TWU,TEAMSTERS AND AA

[Anomaly]

The Teamsters will take anything to court. They love spending and wasting members dues money. The Teamsters do not care if they win or lose cases.

The forcing of opening the contract when representation changes hands is not legal.
This was proven by the TWU, IAM and AMFA. Keep posting more lies. Your creditability is sinking to all new lows every time you make false claims led by the Teamsters.

Did they prove this last claim of yours in court? Where is the judges decision to show that the contract can not be opened? IBT attorneys believe there is enough merrit in their opinion to test it in court. The other unions you mentioned will not spend the money, or time.

You are finally starting to understand. With 1.4 milion members, YES! The Teamsters are willing and can afford to take a battle to court. You call it a waste of members money, but look at the cost to the company as well? Eventually they begin to understand that bone head decisions which harm the members may have higher costs than they anticipated.

A corporation like AA will take a second look at a union who is ready and willing to go to court.

....Honey Badger don't care....Honey Badger will just kill that snake and eat it. 😀

 

[Realityck]

Did they prove this last claim of yours in court? Where is the judges decision to show that the contract can not be opened? IBT attorneys believe there is enough merrit in their opinion to test it in court. The other unions you mentioned will not spend the money, or time.

You are finally starting to understand. With 1.4 milion members, YES! The Teamsters are willing and can afford to take a battle to court. You call it a waste of members money, but look at the cost to the company as well? Eventually they begin to understand that bone head decisions which harm the members may have higher costs than they anticipated.

A corporation like AA will take a second look at a union who is ready and willing to go to court.

....Honey Badger don't care....Honey Badger will just kill that snake and eat it. 😀

The Teamsters did not test their claim that they had a special right to open an agreement before the amendable date at United and they will not test it at American if we are unfortunate enough to be saddled with them as our representative. They might ask the Company to open the agreement, the Company will—as is its right-- say no, the IBT will blame the TWU and the matter will end there. The Railway Labor Act has been around for over eighty years and no court and no member of the NMB has ever said that if you want to open up a contract before its amendable date all you have to do is change representatives. It’s a bogus claim that will disappear as soon as the IBT gets its hands on the first week’s dues at AA.

 

[Anomaly]

The Teamsters did not test their claim that they had a special right to open an agreement before the amendable date at United and they will not test it at American if we are unfortunate enough to be saddled with them as our representative. They might ask the Company to open the agreement, the Company will—as is its right-- say no, the IBT will blame the TWU and the matter will end there. The Railway Labor Act has been around for over eighty years and no court and no member of the NMB has ever said that if you want to open up a contract before its amendable date all you have to do is change representatives. It’s a bogus claim that will disappear as soon as the IBT gets its hands on the first week’s dues at AA.

You might want to check that crystal ball of yours sunshine?

You are forgetting a couple of other points, namely; U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in AFA vs. US Airways in 1994. The court found that “a newly-certified union has full bargaining rights with respect to covered employees without regard to whether the employees have previously been covered by a collective bargaining agreement.”

Or you all can just stay where you are for the next several years? I am hoping that the many realistic thinkers will outnumber the few ignorant and you will be IBT Brothers soon enough.

By the way, those of you who keep repeatedly doubting that the Teamsters will reopen the contract are the same lot of you who believed the Teamsters campaign was a sham. Most of you stated that the Teamsters would NEVER file and this was all a ruse to get rid of amfa.

How is that prediction working out for you?

 

[Vortilon]

You might want to check that crystal ball of yours sunshine?

You are forgetting a couple of other points, namely; U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in AFA vs. US Airways in 1994. The court found that “a newly-certified union has full bargaining rights with respect to covered employees without regard to whether the employees have previously been covered by a collective bargaining agreement.”

Or you all can just stay where you are for the next several years? I am hoping that the many realistic thinkers will outnumber the few ignorant and you will be IBT Brothers soon enough.

By the way, those of you who keep repeatedly doubting that the Teamsters will reopen the contract are the same lot of you who believed the Teamsters campaign was a sham. Most of you stated that the Teamsters would NEVER file and this was all a ruse to get rid of amfa.

How is that prediction working out for you?

Make no mistake about, the guys who signed IBT cards did not sign them because the Teamsters are so great! They signed them because the TWU is so bad! Not really anything to brag about! The bulk of your IBT voters are coming from whats left of automotive and facilities maintenance anyway. In other words, you still have not convinced the AMTs, especially the line AMTs!

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

You might want to check that crystal ball of yours sunshine?

You are forgetting a couple of other points, namely; U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in AFA vs. US Airways in 1994. The court found that “a newly-certified union has full bargaining rights with respect to covered employees without regard to whether the employees have previously been covered by a collective bargaining agreement.”

Or you all can just stay where you are for the next several years? I am hoping that the many realistic thinkers will outnumber the few ignorant and you will be IBT Brothers soon enough.

By the way, those of you who keep repeatedly doubting that the Teamsters will reopen the contract are the same lot of you who believed the Teamsters campaign was a sham. Most of you stated that the Teamsters would NEVER file and this was all a ruse to get rid of amfa.

How is that prediction working out for you?

American Mechanics, Pay particular attention to the quote Anomaly has MISQUOTED above. It is the same MISQUOTE that the ibt attorney Josh McInerney uses in this video.

“a newly-certified union has full bargaining rights with respect to covered employees without regard to whether the employees have previously been covered by a collective bargaining agreement.”

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

The actual quote from the decision reads🙁emphasis mine)

...we hold that a newly certified union in situations such as this one has full bargaining rights with respect to covered employees without regard to whether the employees previously have been covered by a collective bargaining agreement....

What was the situation? The combining of two flight attendant groups who were covered under different bargaining agreements.

The entire decision can be found here:

https://bulk.resourc...32.92-7253.html

While certainly a dry read, it is easily understandable, and clearly is not applicable to the American situation where one Union is simply replacing another. Interestingly enough the decision makes the distinction on this point in sections 19-20-21.

A key portion from that section.

When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.

The teamsters used this same deception in their campaign at UAL, of course our contract WAS NOT forced open early.

 

[AANOTOK]

Damn, I've pretty much stayed out of this fight, but I sit idly by with popcorn in hand to see how Anomaly responds to this. Seems pretty straight forward to me and either Anomaly tried to mislead, misread or just made a mistake.

Nice job ThirdSeatHero!

 

[Realityck]

American Mechanics, Pay particular attention to the quote Anomaly has MISQUOTED above. It is the same MISQUOTE that the ibt attorney Josh McInerney uses in this video.




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

The actual quote from the decision reads🙁emphasis mine)



What was the situation? The combining of two flight attendant groups who were covered under different bargaining agreements.

The entire decision can be found here:

https://bulk.resourc...32.92-7253.html

While certainly a dry read, it is easily understandable, and clearly is not applicable to the American situation where one Union is simply replacing another. Interestingly enough the decision makes the distinction on this point in sections 19-20-21.

A key portion from that section.




The teamsters used this same deception in their campaign at UAL, of course our contract WAS NOT forced open early.

Thank you Third Seat for the research and thoughtful response. I have read the US Air decision and I would just add that, consistent with what you have written, the Court went out of its way to make clear that it was not dealing with “…the typical case where the employees choose a new representative”, but rather a case “where the employees have not voted out their representative, but had a new one imposed on them.” This is a significant part of the circumstance the court is referring to when it carefully limited its holding to “this situation”.

This case has been around for nineteen years. No court has applied it to support a holding that any newly certified union can open an existing agreement before its amendable date. As you point out, the NMB has directly disputed the claim being made by the IBT and the author of the US Air opinion, Judge Edwards, went out of his way to state that NMB’s judgment on the RLA carries “significant weight”.

I have never called the IBT drive at AA a sham, Anomaly. I do believe though it’s contemptible effort to mislead our members into believing the IBT has a right to open and negotiate agreements under these circumstances and is just another one of its tactics designed to overcome resistance to the IBT’s raiding activities.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

"When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives." First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board (1935) pp. 23-24, cited with approval by the court in AFA v. USAir 24 F3d 1432, 143 (DC Cir., 1994). In 1994, the AFA v. USAir court further characterized as still "well established" the principle that "a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreement," Id. And the ABA/BNA Treatise "The Railway Labor Act" (3d edition, 2012), generally considered an authority in the field, stated, unequivocally, this year: "If a new representative is selected to replace an incumbent, an existing collective bargaining agreement with the carrier remains in effect in accordance with its duration clause, and the new representative becomes responsible for administering that contract,".

 

[Deleted member 14439]

Phat don and his underlings making the rounds at dwh this morning. They were all smiles and full of themselves.

 

[Anomaly]

American Mechanics, Pay particular attention to the quote Anomaly has MISQUOTED above. It is the same MISQUOTE that the ibt attorney Josh McInerney uses in this video.




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

The actual quote from the decision reads🙁emphasis mine)



What was the situation? The combining of two flight attendant groups who were covered under different bargaining agreements.

The entire decision can be found here:

https://bulk.resourc...32.92-7253.html

While certainly a dry read, it is easily understandable, and clearly is not applicable to the American situation where one Union is simply replacing another. Interestingly enough the decision makes the distinction on this point in sections 19-20-21.

A key portion from that section.




The teamsters used this same deception in their campaign at UAL, of course our contract WAS NOT forced open early.

From what I understand three different Teamster attorneys looked at this issue and the hired firm was willing to make a video attesting to the accuracy of the opinions. The Teamsters concluded that there appears to be a significant case towards allowing the AA contract to be reopened.

These professional legal matters are now being disputed by you, Hero? Are you basing this solely on the fact that your interpretation of the case referenced by one of the attorneys is an opposing view or do you have a law degree you forgot to mention? Please post your credentials and we can compare them to Mr McInerney who you quoted on your post.

http://www.barkanmei.../josh-mcinerney

I get the whole idea about campaign speeches and so on, but this attorney went on record a video explaining what he though to be possible. If it was a candidate or organizer making the claim I may not argue as much, but a lawyer placing his name, and firm on a video.... ??

There has to be some truth and conviction in this statement. Like the seriousness and legitimacy of this campaign, I guess we will find out who is more correct in matters associated with law. A mechanic, or an attorney??

 

[TWU informer]

From what I understand three different Teamster attorneys looked at this issue and the hired firm was willing to make a video attesting to the accuracy of the opinions. The Teamsters concluded that there appears to be a significant case towards allowing the AA contract to be reopened.

These professional legal matters are now being disputed by you, Hero? Are you basing this solely on the fact that your interpretation of the case referenced by one of the attorneys is an opposing view or do you have a law degree you forgot to mention? Please post your credentials and we can compare them to Mr McInerney who you quoted on your post.

http://www.barkanmei.../josh-mcinerney

I get the whole idea about campaign speeches and so on, but this attorney went on record a video explaining what he though to be possible. If it was a candidate or organizer making the claim I may not argue as much, but a lawyer placing his name, and firm on a video.... ??

There has to be some truth and conviction in this statement. Like the seriousness and legitimacy of this campaign, I guess we will find out who is more correct in matters associated with law. A mechanic, or an attorney??

Hell, anyone can make a claim or a promise. But I dont want to pay more in Union Dues just to find out it is another IBT empty promise. Show me case law that backs up the claim and that's different. But to make an attorney rich and the members guineea pigs is just plain not worth us argueing about.

 

[Vortilon]

Hell, anyone can make a claim or a promise. But I dont want to pay more in Union Dues just to find out it is another IBT empty promise. Show me case law that backs up the claim and that's different. But to make an attorney rich and the members guineea pigs is just plain not worth us argueing about.

I will second that statement as well. The lying starts right at the get go with these clowns. The IBT really must not think too much of the M & R at AA if they make statements like this. Pretty much a lie, and yet enough wiggle room to claim plausible deniability when the contract fails to be reopened. No thanks IBT.

 

[enough already]

Why would we want to change from one uncontrollable big goofy giant catchall union to another, only to pay 25% more in dues and possibly lose what pension we have left?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

From what I understand three different Teamster attorneys looked at this issue and the hired firm was willing to make a video attesting to the accuracy of the opinions. The Teamsters concluded that there appears to be a significant case towards allowing the AA contract to be reopened.

These professional legal matters are now being disputed by you, Hero? Are you basing this solely on the fact that your interpretation of the case referenced by one of the attorneys is an opposing view or do you have a law degree you forgot to mention? Please post your credentials and we can compare them to Mr McInerney who you quoted on your post.

http://www.barkanmei.../josh-mcinerney

I get the whole idea about campaign speeches and so on, but this attorney went on record a video explaining what he though to be possible. If it was a candidate or organizer making the claim I may not argue as much, but a lawyer placing his name, and firm on a video.... ??

There has to be some truth and conviction in this statement. Like the seriousness and legitimacy of this campaign, I guess we will find out who is more correct in matters associated with law. A mechanic, or an attorney??

Do you deny McInerney MISQUOTED the decision referenced?

Do you deny YOU MISQUOTED the decision referenced?

What you cannot deny is that the portion of the quotation omitted, is part of the very foundation of the decision.

I also find it amusing that the lawyer you defend with you typical sycophantic zeal, in addition to the misquote, LIED - ON VIDEO - about what happened at UAL.

The ibt DID NOT force the contract open at UAL and that even you can't deny.

 

[Anomaly]

Do you deny McInerney MISQUOTED the decision referenced?

Do you deny YOU MISQUOTED the decision referenced?

What you cannot deny is that the portion of the quotation omitted, is part of the very foundation of the decision.

I also find it amusing that the lawyer you defend with you typical sycophantic zeal, in addition to the misquote, LIED - ON VIDEO - about what happened at UAL.

The ibt DID NOT force the contract open at UAL and that even you can't deny.

Again, counselor, an outside attorney made the statement and put his FIRM at the center of his claim that HE believes the contract can legally be reopened. If you bothered to look at the link I provided, you would have seen this claim is not just on the Teamster site, it is also on the Law Firm's own site.

http://www.barkanmeizlish.com/josh-mcinerney

I am not an attorney, McInerney is. His contact information is also on the web site I posted. If you are truly as concerned as you say and not just playing politics for amfa, look into the subject and ask the questions of him yourself. He makes his e-mail available which tells me he is ready to defend his position.

He quotes using the same argument against UA in order to convince the company we had a right to open the agreement after changing unions to the IBT. I personally have no doubts that this discussion was had between the lawyers at the carrier and the union. If he says the discussion was had and was ale to convince the company that the agreement could be opened in section 6 negotiations, who am I to refute this? If you disagree, or disbelieve his claim you should be able to contact him and have a lawyer to lawyer talk.

Will you at least post the results of this discussion?