they filed for representation with the NMB, you know, like it's ALWAYS BEEN DONE BEFORE.

The membership approval election NEVER happened.

Post #7 by swamt AND post #13 by Tex-Mech NEED TO BE READ BY EVERYBODY!

They very clearly spell out how the NMB handled an Association of two unions in a merger recently.

They investigated if there was APPROVAL BY THE MEMBERSHIP for the Association.
And pay attention here NYer and 700, it wasn't just two guys saying it was cool.

There were internal elections by both unions and memberships, both approved, showing of interest, affirmative.

That has not happened here with the TWU and IAM, a few on here seem to think the NMB will conduct that election for approval of the Association.

I have yet to see ANY evidence that will happen, contrary, there is nothing but evidence it won't happen that way.

 
Those unions decided that's the way that wanted to go. However, it is not a requirement to have a membership vote in order to submit and get an approval, as an Association, for a STS from the NMB.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Those unions decided that's the way that wanted to go. However, it is not a requirement to have a membership vote in order to submit and get an approval, as an Association, for a STS from the NMB.

Then the TWU needs to also ask to be on the ballot, or we're screwed, or maybe the cool new association will be great, but it doesn't look that way so far.

 

[NYer]

Then the TWU needs to also ask to be on the ballot, or we're screwed, or maybe the cool new association will be great, but it doesn't look that way so far.

 
The TWU and IAM already filed as the Association. Done deal.

 

[Rogallo]

 
The TWU and IAM already filed as the Association. Done deal.

 
Without membership input. That's not Unionism!

 

[Buck]

 
The TWU and IAM already filed as the Association. Done deal.

 AMFA is an association, what does that mean?

 

[dfw gen]

 
The TWU and IAM already filed as the Association. Done deal.

typical twu don't ask just do it.

 

[1AA]

TWU does not get involved with loser pension plans. The IAM does.