Teamsters get new TA for Ramp
- Thread starter The Janitor
- Start date
It appears the DOL did mandate a re-run instead of re-running the election District Lodge 141 has hired outside counsel and is wasting hundreds of thousands of our dues dollars in federal court defending their position. It's in the judge's hands now.
Larrs
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 2
This is what it must have been like watching passengers fight over a life vest on the Titanic. Thanks to the New Direction for creating union member animosity against the IAM from their campaigns and thanks to the Members 1st for the lawsuits against the IAM for undemocratic elections. You two are making the IBT UA take over way to easy. Both of youmight be better off catching crabs together.
famousfreddie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 19
Wadda you say TA, Alaska bound?
Larrs,
The animosity was already there before the election. TA and EZ are upset about getting dumped by the Membership not once but twice. They got beat in their own game. Just goes to show Machinists Officers are elected not appointed like the 2%ers. The UA members I know sent a statement in the elections that they are not going to concede anything. Not to the company nor to 2%ers with that contract they just got ratified.
While TA and I don't agree on many issues, we agree the IAM is the better union, if you put our leadership opinions aside.
But that is the democratic way the Machinists roll.
Speak for yourself!
famousfreddie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 19
I did ! If you have changed your mind and 2% and no scope is good enough, then by all means vote for em. It's your vote. If Jeff says it is the best contract then it must be so. NOT!
Judas got thirty peices of silver, CW sold the ramp for 40 peices of copper!
www.voteiam.com
famousfreddie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 19
As a IAM Member you have the right to run or support the candidate of your choice, try that with the 2%ers. Let me know how that works for you.
famousfreddie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 19
TA,
Do you just make facts up or what? The Grand Lodge investigated and found the candidate in question had not paid dues and therefore was not eligable. The Grand Lodge already has a legal department and are utilizing it to defend itself against a candidate that didn't pay dues. Your statement of wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars is a blatent overstatement of non facts. The only thing you have right is, it is in the judges hands. See you in court.
LM-2s don't lie.
Hey Freddie.
I know you are upset about this agreement and the IBT. But the so called 2%ers won this time. All I know is this: Do the IAM have to organizational skills to win a election when it counts?
That is the problem at hand. They may can write a winning contract, but if you can't organize, well all of that is moot. We all knew that the NW/DL was a lost cause. The so called 2%ers won this election under the OLD RULES, because we wanted a union to represent us. That was the bottom line. TWU wasn't an option at the time. The IAM had the best chance and a golden opportunity - it was theirs for the taking, but they blew it.
They must, I mean MUST run a excellent campaign to win the undecided voters that we have. People sat out this ratification, because people didn't like this contract, or apathy set in.
They now have to win a battle on TWO fronts: 1. With Jeff and COMPANY. 2. With the IBT and their organization machine.
The question is: CAN THEY DO IT?
Also: to any PMUA workers: What does the IAM member does on the new UA Board Of Directors? What are their functions? Is it just advisory? Since PMUA's constitution mandates that 2 union members are on the BOD. (they have a ALPA member and a IAM member) Now that carries over to the New United. Does those posts rotate among the unions on property, or those two unions have a permanent seat. Just curious........
I know you are upset about this agreement and the IBT. But the so called 2%ers won this time. All I know is this: Do the IAM have to organizational skills to win a election when it counts?
That is the problem at hand. They may can write a winning contract, but if you can't organize, well all of that is moot. We all knew that the NW/DL was a lost cause. The so called 2%ers won this election under the OLD RULES, because we wanted a union to represent us. That was the bottom line. TWU wasn't an option at the time. The IAM had the best chance and a golden opportunity - it was theirs for the taking, but they blew it.
They must, I mean MUST run a excellent campaign to win the undecided voters that we have. People sat out this ratification, because people didn't like this contract, or apathy set in.
They now have to win a battle on TWO fronts: 1. With Jeff and COMPANY. 2. With the IBT and their organization machine.
The question is: CAN THEY DO IT?
Also: to any PMUA workers: What does the IAM member does on the new UA Board Of Directors? What are their functions? Is it just advisory? Since PMUA's constitution mandates that 2 union members are on the BOD. (they have a ALPA member and a IAM member) Now that carries over to the New United. Does those posts rotate among the unions on property, or those two unions have a permanent seat. Just curious........
The IAM International President (Buffenbarger) appoints the position if the IBT wins we would lose it. The UAL mechanics lost the seat when they voted for AMFA. We acquired the seat when we agreed (voted) to give up 14% in wages during the ESOP in 1994, that's where the 1994 job security language originated.
I don't think the HUMANS (ND) value the position very much, so it wouldn't be considered a loss to them.
Freddie, it's getting harder to believe the "fighting machinist" and the "HUMANS" (the company can do it ND) are of the same cloth. But, it is what it is. Guess the only change we can believe in will be at the polls soon.
That remains to be seen.... 😉
Hair Red the Great
Newbie
Seems the IAM GL does not value the BOD position either. In 2008 then PBGC RC spoke of UA eyeing CO for a merger, not US A as most sources then reported. If he had that info then than the IAM GL Merger Committee must have known UA's plans as well. The IAM INT, IMO, must have overlooked and disregarded that BOD information, or assumed CO Fleet could never be won via a conventional organizing campaign and the Fleet workers would eventually fall into the IAM's control with out having to work to organize them.
Now with a representational vote looming in the near future for CO Fleet and UA Ramp if the vote goes IBT then the IAM has no one but themselves to blame for not getting CO Fleet organized 2 years ago with the insight the BOD position gave them.
Talk about dramatic irony. The IAM negotiated the BOD position and 1994 seniority no lay off language but now finds its self possibly getting "laid off" by its UA Ramp members it negotiated that contractual language for.
T5towbar, looks like the IAM has a current battle on 3 fronts; UA and Jeff, the IBT, and itself. For front 3, members of the IAM have gone to Federal court protesting the recent 2010 District Lodge elections, the DL is fighting the protest. Not sure who is paying for all the lawyers but I would assume the IAM would like to be using that money for organizing about now. A battle on two fronts is bad but three might mean you have one foot on a banana peel and the other in a grave.
Hope not, the IAM negotiates better airline industry contracts which improves the livelyhood of all airline scale employees. Break a leg IAM, we've our fingers crossed.
Wow. As I said before, for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier posts. A bad miscalculation or just negligence on their part if the BOD and the IAM leadership had that info.
Bad karma. Will they still be distracted now? It doesn't look good.........
At least our FA's got a new deal............
Thanks for the info Hair Red.
Similar threads
