vote count for twu?

[Buck]

Afraid Buck? Of what? Stick a fork in it. It's done. So when are you going to start wearing your "I voted No" shirt around town? Fear? Now you can tell us what this Fear thing is?

Afraid of what, afraid that the union and the company are working together to destroy any real unity that we have especially at TUL and OH and the line. Before the vote you appeared to broken, now broken hearted.

It is the TWU that is the T-shirt/ slogan maker.

Fear, your inability to make a stand for your fellow mechanics. You would rather cower and accept whatever. It is OK because that has been the TWU style for 25 years. The mechanics have grown tired of pandering to industrial unionism.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Afraid of what, afraid that the union and the company are working together to destroy any real unity that we have especially at TUL and OH and the line. Before the vote you appeared to broken, now broken hearted.

It is the TWU that is the T-shirt/ slogan maker.

Fear, your inability to make a stand for your fellow mechanics. You would rather cower and accept whatever. It is OK because that has been the TWU style for 25 years. The mechanics have grown tired of pandering to industrial unionism.

Mr. Buck, I wouldn't refer to what's gone on for years as any kind of unionism. A real union, industrial or otherwise, works for its membership, not for themselves as has the twu.

I was angered by the sellouts of years past but like the anti-smoking ads, it stops with me. It would have been "so twu" to sell out and vote for the trash we've been offered for personal reasons as some did but I'd like to think I helped leave the place better than I found it, even if all those saved jobs ARE only temporary.

 

[tom barry]

Hey Tom Barry how about a big FU from T town

OK DICK HEAD.
I'll be only too happy to issue a "Atta Boy(s)" to ever AMT local that voted NO.

What I want to see is the breakdown of (especially) 514's vote.

xxxx-YES
xxxx-NO

Obviously I don't have to wonder about the JFK/LGA/EWR vote .

But again, does ANYONE have all the YES/NO votes for all the AMT locals ?

 

[Hopeful]

Btw, this profession is being outsourced.... It aint what used to be. If it can be done in the 3rd world, anyone can do it. Hell, you are.

So then...would a YES vote result have changed things anyway?

 

[Strake]

So then...would a YES vote result have changed things anyway?

Early out incentive, severance pay, would have helped some of the younger guys with kids still at home etc.... It's really a moot point now. I've had some time to cool off and think about it. Whats done is done. Now, more than ever it really is time for all of us to pull together. I don't think the AMFA is the answer. I don't like what the AMFA did to NWA. I don't really think much of the way the TWU handled this latest deal either. I think the leadership should have been more decisive. They left themselves an out. It didn't matter which way the vote went, they will wash their hands of it. If it gets uglier, they can always say, "thats what you voted for". I think leaders should lead. Now, I'm really "hopeful" the no voters are right! We're going to find out.

 

[Frank Szabo]

OK DICK HEAD.
I'll be only too happy to issue a "Atta Boy(s)" to ever AMT local that voted NO.

What I want to see is the breakdown of (especially) 514's vote.

xxxx-YES
xxxx-NO

Obviously I don't have to wonder about the JFK/LGA/EWR vote .

But again, does ANYONE have all the YES/NO votes for all the AMT locals ?

You'll not see a breakdown until long after the company and its union chew on the demographics for a while.

One of the biggest issues that nobody addressed, out loud anyway, was the temporary nature of the jobs "saved". AMR/AA recognized no way could their volume of work be dumped on the FBO market with any expectations of it getting done in a timely manne (nor maintaining any degree of control over the process) as the capacity doesn't exist - yet. Quickly dumping the maintenance operation would have had the effect of shutting down much of the airline. Those "saved" jobs were intended to bridge the company to its endgame of outsourcing the operation and, as I said, were temporary in nature.

 

[Hopeful]

Early out incentive, severance pay, would have helped some of the younger guys with kids still at home etc.... It's really a moot point now. I've had some time to cool off and think about it. Whats done is done. Now, more than ever it really is time for all of us to pull together. I don't think the AMFA is the answer. I don't like what the AMFA did to NWA. I don't really think much of the way the TWU handled this latest deal either. I think the leadership should have been more decisive. They left themselves an out. It didn't matter which way the vote went, they will wash their hands of it. If it gets uglier, they can always say, "thats what you voted for". I think leaders should lead. Now, I'm really "hopeful" the no voters are right! We're going to find out.

This horse race is far from over....Do not be surprised if there is another FINAL LBO within the next three weeks.
Once they figure out where the majority of NO votes came from..which most likely is the line, then maybe the tweaks will be made.
Understandably, the JOBS issue was front and foremost for the TUL folks...I firmly believe that the 514 leadership is in the war room with the Int'l discussing what to do. I could be wrong.

One thing the no voters need to be concerned with...I still have yet to find the definitive 1113 language which prevents the company from not only imposing TERMS,,,,BUT DURATION OF THE TERMS AS WELL!

If AA is allowed to impose the same 6 year duration, then the NO voters will have been proven wrong.....BIG TIME!

If any one can find the actual provision, please post.!

 

[Frank Szabo]

This horse race is far from over....Do not be surprised if there is another FINAL LBO within the next three weeks.
Once they figure out where the majority of NO votes came from..which most likely is the line, then maybe the tweaks will be made.
Understandably, the JOBS issue was front and foremost for the TUL folks...I firmly believe that the 514 leadership is in the war room with the Int'l discussing what to do. I could be wrong.

One thing the no voters need to be concerned with...I still have yet to find the definitive 1113 language which prevents the company from not only imposing TERMS,,,,BUT DURATION OF THE TERMS AS WELL!

If AA is allowed to impose the same 6 year duration, then the NO voters will have been proven wrong.....BIG TIME!

If any one can find the actual provision, please post.!

I can't say much about the rules of this but it's obvious the company sees a way to make some serious money and they've no intention of sharing, hence a 6 year contract duration.

Three year max duration with an early opener provision will be another plus to get a deal passed.

 

[Bob Owens]

This horse race is far from over....Do not be surprised if there is another FINAL LBO within the next three weeks.
Once they figure out where the majority of NO votes came from..which most likely is the line, then maybe the tweaks will be made.
Understandably, the JOBS issue was front and foremost for the TUL folks...I firmly believe that the 514 leadership is in the war room with the Int'l discussing what to do. I could be wrong.

One thing the no voters need to be concerned with...I still have yet to find the definitive 1113 language which prevents the company from not only imposing TERMS,,,,BUT DURATION OF THE TERMS AS WELL!

If AA is allowed to impose the same 6 year duration, then the NO voters will have been proven wrong.....BIG TIME!

If any one can find the actual provision, please post.!

I agree, expect another offer before June 6th, or a request for an extension before the Judge rules.

As far as imposing terms, the law does give the Judge the right to impose temporary emergency terms under 1113(e) but the law does not give him the right to impose terms beyond that. Remember they are not requesting that the Judge modify the agreement, they are requesting that the Judge abrogate it. Thats where the RLA kicks in. Under the RLA a company can not unilaterally impose an agreement for a term, that has toi go through Section 6. If we can not come to a deal we could concievably end up in front of Congress, which could impose the recomendation of the PEB. Otherwise there is nothing in either the BK law or the RLA that allows the government to force us to accept a contract that we did not agree to.

This is still America, the assumption is that if the law does not state that they can infringe upon our rights, they cant.

 

[tom barry]

I can't say much about the rules of this but it's obvious the company sees a way to make some serious money and they've no intention of sharing, hence a 6 year contract duration.

Three year max duration with an early opener provision will be another plus to get a deal passed.

Frank,.....................GOOD posts as always IMHO.
If (in fact) because of the sensible 'NO' vote, the AMT's do get a 3 year deal with an early opener it was worth it !

If AA imposes the 6 year crap, so be it,..... BUT because of the 'NO' vote, ...you 'NO' guys have ALREADY done something that I can NEVER remember happening before, (between O/H and the Line) ......YOU STUCK TOGETHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That in itself 'should' mean that you 'NO' guys have already told the TWU...........' You "mothers' ARE TOAST !! ADIOS !!
Thou not an AMT (back in my active days) IMHO I think AMFA is definitely the answer.

Should the TUL vote turn out to be (hypothetically)......6000 Yes, 5000 No, 'THAT' is a huge step (for them) FORWARD.
Forward as in putting AMR on notice that (since yesterday) the AMT's are closer to APFA and APA in the 'sack' department.

PS,
I do hope the TUL vote was 1 more 'NO' than 'YES', because I really do want to give them a BIG 'atta boy' !
A WELL deserved 'A-B' at that !!

Here's hoping we can all see the local by local breakdown Soon.

 

[odie01]

I agree, expect another offer before June 6th, or a request for an extension before the Judge rules.

As far as imposing terms, the law does give the Judge the right to impose temporary emergency terms under 1113(e) but the law does not give him the right to impose terms beyond that. Remember they are not requesting that the Judge modify the agreement, they are requesting that the Judge abrogate it. Thats where the RLA kicks in. Under the RLA a company can not unilaterally impose an agreement for a term, that has toi go through Section 6. If we can not come to a deal we could concievably end up in front of Congress, which could impose the recomendation of the PEB. Otherwise there is nothing in either the BK law or the RLA that allows the government to force us to accept a contract that we did not agree to.

This is still America, the assumption is that if the law does not state that they can infringe upon our rights, they cant.

Thanks,
This is good info that needs to be spread to the floor.

 

[Hopeful]

I can't say much about the rules of this but it's obvious the company sees a way to make some serious money and they've no intention of sharing, hence a 6 year contract duration.

Three year max duration with an early opener provision will be another plus to get a deal passed.

Agreed...

I agree, expect another offer before June 6th, or a request for an extension before the Judge rules.

As far as imposing terms, the law does give the Judge the right to impose temporary emergency terms under 1113(e) but the law does not give him the right to impose terms beyond that. Remember they are not requesting that the Judge modify the agreement, they are requesting that the Judge abrogate it. Thats where the RLA kicks in. Under the RLA a company can not unilaterally impose an agreement for a term, that has toi go through Section 6. If we can not come to a deal we could concievably end up in front of Congress, which could impose the recomendation of the PEB. Otherwise there is nothing in either the BK law or the RLA that allows the government to force us to accept a contract that we did not agree to.

This is still America, the assumption is that if the law does not state that they can infringe upon our rights, they cant.

Understood....But if you read the side by side comparison....It says the "TWU'S POSITION IS THERE IS NO DURATION."

Sounds to me like another fight coming up.

 

[700UW]

AA did not file an 1113e motion, they filed a 1113c, that gives them the right to impose the term sheet, why do you think it was filed in the motion for?

 

[Hopeful]

AA did not file an 1113e motion, they filed a 1113c, that gives them the right to impose the term sheet, why do you think it was filed in the motion for?

I am aware of the term sheet....But DURATION is the question....
Let me ask this....If the term sheets are SOOOOO bad and for SIX years....why would it matter to the company that we rejected the LBO knowing the termsheets would be imposed?

 

[700UW]

To make the appearance of labor peace.

At US they judge abrogated our CBA, yet he said he was going to hold it abeyance to we could vote on the final offer and he didnt want labor unrest.