TWU,TEAMSTERS AND AA

[OgieJFK]

So you want criminals in charge of your union?

Convicted felons in charge of your union?

Mafia controlled officers in charge of your union?

Its ok for them to steal pension money from its own members?

I always said i'd rather have a real gangster run union steal my money then a cardboard wannabe gangster bunch like the Totally Worthless Union ripping me off.

 

[Overspeed]

Scope language? That's your example? What about pay and benefits? Look you say the Teamsters are a corrupt gang of criminals and mobsters? Well I make a great living and I owe a large part of that to my union. In spite of what these individuals have been convicted of I believe in my union. They have done right by me. The proof is in my pocket brother. So go ahead post another post and get the last word. I will be watching to see what the squeaky clean twu/iam "alliance" gets for you guys in the future.

To 700UW's point and your's ZOM JFK.

Under the UA and CO scope clause there would be many thousands less working here (700UW's point) and to your's about it's what is in my pocket brother, if you are in that several thousand that is outsourced due to UA/CO IBT scope clause...you got nothing in your pocket brother.

 

[Rogallo]

I got mine, brother!!

 

[blue collar]

I've never understood the mentality of subsidizing jobs with inferior wages. So is it a race to the bottom, just to maintain headcount?

 

[737823]

What has Buffenbarger done other than preside over the IAM losing half their members and most of their pay and benefits?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKJVHjZVD60

Josh

 

[700UW]

Wrong again.

 

[737823]

Deleted.

 

[Bob Owens]

I've never understood the mentality of subsidizing jobs with inferior wages. So is it a race to the bottom, just to maintain headcount?

Yes. Its a strategy that corporations have used for over 100 years, and most real Unions have always rejected it. At one time there was a thing called a "Company" or "House" or "Business" or "Yellow" Union, where people who claimed to be representatives of the members, who were picked by management to be the representatives, would sell this to workers. These "Unions" were dominated and financed by management and put in place by management to keep real unions out. Eventually laws were passed banning "Company" Unions but over the years, like most other laws that are put in place to protect workers, Corporate America has won ways where they get around them. http://www.businessd...pany-union.html

 

[john john]

Yes. Its a strategy that corporations have used for over 100 years, and most real Unions have always rejected it. At one time there was a thing called a "Company" or "House" or "Business" or "Yellow" Union, where people who claimed to be representatives of the members, who were picked by management to be the representatives, would sell this to workers. These "Unions" were dominated and financed by management and put in place by management to keep real unions out. Eventually laws were passed banning "Company" Unions but over the years, like most other laws that are put in place to protect workers, Corporate America has won ways where they get around them. http://www.businessd...pany-union.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1390452.html
Lived it Bob



No one disputes the underlying facts found by the Board in its investigation.   For some time prior to the representation election, an institution known as the “employee roundtable” was a key feature of management's relationship with the several categories of non-represented passenger service employees.   The roundtables, while focusing on operational and other issues in their periodic meetings, also provided a forum for occasional discussion and alteration of U.S. Airways' employment policies.   The impact has been real.   Modifications to the carrier's rules governing vacation scheduling, supervisors' disciplinary authority, and overtime were only a few of the changes made from 1991-95.
In early 1996, a new management team announced the formation of a company-wide “System Roundtable,” an umbrella entity unifying the existing roundtables that would continue, in the words of one executive officer, to provide a forum for “issues affecting employees.”   The System Roundtable continued the tradition of its constituent bodies, implementing changes to the carrier's policies governing tardiness and trading of shifts among employees, and also delegated to several “task forces” the responsibility to study other policies.   The most notable of these task forces was assigned the job of proposing changes to the carrier's apparently

 

[767 mechanic]

Yes. Its a strategy that corporations have used for over 100 years, and most real Unions have always rejected it. At one time there was a thing called a "Company" or "House" or "Business" or "Yellow" Union, where people who claimed to be representatives of the members, who were picked by management to be the representatives, would sell this to workers. These "Unions" were dominated and financed by management and put in place by management to keep real unions out. Eventually laws were passed banning "Company" Unions but over the years, like most other laws that are put in place to protect workers, Corporate America has won ways where they get around them. http://www.businessd...pany-union.html

Bob there might have been laws put in place,but we still have company unions. Here at AA the twu is living proof along with the other industrial unions like the iam and ibt.

 

[swamt]

Bob there might have been laws put in place,but we still have company unions. Here at AA the twu is living proof along with the other industrial unions like the iam and ibt.

Ahhh, yes. Known as "the three amigos"

 

[1AA]

I always believed that the Teamsters filed early to keep AMFA out of the running. Here is some proof in my opinion. Is this a union you want to represent you? After reading the article I doubt very much there will be an election. I do not know how many cards the Teamsters submitted but by reading the article they are desperate probably because they have a small cushion above the 50%.

http://www.thestreet...oo&cm_ven=YAHOO

 

[swamt]

I always believed that the Teamsters filed early to keep AMFA out of the running. Here is some proof in my opinion. Is this a union you want to represent you? After reading the article I doubt very much there will be an election. I do not know how many cards the Teamsters submitted but by reading the article they are desperate probably because they have a small cushion above the 50%.

http://www.thestreet...oo&cm_ven=YAHOO

I am in agreement with you. Here is another article on the same issue from Terry Maxon here in the Dallas area;

• LCC
  

AMR Union Election Delayed By Forgery Charge and Voter Challenge Next question, if ibt/teamsters are denied a vote, is there a chance AMFA could file since they never filed before? Hoping you guys kept the drive going and current if there is a possibility.

 

[1AA]

I am in agreement with you. Here is another article on the same issue from Terry Maxon here in the Dallas area;

• LCC

AMR Union Election Delayed By Forgery Charge and Voter Challenge Next question, if ibt/teamsters are denied a vote, is there a chance AMFA could file since they never filed before? Hoping you guys kept the drive going and current if there is a possibility.

You can challenge the incumbent union once a year. So the challenge was done by the IBT. Next challenge has to be one year either from the day they filed or the day when the NMB declares insufficient interest. Not sure which date but that is the rule.
By then we will be in a SCS and everyone has to be included in the card count. Still too early to tell with the vote at USAir that just started this week.

 

[Just Another BK]

From what I heard a lot of the Teamster cards signed at US were from laid off employees who were harassed into signing cards. Guys that have moved on into other careers just signed cards to get rid of them off their doorsteps. Most of them probably won't even vote. It wouldn't surprise me a bit that the IBT loses the 51% of cards signed ruling at AA. Another black eye for the Teamsters : http://www.reuters.c...E96818B20130709