2014 Maintenance & Related & AMFA Cards
- Thread starter AMFAinMIAMI
- Start date
TRAVIS
Veteran
Kev I hope the best for you guys at DL.Kev3188 said:
My day is enlightened as I refuse to wear the rose colored glasses the IAM and TWU are trying to make us use to not see the real truths and cover ups.
A UNION will be on property at AA, Be it AMFA or TWU and the IAM will be over run by the TWU by sure numbers at AA and they know it! With no time to run a card drive as that would put a rip in the association and last chance for the IAM to hold on to US Airways.
The writing is on the wall.
Have a nice day Kev and peace my want to be union Brother.
I hope the best for you and maybe the IAM will pick up the effort in getting DL now that they will more than likely loose US this may work out in your favor.
For all you US & AA boys and girls in MX PUT A AMFA CARD IN NOW!!
Kev3188
Veteran
Thanks for the support. Seems a bit condescending, but hopefully, I'm just reading it wrong.
We have our work cut out for us over here at the Widget, but nothing worth having comes easy, right?
TRAVIS
Veteran
IN no way do i mean that in any bad way.. I do wish you guys the best of luck! It is your choice to what union you pick and the way Company's have just forced us to go union to protect yourself from total disregard of your worth as a employee to the company's and then they wonder why we go union. LOLKev3188 said:
If the IAM cant get it done for the ramp at DL try IBT the have the higher pay scales If I'm not mistaken.
NOW Back to AMT's at US and AA PUT YOUR AMFA CARDS IN NOW TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
Kev3188
Veteran
Ok, cool. Thanks.
Is this the union you really want to represent you guys? The IAM was the representational union that also agreed to all the outsourcing of maint at UAL. This article is focused on the 100 at Port Columbus but will effect hundreds upon hundreds more almost reaching 1,000,s. Time to sign those AMFA cards:
United Airlines to lay off 100 at Port Columbus
United Airlines to lay off 100 at Port Columbus
TRAVIS
Veteran
Swamt the IAM boys are real quite sure makes me think that a run-off is not far off. .
OP
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #173
US Airways Mechanics
Last year while there was a attempt to remove the IAM from US Airways.
The total Number of eligible voters was 4376.
3350 of you voted in total
1426 of you voted to remove the IAM.
Since your new contract has been voted in, has the IAM delivered what it promised?
Did you get what you were Looking for from this contract?
Do you want another failed attempt from the IAM with the Help of the TWU?
Do you believe this coming together with the TWU will benefit our class and craft?
The IAM has threatened your Pension, is that anyway for a Union that is supposed to be LQQKING out for YOU to act?
This Association can't be allowed to go forward, we all must do whatever we can to remove these two failed unions from the NEW AA.
It's time for YOU to take responsibility for your Future, Don't be a follower, ask the questions of the IAM, see what answers they give you.
Read what the AA mechanics are saying about the TWU, if you find that the outlook for these two unions is not what you want going forward then it's time for you to sign an AMFA card and help remove these Dues collecting machines.
Get involved, make a change that will make a difference.
Sign your AMFA card today
and get your crew to sign as well.
OP
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #174
US Airways Mechanics
Just a further Update as to the Number of Cards that you have signed.
From what I have been told it is close to 1400 cards.
That is a Good number but that is not quite the 50% mark required by the NMB.
You have 4300 +/- eligible voters.
The NMB is soon going to rule on All of our futures.
Do you want the TWU/IAM Association to further destroy what we have had throughout the yrs in our class and craft?
They are only trying to protect the income of dues and keep the money flowing into the IAMNPF this is so they can keep the big checks the Senior leaders of both the TWU/IAM unions get while we and our families fall behind the curve.
These leaders only show when they are threatened, they will say anything just to stay in power. Since the IBT drive and your new contract how much have you seen from them with the exception of the treat of them taking your pension if you vote them OUT?
Time for you to get your fellow mechanics to sign cards so this Association won't come to power here at the NEW AA.
You are part of the New AA, time for us all to work together to get an industry leading contract like the F/A are saying they have gotten by working together.
blue collar
Veteran
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,241
- 901
You're right, they should just stop and accept the alliance.
TRAVIS
Veteran
If this alliance is voted in it will only strengthen my view on most who I work with....
A bunch of old, feeble, beaten over the hill old men that don't know what to do and less told by their suppressor's whats best for them. IT is just a shame to have to work with such LOSERS!.
I can only hope they start to grow a set and start to fight for their best interest.
A bunch of old, feeble, beaten over the hill old men that don't know what to do and less told by their suppressor's whats best for them. IT is just a shame to have to work with such LOSERS!.
I can only hope they start to grow a set and start to fight for their best interest.
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
Final rule regarding NMB election procedures will impose 50-percent showing of interest threshold on all representation petitions
The National Mediation Board, on Friday, December 21, published a final rule amending its current regulations governing its election procedures. The final rule makes several changes to the NMB’s election procedures, but it is the NMB’s ruling on post-merger representation petitions that is sure to draw the most attention. In the final rule, the NMB has decided to require a 50-percent showing of interest in all representation petitions, including those spawned by mergers among carriers.
Background. On February 12, 2012, President Obama signed the Federal Aviation Administration and Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 into law. Among other things, that law changed the threshold needed to hold a representation election from 35 percent to 50 percent of the employees in a proposed unit. Controversially, the Act did not explicitly state whether the new threshold also applied to representation disputes stemming from a merger of two carriers.
The NMB had to amend its regulations to bring them into compliance with the Act. It published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 15 and invited the public and interested parties to submit comments. It also held a hearing on the NPRM on June 19, 2012. Between invitations to submit comments, the NMB received approximately 17 comments on the NPRM, and in the final rule, the NMB attempts to answer what it deemed to be the most important of issues underlying the comments.
Petitions following a merger. Chief among those issues was whether the 50-percent threshold applies to post-merger representation petitions. Relying chiefly on comments made during the Senate floor debate that preceded the enactment of the law, various groups, including Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), Association of Flight Attendants – CWA (AFA), Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU), and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) argued that the new threshold did not apply. TTD argued that Section 2, Twelfth of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which governs the handling of representation petitions, does not apply to mergers because in merger situations, the NMB is not concerned with whether a group of employees should be represented, but with how the merger of two carriers might affect existing representation. TTD and other groups cited comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the new law was not intended to apply to mergers because that could result in a group of employees losing representation “simply by merging with a slightly larger unit without even having the opportunity to vote.”
The NMB disagreed and has decided that the 50-percent threshold will apply to all representation disputes. Thus, any petition asking the Board to investigate a representation dispute must be supported by a 50-percent showing of interest. The NMB noted that the RLA requires the NMB to investigate representation disputes upon the request of any party to the dispute. It pointedly does not mention mergers and the NMB noted that when its current showing of interest rules were drafted in 1947, “mergers were not a factor in the airline industry.”
The NMB also noted that unlike the NLRA, the RLA does not have separate petitions for disputes stemming from mergers. “Thus, the statutory language does not distinguish between requests to investigate where the craft or class is unrepresented, where the employees wish to change representation or become unrepresented, or where there has been a merger or other corporate transaction.” The main question in representation disputes is which entity, if any, should be the bargaining representation of employees and that, the NMB said, is true, regardless of the background of the dispute. Had Congress wanted to change that, the NMB decided, it would have.
Similarly, would-be intervenors in elections must show that they have the support of at least 50 percent of the employees. “The Board sees no reason to make a distinction between initial applicants and intervenors at this point.”
Requests to change representation. The final rule also addresses requests to change representation. Some groups, including the Airlines for America and the Regional Airline Association (A4A/RAA), and the National Railway Labor Conference (NRLC) argued that the NMB needed to revise its manual because it is now inconsistent with the 50-percent threshold requirement. Section 19.7 of the manual currently states that current representation certifications remain in effect until after an election or until after the NMB has addressed the representation issues relating to a merger. The NLRC argued that unions should lose their certification following the merger of two units, unless they are able to show that they have the support of 50 percent of the unit. Essentially, the NLRC wanted to strip unions of their certification while a new election was being set up.
The NMB demurred, saying that it can only extinguish certifications when an employee has filed an application to do so and after the NMB has investigated that application. To do otherwise, the NMB found, would create the very instability that the RLA was crafted to avoid.
The NMB also declined to amend its manual to include greater protections against employer interference in elections, saying that it would continue to monitor allegations of election interference and will address them as they arise.
The National Mediation Board, on Friday, December 21, published a final rule amending its current regulations governing its election procedures. The final rule makes several changes to the NMB’s election procedures, but it is the NMB’s ruling on post-merger representation petitions that is sure to draw the most attention. In the final rule, the NMB has decided to require a 50-percent showing of interest in all representation petitions, including those spawned by mergers among carriers.
Background. On February 12, 2012, President Obama signed the Federal Aviation Administration and Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 into law. Among other things, that law changed the threshold needed to hold a representation election from 35 percent to 50 percent of the employees in a proposed unit. Controversially, the Act did not explicitly state whether the new threshold also applied to representation disputes stemming from a merger of two carriers.
The NMB had to amend its regulations to bring them into compliance with the Act. It published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 15 and invited the public and interested parties to submit comments. It also held a hearing on the NPRM on June 19, 2012. Between invitations to submit comments, the NMB received approximately 17 comments on the NPRM, and in the final rule, the NMB attempts to answer what it deemed to be the most important of issues underlying the comments.
Petitions following a merger. Chief among those issues was whether the 50-percent threshold applies to post-merger representation petitions. Relying chiefly on comments made during the Senate floor debate that preceded the enactment of the law, various groups, including Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), Association of Flight Attendants – CWA (AFA), Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU), and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) argued that the new threshold did not apply. TTD argued that Section 2, Twelfth of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which governs the handling of representation petitions, does not apply to mergers because in merger situations, the NMB is not concerned with whether a group of employees should be represented, but with how the merger of two carriers might affect existing representation. TTD and other groups cited comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the new law was not intended to apply to mergers because that could result in a group of employees losing representation “simply by merging with a slightly larger unit without even having the opportunity to vote.”
The NMB disagreed and has decided that the 50-percent threshold will apply to all representation disputes. Thus, any petition asking the Board to investigate a representation dispute must be supported by a 50-percent showing of interest. The NMB noted that the RLA requires the NMB to investigate representation disputes upon the request of any party to the dispute. It pointedly does not mention mergers and the NMB noted that when its current showing of interest rules were drafted in 1947, “mergers were not a factor in the airline industry.”
The NMB also noted that unlike the NLRA, the RLA does not have separate petitions for disputes stemming from mergers. “Thus, the statutory language does not distinguish between requests to investigate where the craft or class is unrepresented, where the employees wish to change representation or become unrepresented, or where there has been a merger or other corporate transaction.” The main question in representation disputes is which entity, if any, should be the bargaining representation of employees and that, the NMB said, is true, regardless of the background of the dispute. Had Congress wanted to change that, the NMB decided, it would have.
Similarly, would-be intervenors in elections must show that they have the support of at least 50 percent of the employees. “The Board sees no reason to make a distinction between initial applicants and intervenors at this point.”
Requests to change representation. The final rule also addresses requests to change representation. Some groups, including the Airlines for America and the Regional Airline Association (A4A/RAA), and the National Railway Labor Conference (NRLC) argued that the NMB needed to revise its manual because it is now inconsistent with the 50-percent threshold requirement. Section 19.7 of the manual currently states that current representation certifications remain in effect until after an election or until after the NMB has addressed the representation issues relating to a merger. The NLRC argued that unions should lose their certification following the merger of two units, unless they are able to show that they have the support of 50 percent of the unit. Essentially, the NLRC wanted to strip unions of their certification while a new election was being set up.
The NMB demurred, saying that it can only extinguish certifications when an employee has filed an application to do so and after the NMB has investigated that application. To do otherwise, the NMB found, would create the very instability that the RLA was crafted to avoid.
The NMB also declined to amend its manual to include greater protections against employer interference in elections, saying that it would continue to monitor allegations of election interference and will address them as they arise.
OP
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #179
USAirways mechanics
If the NMB does not approve this association, what is the IAM's plan to survive?
If the IAM is ousted from USAirways, and the TWU takes over since its the larger workgroup, what is the plan then since the IAM has said that they will not take any money ($$$$$$$) from AA since you are no longer IAM represented employees?
As you have read here on this Forum we the Mechanics at AA want the TWU gone thye have failed us so are you prepared to be come TWU dues payers or would you rather join with us and SIGN AN AMFA CARD so that this TWU/IAM Association goes away and we can work together to a better JCBA since from what both of us have seen the IAM and TWU have failed at our carriers?
Find a AMFA organizer at your station and sign a card.
