A Historic Day

[aapitbull]

Even if the Teamsters had interest in American, I'm certain we would end up in the same situation we are now due to corporate payoffs as they're not exactly known for their above-board operations. AMFA has proven to be the same as the TWU re: dealings with the company, otherwise the debacle of NWA would have have been handled in a totally manner from its outset.

Organizing an Independent union, like the other two choices, still relies on the honesty of the installed officers to work for the membership and not be sneaking around the corporate offices looking for a handout. The same yahoos will gravitate to positions of authority within whatever is assembled and it'll probably be the same ones we have now - you know, the ones that put us in this situation. We'd be back where we were even after a lot of work.

We're left with non-trustworthy entities bargaining "for" us "against" a corporation that is no different. Penalties cannot be made severe enough (legally) to stop the behavior of the TWU's officers such as Burchette, Yingst, and now Luis with his unannounced (yet listed on the International's website) appointment to Int. VP.

Shut it down - last one out, hit the lights.

Thank you, its good to see that some of the people who argued against our AMFA drive finally understand the problem. those of us who ran the AMFA drive understood that AMFA had its on set of problems but we believed the constitution would give us a chance to fix them and maybe build something we could be proud of.

The most important point to remember is there was no way to fix what we had and while the other options where not perfect something had to be done, the current T/A has just confirmed what we thought all along and by the way the NWA thing was just as you said a failure of those elected to make the right decisions when the time came. If your ever in dallas email me and I will buy you a beer or your drink of choice and kick it around just for sh@ts & grins

 

[Large Grey]

Where are the cards?

Let's get rid of the AA/TWU bedpartners!

Amen. Just decertify the the rotten lying bums.

 

[The Goose]

Amen. Just decertify the the rotten lying bums.

Even though the voting rules became part of the real world, the process of calling for a vote is still stuck in the dark ages. This assumes a company (and its wholely owned subsidiary, the TWU) won't find retired and dead "eligible voters" to pad the list they have to turn in.

 

[eolesen]

Even though the voting rules became part of the real world, the process of calling for a vote is still stuck in the dark ages. This assumes a company (and its wholely owned subsidiary, the TWU) won't find retired and dead "eligible voters" to pad the list they have to turn in.

Actually, the voting rules aren't a done deal. A bunch of airlines (not including AA, interestingly) have filed suit against the government on implementing this. As long as the court challenge is being reviewed, you're still screwed.

 

[700UW]

First of all they havent filed suit yet, and the rule change goes into effect unless the court issue an injunction.

 

[The Goose]

Actually, the voting rules aren't a done deal. A bunch of airlines (not including AA, interestingly) have filed suit against the government on implementing this. As long as the court challenge is being reviewed, you're still screwed.

... and that's what blows me away - the ATA was a major supporter of this rule change as they wanted it easier to remove a union from its member companies. Did they not see the reverse would also be true or have these other companies filed suit to ensure it only works in one direction?

As for American not joining the fray - perhaps they are tired of the TWU also - possibility?

 

[TWU informer]

As for American not joining the fray - perhaps they are tired of the TWU also - possibility?

That was the "punch line" to the funniest joke on this bulletin board.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

As I understand it the new rules don't apply to de-certifying a union. Wouldn't you have to do that with TWU in order to adopt new representation?

 

[eolesen]

The lawsuit is now filed...

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1274137878.html

 

[Hopeful]

Gee, if they were so confident that their workers are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo happy without a union, I wonder why they are worried at all...

 

[eolesen]

Gee, if they were so confident that their workers are soooooooooooooooooooooooooo happy without a union, I wonder why they are worried at all...

Main reason for the suit is it's not NMB's role to change Norris or RLA. That's Congress's job. There's also no change to decertification, and if you make it easy to unionize but not to kick the bums out, you wind up in the position you guys are in...

 

[Hopeful]

Main reason for the suit is it's not NMB's role to change Norris or RLA. That's Congress's job. There's also no change to decertification, and if you make it easy to unionize but not to kick the bums out, you wind up in the position you guys are in...

I think it's more about corporations having the entire Management/Labor relationship tilted in their favor since Reagan fired the controllers and Frank Lorenzo re defined anti unionism.
Corporations have had a friendly White house since 1981.

Now that one thing did not go in their favor....it's lawsuits galore.

Again, I ask this question, if they are so confident that their respective workforces are soooooooooooooo happy without a union,,,,what's the worry?
Same goes for having a company union such as the TWU in their corner.

 

[The Goose]

Main reason for the suit is it's not NMB's role to change Norris or RLA. That's Congress's job. There's also no change to decertification, and if you make it easy to unionize but not to kick the bums out, you wind up in the position you guys are in...

E:

Is my memory failing, or do I remember reading somewhere that ATA was a group that supported this rule change?

I was under the impression, due to what I remember reading (possibly defective), that the ATA was convinced this would be a good way to rid their member companies (in effect, executive union membership) of union influence by an easier path towards decertification by unionized groups. Now, we see them filing suit.

Is this because the rule didn't come down as they wanted (easier decertification) or because they never did support this measure?

 

[eolesen]

I don't know if ATA was originally supporting reform or not, but reform that only fixes half the problem isn't reform.