TWU and Teamsters are mirror images of each other.

[xUT]

This is a new video and was found here.

http://www.teamster....ion-reopening-0

They did it with the UAL contract... LOL
What a bunch of horse hockey!
B) xUT

 

[xUT]

And the Teamsters' campaign of misinformation continues nonstop. If the IBT could force AA to renegotiate the newly ratified contract, then so could the Amalgamated Hairdressers and Flower Arangers Union.

Razzle Dazzle, wash, rinse and repeat.
Now they added UAL into their lies... LOL
B) xUT

 

[Anomaly]

So we replace the twu with the ibt and according to the lawyer at Shyster and Shyster we can re-open section 6 negotiations with another industrial catch-all union representing us. So what changes?
If this is true why not do it with AMFA?

AMFA has so far refused to believe anything can be done. The have painted themselves in to a box of denial. I said a few posts back that the Seeham Circus Clowns will 'suddenly' see things differently and come out with an opposing opinion to their original claim.

Lets see how long it takes for the rest of you to start wavering.

 

[TWU informer]

AMFA has so far refused to believe anything can be done. The have painted themselves in to a box of denial. I said a few posts back that the Seeham Circus Clowns will 'suddenly' see things differently and come out with an opposing opinion to their original claim.

Lets see how long it takes for the rest of you to start wavering.

Wouldn't it be just as easy to show the the UAL survey that the members "were given" that showed because of industry turmoil that "Did Not Want" to open negotiations?

You know like how the survey was worded and what the membership voting results were on the survey?
Because every UAL AMT I talk with claims to have never even asked.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

This is a new video and was found here.

http://www.teamster....ion-reopening-0

Just another text book LIE... the ibt DID NOT force open the CBA at UAL. It was opened under the provisions AMFA had previously negotiated in our CBA, allowing for an early section 6 filing inside of 270 days of the amendable date. See the links below...

EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION - Article: XXVII page:121 of the UAL 2005-2009 Mechanics Agreement

http://teamsterssfo.com/items/2005_amfa_UAL_CBA.pdf

The ibt negotiations at UAL began on April 29th, 2009 Per the contract article above - ibt flyer

http://ibtualnegotiations.com/items/Update_April_29_Negotiations_Begin.pdf

 

[xUT]

AMFA has so far refused to believe anything can be done. The have painted themselves in to a box of denial. I said a few posts back that the Seeham Circus Clowns will 'suddenly' see things differently and come out with an opposing opinion to their original claim.

Lets see how long it takes for the rest of you to start wavering.

And you are in a box of fairy-tales and deception. You prey on the weak minded and people so desperate that they would rather believe your bullshit than research it.

Lets see how long it takes for the rest of you to start wavering.

Razzle Dazzle, Wash, rinse, repeat.
Keep telling the same lies over and over hoping it sticks.

B) xUT

 

[AA89]

AMFA has so far refused to believe anything can be done. The have painted themselves in to a box of denial. I said a few posts back that the Seeham Circus Clowns will 'suddenly' see things differently and come out with an opposing opinion to their original claim.

Lets see how long it takes for the rest of you to start wavering.

Wavering on what? I'm still for AMFA despite this huckster video.

 

[swamt]

ANOMALY. The teamsters "DID NOT FORCE" UAL to re-open their mechanics contract. As I have said before, and you keep ignoring me now, but, "newly certified" means new group that was NOT previously represented by a union is voted in to represent the group. Example: Let's say Delta mechs vote in a union, any union. As they are not currently represented. Then they are "newly certified" As they have NEVER been certified before. Now, let's say American airlines mechs (presently represented by TWU) votes in AMFA, Then they (AA mechs) are in fact only changing representation and are NOT "newly certified" they are in fact changing from one certified representative to another. Again, changing certification, or replacing certification representatives NOT "newly certified".
BTW; You need to go back to the video you posted of the great teamster attorney you adorn, and reavaluate what he is stating. And BTW; Why in the world did the teamsters big attorney have a need to post a video about this "newly certified" topic. Hmmmm, I bet it is a selling point for the teamsters to get in at AA. Drive it home Joshua, drive it home. Just because you are an attorney, you think they will all believe you. Keep up the great work for AMFA Joshua... LOL. Gotta love this stuff!!

 

[swamt]

This is a new video and was found here.

http://www.teamster....ion-reopening-0

When are you going to learn that Josh is telling you what you want to hear. Typical attorney only revealing enough info to keep you all dragging along. Even after your little video, that all of a sudden pops up, I will still tell you, rather you want to believe it or not, "the teamsters cannot force AA (company) and mechs to re-open contract if they were to win a representational election". You know what, by GOD, vote the teamsters in at AA. When your current contract cannot be "forced" open as little Josh has promiced, then sue his a$$, as well as the teamsters. Go ahead and take the chance. Just ask all the UAL boys how that went for them, as well as the Frontier guys.

 

[swamt]

Hey ANOMALY,

Why haven't you answered this one yet??

Anomaly, Anomaly, Anomaly; The ONLY reason this is getting old to you is b/c you have been prooven wrong and are still misleading and spining the truths when you get prooven wrong.
1- Never claimed to have spoken to NMB or anybody you poated. I do know of mechanics that have and seen and read the responces after inquiring with the NMB. Matter fact the teamsters have done it in the past.
2- I have never said that their rules were never challenged. Let get it straight here and now Anomaly; You have been stating the teamsters can and will re-open nego when they take over at AA. I have been telling you that they cannot garrentee such as they have to have the company agree to a re-opener. Then the attorney's letter comes out and you continued to post that you still believe and understand the teamsters could re-open the contract. I still corrected you saying both parties must agree to re-open. Now you are flipping what you were saying in the beginning that you now agree with the attorney that the law has never been challenged. I don't think the law has ever been challenged as it is very clear what "newly certified" means as well as a replacement union taking over from another union. Again I was not saying the teamsters couln't challenge the law, hell, any union can do that. I was correcting you, as well as, the teamsters that it is not automatic on the re-opener, priod.
3- Again Anomaly your twisted spin on everything. I have never said you guys have lost with the NMB before it ever started. I did say that your teamsters will waste more of the dues from the members as they already know the answer to the sec 6 re-opener as this very same was brought to light here at SWA while we still had the loosers, AMFA was asked the very same thing and AMFA said no that they could not "UNLESS" the co. was to agree to it. The teamsters know already, they have already addressed this same exact issue in the past.
4-Anomaly--I don't give 2 ####$ how long you have been a mech or how long you have been a teamster requiter. You guys really need to keep listening to the teamsters as it is helping the AMFA card drive. The teamsters are well known for doing this at SWA. All their actions and lies and promiced retoric was the key to the record drive here, and we thank them, best thing that has ever happend.
5- This subject is only getting old to you b/c you have been constantly prooven wrong and all your lies brought to light. Like TWUinformer has stated, You are now irrevelant, too many times have you been brought to light and not once have you addmitted it. You just twist it into some sort of diffent meaning and TRY to run with it again. Anyone has the option to search back thru all the posting and verify everything, it's all in writing Anomaly, easily followed. Pls keep be a chearleader for the teamsters...

Are you avoiding once again? You and Rice always do this once you guys have been proven wrong with your lies and misconceptions... Gotta love this stuff. BTW-- Keep bringing it on, Oh, never mind, you quit doing that once brought to light.

• 
  

 

[swamt]

Listen to the crickets chearp...

 

[Rusty]

[font="Arial""]Hi everyone, I have a question. [font="Arial""]Did the Teamster reopen the contract at UAL due to new representation as they have implied?[/font] I have a flyer from them saying they didn't, and now, have seen a video from them saying they did. [/font]

[font="Arial""]It make me think they called up their attorney to make a video, told him what to say and he messed it up. [/font]

[font="Arial""]There are people in my shop asking for a legal opinion. Now that it has come from their attorney does this make it a legal opinion/statement of fact? [/font]

 

[Tex-Mech]

Hi everyone, I have a question. Did the Teamster reopen the contract at UAL due to new representation as they have implied? I have a flyer from them saying they didn't, and now, have seen a video from them saying they did.

It make me think they called up their attorney to make a video, told him what to say and he messed it up.

There are people in my shop asking for a legal opinion. Now that it has come from their attorney does this make it a legal opinion/statement of fact?

It is a legal opinion that is about as factual as any politicians television ad.

What he leaves out is that two of the cases were mergers, and the contracts were amendable. And on the UAL case, the prior union had a clause to open the contract 9 months prior to the amendable date, in which the Teamsters did. Under 2003 agreement, the TWU had a clause to open 2 years prior to the amendable date of 5/1/2008. So if by chance that the Teamsters would of became our union back in 2006 and immediately filed section 6 openers, would they be using their so-called legal right--or just following the contract language? The answer is simple, the Teamsters are lying about everything and anything in order to raise your dues $400 a year for the next 6-10 years that we are stuck under this contract.

 

[Rusty]

Thank you for answering my question Tex-mech. Its been a many years since I have posted or asked any question on this forum.

I signed a teamsters and an AMFA card believing in anything but the twu. I now believe I made a huge mistake in signing a teamster card.

I have another question. There are a couple of teamster reps here in Tulsa, are they appointed or are they elected?

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Thank you for answering my question Tex-mech. Its been a many years since I have posted or asked any question on this forum.

I signed a teamsters and an AMFA card believing in anything but the twu. I now believe I made a huge mistake in signing a teamster card.

I have another question. There are a couple of teamster reps here in Tulsa, are they appointed or are they elected?

Rusty,

Now that you realize that the teamsters are the same as the twu can you help organize AMFA? At least in your shop?