TWU,TEAMSTERS AND AA

[usairways_vote_NO]

I agree on the 700UW comment, but I think the link explains the Teamster opinion quite nicely. I had not seen this letter before. Thanks for posting it.

No problem I like to get both points of view and don't believe in suppressing anyones opinion as long as they are not lying i.e. 700UW

 

[Anomaly]

Obviously you are IBT believer and don't want to do or say anything to sway vote for the election and you are going to go with what the IBT and their lawyers tell you and won't listen or acknowledge anything else from any source. You and I will believe what we want but it most likely won't be decided in court. It wil be a moot point by then as the merger will take care of that.

I will not dispute your first line. I joined the Teamsters willingly but honestly with some doubt. They have put thit doubt to rest and have proven to be thorough and dedicated. I trust the IBT legal team and believe they have sound arguments. I know how to troubleshoot and repair aircraft. I leave legal matters to other experts.

If the merger changes the specifics surrounding the matter, why not simply post this in the first place? Why continue this discussion if it will bear no meaning or consequence in the end? Will you explain your last sentence?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Obviously you are IBT believer and don't want to do or say anything to sway vote for the election and you are going to go with what the IBT and their lawyers tell you and won't listen or acknowledge anything else from any source. You and I will believe what we want but it most likely won't be decided in court. It wil be a moot point by then as the merger will take care of that.

Agreed.

After seeing Mr McInerney lie about what happened at UAL, you could see the same thing happening at American should-god forbid- the ibt get in.

teamsters are certified, they then drag their collective feet with every manner of excuses, until the merger kicks in, and then they'll start citing American as another place they forced open the contract.

 

[Anomaly]

The AA contract will be renegotiated following the merger, but not because there's any legal process that requires the employer to reopen a settled contract when the IBT replaces another representative. The AA contract (and the US IAM contract) will be renegotiated following the merger to arrive at a new combined CBA.

You (and that fat kid attorney) are misrepresenting the holding of the AFA decision. That decision is inapplicable to the present situation.

Here we go again.... 🙄 🙄 🙄

BTW; This post began because I answered an earlier post by 1AA and Realityck which was subsequent;y challenged by TSH. If you and usairways_vote_no are correct, this whole conversation string could have been avoided or at least cut off much sooner.

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.

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.

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.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

I will not dispute your first line. I joined the Teamsters willingly but honestly with some doubt. They have put thit doubt to rest and have proven to be thorough and dedicated. I trust the IBT legal team and believe they have sound arguments. I know how to troubleshoot and repair aircraft. I leave legal matters to other experts.

If the merger changes the specifics surrounding the matter, why not simply post this in the first place? Why continue this discussion if it will bear no meaning or consequence in the end? Will you explain your last sentence?

Of course they want you believe them. That is their job just like politicians want you to believe everything they promise. Have you read everything the TWU, IBT, AMFA and IAM has put out there? You can't tell me you believe 100% of what the IBT puts out. You say it may be a matter to be determined by the court. Since when is something that has to be determined by the court a sure thing? OJ LOL

FWAA explains my last sentence very well. There is no harm in having a discussion and try to post facts and case study to support ones point of view.

How about I throw this one out there not based on any facts or anything just something to ponder...Maybe the IBT knows the question of opening up section 6 negotiations is a moot point with the merger so they just throw it out there to garner more votes..hmmm....As Mr Parker likes to say "in any case" if the IBT is elected and IF soon thereafter requests for section 6 it will be interesting what AA's response will be. I think they have 30 days.

 

[Anomaly]

Agreed.

After seeing Mr McInerney lie about what happened at UAL, you could see the same thing happening at American should-god forbid- the ibt get in.

teamsters are certified, they then drag their collective feet with every manner of excuses, until the merger kicks in, and then they'll start citing American as another place they forced open the contract.

Here you go. I would have referenced earlier but just found out about it.

http://www.teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/Griswold_ltr_re_Change_of_Rep_11_25_08.pdf

 

[Anomaly]

Of course they want you believe them. That is their job just like politicians want you to believe everything they promise. Have you read everything the TWU, IBT, AMFA and IAM has put out there? You can't tell me you believe 100% of what the IBT puts out. You say it may be a matter to be determined by the court. Since when is something that has to be determined by the court a sure thing? OJ LOL

FWAA explains my last sentence very well. There is no harm in having a discussion and try to post facts and case study to support ones point of view.

How about I throw this one out there not based on any facts or anything just something to ponder...Maybe the IBT knows the question of opening up section 6 negotiations is a moot point with the merger so they just throw it out there to garner more votes..hmmm....As Mr Parker likes to say "in any case" if the IBT is elected and IF soon thereafter requests for section 6 it will be interesting what AA's response will be. I think they have 30 days.

Why then would amfa argue against the Teamsters plan? Why not jump on board and say they could open up the contract also because a merger situation exists?

Good point.

BTW; I post based on my past experience as a member of the IBT, IAM, and AMFA

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Here you go. I would have referenced earlier but just found out about it.

http://www.teamster....ep_11_25_08.pdf

Really? Its a copy of the piece circulated during the UAL campaign but based on the date they must've dusted it off for the Alaska/Horizon campaign.

I see he cited the ACTUAL language of the AFA vs US Air decision.

So..... your point is?

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Why then would amfa argue against the Teamsters plan? Why not jump on board and say they could open up the contract also because a merger situation exists?

Good point.

BTW; I post based on my past experience as a member of the IBT, IAM, and AMFA

I can't speak for AMFA but maybe they don't think Section 6 can be opened up and they didn't want to lie about it. I don't think anyone will dispute that a transition agreement will come to fruitation after a merger no matter who gets in.

Hmm that makes me think of the US pilots. Voted in a new union after the merger but still not able to get an agreement afte what 8 years?

I been IBT, TWU and IAM....They are all garbage

 

[1AA]

I can't speak for AMFA but maybe they don't think Section 6 can be opened up and they didn't want to lie about it. I don't think anyone will dispute that a transition agreement will come to fruitation after a merger no matter who gets in.

Hmm that makes me think of the US pilots. Voted in a new union after the merger but still not able to get an agreement afte what 8 years?

I been IBT, TWU and IAM....They are all garbage

I guess it is time to try AMFA.

 

[Anomaly]

I guess it is time to try AMFA.

It took UA mechanics just over 4 years to realize how bad that guess was.

 

[Bob Owens]

Here you go. I would have referenced earlier but just found out about it.

http://www.teamster....ep_11_25_08.pdf

Ok read the opinion of a law firm looking for work, so there was a case with special circumstances where the court ruled that the carrier (USAIR) and the Union (AFA) would have to negotiate and could not simply apply the terms of an existing agreement on workers at the Trump Shuttle that was negotiated between the TWU and Eastern Airlines or keep the terms that were negotiated with EAL in place-EAL had gone out of business three years prior, after those workers had voted to become AFA and USAIR took over the Shuttle. In this case the carrier wanted to run part of their business under a different contract claiming that the deal negotiated with EAL and the TWU still applied to workers at what was the trump Shuttle which had been taken over by USAIR. Complicated. So what does this have to do with a simple change in representation? Do any of those circumstances apply here?

So in the 85 plus years that the RLA has been in existence, where scores if not hundreds of times workers have changed representation and in all those cases except one the change did not open the contract you still claim that if we go IBT that they can force AA to open the contract. OK, going to need more than that to convince me.

This is from the letter you cited;; "When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of 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 agreements made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives. "

 

[swamt]

Some people just cannot comprehend. I can't believe you guys are still discussing this issue. It was dead for awhile after it was proven the first and second time. After new representation takes over the only way a contract can be opened and renegotiated is IF the employer also agrees to do so. If the employer says no then said contract remains in tact up to amendable date and beyond until a new contract is voted in. Until all that, the original contract will be "inherited" honored and enforced by the new representative that was brought in by the membership.
Now, when a new union is voted in, where a prior representative was not present before union was voted in, then yes, it is required for both parties to get to the table and nego a contract. This is what is being referenced when it says they will nego new contract, NOT when a new representative union replaces an existing representative.
If all these guys are stuck on this issue even after it was proven, as well as the teamsters to this day have never been able to force UAL into contract talks UNTIL THE AMENDABLE DATE WAS IN AFFECT, The fact still remains, it will not happen at AA, UNLESS, the employer agrees to.

 

[Anomaly]

Some people just cannot comprehend. I can't believe you guys are still discussing this issue. It was dead for awhile after it was proven the first and second time. After new representation takes over the only way a contract can be opened and renegotiated is IF the employer also agrees to do so. If the employer says no then said contract remains in tact up to amendable date and beyond until a new contract is voted in. Until all that, the original contract will be "inherited" honored and enforced by the new representative that was brought in by the membership.
Now, when a new union is voted in, where a prior representative was not present before union was voted in, then yes, it is required for both parties to get to the table and nego a contract. This is what is being referenced when it says they will nego new contract, NOT when a new representative union replaces an existing representative.
If all these guys are stuck on this issue even after it was proven, as well as the teamsters to this day have never been able to force UAL into contract talks UNTIL THE AMENDABLE DATE WAS IN AFFECT, The fact still remains, it will not happen at AA, UNLESS, the employer agrees to.

Another great post from you 🙄 🙄 🙄

Did I miss something? Where is your proof? Several people arguing against an opinion does not equal proof. Did you miss that in law school?

You can pick the case apart all you want over and over on these threads, but that still offers no real assurance of either side, yours or the IBT attorneys. Until the case is heard and lost in a court of law, I see no evidence of proof. I can't believe you are still smoldering over this yourself swamt?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Ok read the opinion of a law firm looking for work, so there was a case with special circumstances where the court ruled that the carrier (USAIR) and the Union (AFA) would have to negotiate and could not simply apply the terms of an existing agreement on workers at the Trump Shuttle that was negotiated between the TWU and Eastern Airlines or keep the terms that were negotiated with EAL in place-EAL had gone out of business three years prior, after those workers had voted to become AFA and USAIR took over the Shuttle. In this case the carrier wanted to run part of their business under a different contract claiming that the deal negotiated with EAL and the TWU still applied to workers at what was the trump Shuttle which had been taken over by USAIR. Complicated. So what does this have to do with a simple change in representation? Do any of those circumstances apply here?

So in the 85 plus years that the RLA has been in existence, where scores if not hundreds of times workers have changed representation and in all those cases except one the change did not open the contract you still claim that if we go IBT that they can force AA to open the contract. OK, going to need more than that to convince me.

This is from the letter you cited;; "When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of 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 agreements made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives. "

Exactly.

The case the ibt and their mouthpieces continue to misquote was a merger/combination of work groups, not simply one union replacing another.

Additionally, if the ibt case had even a shred of validity then this position of the board would NEVER work.....

"When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of 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 agreements made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives. "

The fact that to the current day, no simple change of representation has forced open a previously existing agreement, is testament to the validity of the NMBs stated position on the matter.