Medical Out-of-pocket Rising, Flex Over Enrollment

Decision 2004

Veteran
Mar 12, 2004
1,618
0
medical1.jpg


medical2.jpg
 
Well,since the "whole world" was watching,according to Jim Little, I guess you could say the TWU has definitely "LOST IT'S CREDIBILITY" when our revote was denied! Since there should have been a revote,because of the SERPA and 3,000 people who Jim Little :blink: admits, did not get to vote, I would say our present contract is ILLEGAL and the 2001 contract should still be in effect!
 
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
Well,since the "whole world" was watching,according to Jim Little, I guess you could say the TWU has definitely "LOST IT'S CREDIBILITY" when our revote was denied! Since there should have been a revote,because of the SERPA and 3,000 people who Jim Little :blink: admits, did not get to vote, I would say our present contract is ILLEGAL and the 2001 contract should still be in effect!
[post="179609"][/post]​


Unfortunately , while it may be unethical, and immoral, its perfectly legal. You see the Law says that the TWU owns the contract and they do not have to allow us to vote on the contract unless it is a completely new contract. Under the RLA contracts do not normally expire, they become amendable. The TWUs interpretation of the Constitution is that we only get to vote on any new contract. The last new contract at AA was in 1946, the members voted, they have legally satisfied the Constitution according to Judge Preska., US District Court.

It is my assumption that since we can vote out the entire TWU (provided we overcome all the government imposed obsticles that are only revealed after the fact) that allowing unaccountable leaders who can not be removed from their positions by the members to impose agreements, even extremely concessionary ones, is not considered"patently unreasonable" by the courts.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top