TWU - Thought Police Cannon Fired

[RV4]

It appears that now ALL LINE MECHANICS are going to revoke their "check-off" dues authorization to protest the removal of elected representatives.

Will the TWU have the nads to demand 5000 Mechanics be fired from AA for refusing dues payment?

This is about to blow into the mother of all fiascos!

I smell FEAR, and a big problem coming down the pipe.

TWU = DICTATORS

TWU DICTATORS = TWU FAILURE

TWU FAILURE = AMFA @ AA

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 8/5/2003 9:52:48 PM Checking it Out wrote:


Is it also true these 3 Individuals or should we say amfa wantabes are the same in which a picture was taken with delle not long ago! or was it 2?
----------------​

Oh now the TWU Communist now claim that having your picture taken with Delle violates the Constitution and Threatens the membership.
What's next? Brown Shirts and Ethnic Clean-ups?
And so they are removed, and a new election. 95% AMFA Locals will likely just elect another AMFA guy. What did the TWU accomplish?
THE TWU IS STUCK ON STUPID!

 

[RV4]

CHECK THIS OUT....pun intended.
The TWU is removing it's own Local Line Presidents from Elected Office.

I bet this will stop the AMFA movement.....NOT.

Thanks for returning our top organizers to finish the drive and eliminate the TWU from AA property.

Sonny Hall and the gang of thought police thugs have just finished the card collection for us... GAME OVER!

 

[Checking it Out]

I understand during a President Council meeting today three of the presidents refused to support the TWU in which they took an oath to uphold! If this is true than they deserve to be held out of service pending the outcome! Way to go! and I am proud of the International for protecting the Membership!

Is it also true these 3 Individuals or should we say amfa wantabes are the same in which a picture was taken with delle not long ago! or was it 2?

The saga continues,

TWU SOLIDARITY!

 

[1AA]

----------------
On 8/6/2003 5:23:49 AM Checking it Out wrote:


The simple truth is, they were asked to support the Members and the TWU and indicated they could not do so any longer!
----------------​

Hey, CIO did any of the Local presidents show any signs that they were not supporting their local and its members that elected them? Did any of the local presidents show any signs of not supporting the TWU in any manner? Jim Little is running scared and is in a highly defensive mode. Soon his fellow dispatchers will vote the TWU out and he will no longer be represented by the TWU. With that in mind and the daily increasing card count here at American, this man is beginning to get like a sick racoon being trapped in a corner with no way out. So stop accusing the local presidents of something that is not true. Again as always show us some proof before you spew your mouth with lies and deceit.

 

[Checking it Out]

The simple truth is, they were asked to support the Members and the TWU and indicated they could not do so any longer!

The TWU Presidents council has an obligation to represent the best interest of the membership. These Individuals failed in their responsibility and deserve what they get.

Continue dave and put your twist on the issue! If it was turned around, amfa has proven they would do the samething! Try and tell us it is'nt so?

Is'nt amfa wantabes the same who has said the officers who fail in their responsibility can't be removed? I thought a letter from amfa just come out on the subject? The avenue is their to protect the members best interest and it works. Now you come on this board and complain about the same issue you have been harping on for years? Give us a break! Lets here your spin and try and justify your position!

You should be praising the Presidents Council for standing up!

TWU SOLIDARITY!

 

[Hopeful]

I beg to differ. My Local President at JFK has had nothing but his members' best interests in mind since he was elected.

 

[aircraft_artificer]

It was NOT that they would not support their members, it was however they would not support the TWU OVER their members. Large difference.

Any organization that MUST enforce undying support through threats and intimidation within a democratic society has to be questioned.

 

[will fix for food]

----------------
On 8/6/2003 7:07:30 AM aircraft_artificer wrote:

It was NOT that they would not support their members, it was however they would not support the TWU OVER their members. Large difference.

Any organization that MUST enforce undying support through threats and intimidation within a democratic society has to be questioned.

----------------​

Dead on post. 100% true.

A local union representative's first area of concern should always be his or her membership. The International's concerns should never be placed before the members the way it was.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Hopeful;
What's the "time line" for you guys (AMFA/TWU vote, and actual "first day on the job", for this coming "showdown"

Although Fleet service( and I'm Fleet service) , will be (even MORE) DEADER ON ARRIVAL(DOA), once you guys get AMFA in, WHICH I HAVE SUPPORTED ON THESE BOARDS FOR YEARS, It's not fair to have you licenced guys carrying us on your backs.
Problem is, I'm the only one (FSC) tellin' it like it is !!!!!!!!!

You know(Hopeful), there was a time, not so long ago, that I wished we could ALL(AMT's/FSC's) stand strong against the company TOGETHER. But sadly, the day that AA, AND THE UNION, relocated out of New YORK, was the begining of the "UN-UNITY".
Having said that, and after the "NO SACK" show of support from my fellow FSC's, for a yes vote, I'll be glad to see you guys get a "fresh start" with AMFA.

As the old TV commercial use to say:
Good luck to you AMT's, "YOU'VE EARNED IT" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO/PRO A M F A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NH/BB's

 

[Checking it Out]

I beg to differ with you, but these Presidents have taken an oath to uphold the TWU Constitution. Part of this oath is to represent the membership 100% and than the International. When you lose this than the TWU has an obligation to protect the Majority of the membership. This has been done, and I commend the Presidents Council for supporting this issue!
These Individuals have an opportunity to redeem themselves. It is their choice!
These same Individuals have continued to not pass out Information to the members and repeatedly disrupt the Presidents council or not showed up at all, this is a sign of being a coward when you are afraid to do the right thing. If the Presidents Council holds a meeting and the majority vote on a particular subject than the Presidents should support the majority. Not go out and destroy the same organization you gave an oath to uphold!
TWU SOLIDARITY!

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 8/6/2003 5:23:49 AM Checking it Out wrote:


The simple truth is, they were asked to support the Members and the TWU and indicated they could not do so any longer!

The TWU Presidents council has an obligation to represent the best interest of the membership. These Individuals failed in their responsibility and deserve what they get.

Continue dave and put your twist on the issue! If it was turned around, amfa has proven they would do the samething! Try and tell us it is'nt so?

Is'nt amfa wantabes the same who has said the officers who fail in their responsibility can't be removed? I thought a letter from amfa just come out on the subject? The avenue is their to protect the members best interest and it works. Now you come on this board and complain about the same issue you have been harping on for years? Give us a break! Lets here your spin and try and justify your position!

You should be praising the Presidents Council for standing up!

TWU SOLIDARITY!

----------------​

Your information is incorrect.
The Presidents were not asked to sign an oath of allegience. They were directed to sign a statement, and told if they did not sign it they would be removed, in other words given an ultimatum. I read the letter. Its not the content of the letter that is so bad but the premise upon which it was presented. Basically the International wants to transform these Presidents into Charlie McCarthy's. These Presidents can write and issue their own letters, they do not need the International to write for them. By signing a letter such as this, under duress, that they did not write, these guys would be turning themselves into mere puppetts.
The International wrote individual letters, not a joint letter. If they wanted a letter of Solidarity they should have asked for one. I dont blame these guys one bit for refusing to sign such a letter especially in such a manner that strips them of their rights to be individuals and express their veiws in their own words. This is a clear abuse of power by unelected officials against elected officials.
If the members of those Locals involved had petitioned to have these Presidents removed then yes, they should be removed, but that is not the case. The members back their Presidents. The assumption that if the President who is elected and accountable, does not follow the dictates of Jim Little who is not elected and is unaccountable to the members is failing in his responsiblity is deeply flawed. Apparently Jim Little and Sonny Hall want them removed. Given the choice, which they are not, I'll bet that the members would choose to remove Sonny Hall and Jim Little before their Presidents. Why dont we put it to a vote of the members?

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 8/6/2003 11:16:07 AM Checking it Out wrote:



I beg to differ with you, but these Presidents have taken an oath to uphold the TWU Constitution. Part of this oath is to represent the membership 100% and than the International. When you lose this than the TWU has an obligation to protect the Majority of the membership. This has been done, and I commend the Presidents Council for supporting this issue!
These Individuals have an opportunity to redeem themselves. It is their choice!
These same Individuals have continued to not pass out Information to the members and repeatedly disrupt the Presidents council or not showed up at all, this is a sign of being a coward when you are afraid to do the right thing. If the Presidents Council holds a meeting and the majority vote on a particular subject than the Presidents should support the majority. Not go out and destroy the same organization you gave an oath to uphold!
TWU SOLIDARITY!


----------------​

The question is, why were you removed from Office? Who did you sell out to get appointed? What was your crime? Sexual in nature I am sure, or alcohol related imperfections. What was it? Were you upholding the oath when you comitted your transgressions?
Hurry now, run to the moderator for help! We have exposed some truth!

 

[twuer]

----------------
On 8/6/2003 2:58:58 PM RV4 wrote:

----------------
On 8/6/2003 11:16:07 AM Checking it Out wrote:



I beg to differ with you, but these Presidents have taken an oath to uphold the TWU Constitution. Part of this oath is to represent the membership 100% and than the International. When you lose this than the TWU has an obligation to protect the Majority of the membership. This has been done, and I commend the Presidents Council for supporting this issue!
These Individuals have an opportunity to redeem themselves. It is their choice!
These same Individuals have continued to not pass out Information to the members and repeatedly disrupt the Presidents council or not showed up at all, this is a sign of being a coward when you are afraid to do the right thing. If the Presidents Council holds a meeting and the majority vote on a particular subject than the Presidents should support the majority. Not go out and destroy the same organization you gave an oath to uphold!
TWU SOLIDARITY!


----------------​

The question is, why were you removed from Office? Who did you sell out to get appointed? What was your crime? Sexual in nature I am sure, or alcohol related imperfections. What was it? Were you upholding the oath when you comitted your transgressions?
Hurry now, run to the moderator for help! We have exposed some truth!

----------------​

RV4,
You're an idiot! You talk about integrity and then you go and post something like this. Why don't you just come out and answer the questions that are asked of you. I have asked on many occasions. . .what would AMFA do in the same situation? Not just this particular one but the other ones that you continue to harp on. You and I both know that answer. You lose RV4. You can continue to gripe, complain, and cry but you just proved to me and the other readers on these boards what kind of man you really are by your own words. Get a life Dave. You suck at debating.

Oh, and before you start on me, the numbers are still coming in from NWA. They don't look good Dave. You will be the first to know when I get them.

 

[RV4]

Are these the numbers you are talking about twuer