2015 AMT Discussion

[conehead777]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1105077.html
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2004647378F3d269_1625/RAMEY%20v.%20DISTRICT%20141,%20INTERN.%20ASS'N%20OF%20MACHINISTS#
ramey vs iam 141
 
 
6. IAM also appears to argue that Seham's testimony was "irrelevant" to the issues at trial because it related solely to his experiences as an advocate for AMFA and not to any hostility directed toward plaintiffs by IAM officials. This argument is plainly without merit. Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Fed.R.Evid. 401. If IAM officials directed hostility and animus toward Seham simply as a result of hisassociation with AMFA, that tends to support plaintiffs' claim that IAM was hostile towards them as a result of their association with AMFA.

 

[Buck]

What does Actuarial Value and Fair Value mean? 700UW.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Go look up the litigation, the mechanics had to hire their own lawyers and sue the IAM, as they wanted their EA seniority when they resigned from EA and went to work for TS.

As AMFA would not help them.

So you are the one lying.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2004647378F3d269_1625/RAMEY%20v.%20DISTRICT%20141,%20INTERN.%20ASS'N%20OF%20MACHINISTS

 
No. You are the LIAR and a pathetic one at that.
 
 
First look at the date of this case -
 

 

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued December 18, 2003.
Decided August 10, 2004.

 
Now look at the date of the NMB decision, and a KEY aspect you left out -

 

While employed by Trump Shuttle, plaintiffs grew frustrated with IAM's representation. Consequently, in 1990 they voted out IAM as their labor union and voted instead to be represented by the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA). In 1992, as a result of Trump Shuttle's financial difficulties, a consortium of banks took control of the airline and renamed it Shuttle, Inc. (Shuttle). Almost immediately thereafter, Shuttle entered into an agreement with USAir by which USAir would manage Shuttle's operations. This agreement also provided USAir with an option to purchase Shuttle within five years.
 
In August 1992, the National Mediation Board (NMB) granted USAir "single carrier status" for the purposes of collective bargaining. As a result, AMFA ceased to represent plaintiffs, and IAM, which represented the USAir mechanics, resumed its position as plaintiffs' collective bargaining representative.
 

 
Further -
 

 
In late 1992 or early 1993, IAM and USAir commenced negotiations concerning the integration of plaintiffs into the mainline workforce. The effect of integration would be to include plaintiffs under the same collective bargaining agreement as the mainline employees. This was attractive to plaintiffs because it offered the prospect of higher pay and better benefits.
The integration, or "mainlining," process required USAir and IAM to come to an agreement as to how plaintiffs' seniority status would be calculated with respect to their peers in the mainline workforce. IAM has a longstanding policy of "dovetailing" seniority lists, which involves378 F.3d 275]
blending the two employee groups based on their pre-merger employment dates at each of the merging airlines. In applying this policy to plaintiffs, IAM had to decide what it would consider to be plaintiffs' start dates at Shuttle. Plaintiffs felt that IAM should apply their Eastern start dates because they viewed their move from Eastern to Trump Shuttle as a "transfer." IAM, however, argued that plaintiffs resigned from Eastern prior to accepting employment at Trump Shuttle and, therefore, they should only be accorded seniority classification from their start-dates at Trump Shuttle.

Plaintiffs vigorously opposed IAM's preferred position and retained Attorney Lee Seham to advocate on their behalf to IAM. Plaintiffs believed that IAM had taken this position to punish them for voting for AMFA during their brief period at Trump Shuttle and for refusing to join the mainline strike when Shuttle was taken over by USAir. Seham was unsuccessful in persuading IAM to reconsider its position. IAM subsequently presented its position to USAir. Before an agreement could be reached, however, USAir decided not to proceed with the mainlining and announced that it would not integrate the two employee groups unless and until it decided to exercise its five-year option to purchase Shuttle. Therefore, the seniority issue receded into the background and plaintiffs continued to work for USAir under a separate collective bargaining agreement.

 

In late 1997, USAir decided to exercise its option and, in March 1998, it announced its intention to integrate the two workforces. However, in July 1998, IAM announced that, based on preliminary discussions, it appeared that USAir would not proceed with integration "in the immediate future." Subsequently, in December 1998, plaintiffs received a memo from IAM explaining that IAM would once again take the position during negotiations that plaintiffs' Eastern seniority should not be applied. It is not clear from the record precisely when negotiations between USAir and IAM formally commenced or when plaintiffs learned of their commencement. In May 1999, USAir agreed to IAM's terms.
In late July 1999, plaintiffs instituted this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Korman, J., and alleged that IAM breached the duty of fair representation it owed them under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., by failing to accord them their Eastern seniority.1They maintained that IAM punished them for having chosen AMFA over IAM and for opting not to participate in the mainline mechanics' strike in 1992. IAM moved for summary judgment on various grounds, including that (1) it did not breach its duty because its position was objectively reasonable, (2) the statute of limitations had lapsed before plaintiffs instituted the action, and (3) plaintiffs had insufficient evidence to prove that IAM was motivated by hostility or animus toward plaintiffs. Judge Korman denied the motion, Ramey v. District 141, 2002 WL 32152292, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26670 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2002), and the case proceeded to trial.
IAM argued to the jury that its seniority decision was reasonable because plaintiffs had resigned from Eastern before they were hired by Trump Shuttle and, therefore, they were not entitled to their Eastern
[378 F.3d 276]
seniority. However, plaintiffs showed that IAM had taken the position during the Eastern bankruptcy proceeding that plaintiffs were to be viewed not as having resigned from Eastern, but rather as having "transitioned" from Eastern to Trump. Plaintiffs also elicited testimony to the effect that IAM officials were hostile toward AMFA and those associated with it.
The jury found in favor of plaintiffs, concluding that IAM breached its duty because it had stripped plaintiffs of their seniority out of animus. In particular, the jury found that, had IAM not been hostile toward plaintiffs as a result of their decision to be represented by AMFA, IAM would have sided with them on the seniority issue.
IAM moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, essentially renewing the arguments it had made in the summary judgment motion. Judge Korman denied the motion and entered judgment against IAM. The judgment included an injunction requiring IAM to negotiate with USAir to amend the seniority roster and provide plaintiffs with their Eastern start dates. In addition, because some plaintiffs had been furloughed by USAir as a result of their relatively lower start dates, the injunction requires IAM to request that USAir restore these plaintiffs to work.
 

 
 
 
When the IAM took over after US took control of the Shuttle in 1992 AMFA did indeed represent the interests of the Trump Mechanics as clearly cited in the very link you provided. The issue was argued then but never settled as US ran Trump Shuttle as a separate entity also clearly cited in the very link you provided. It was only after US decided to utilize their option on the shuttle and bring the Trump mechanic into the Mainline in 1998 roughly SIX YEARS after the NMB decision that the IAM AGAIN tried to screw the Shuttle Mechanics out of their seniority which lead to their filing in 1999.  
 
Even then - while Seham didn't represent them 6 years later, he was a witness for them. 
 
You are yet again a proven LIAR! ..... and you provided the link that helps prove it.  THATS PRICELESS!

 

[700UW]

And the Trump mechanics scabbed and performed struck work in BOS, LGA, and DCA, when we were in strike in 92.

 

[Real tired]

Listen I am not fighting you. Nor do I expect you to fight me. 
 
As for the actual percentage of funding, I do not know. However I do question the source of your document.
It is from the IAM and of course it is going to look good. The document I used is from Credit Suisse and is from 2012.
I still do not know what definitions of actuarial value and the fair market value are and how they are applied today or historically.
 
What do I get for joining your fund?
 
Beyond that I am expecting the Delta +3% , I would like an increase in my 401k matching to a more reasonable percentage equal to my peers in the industry.
 
What does it mean to join you?
 
Are you after my Frozen Pension here at American Airlines ( which is not part of any union )?
 
Will you vote to give me 31+ years of vesting in your fund with a stipend to make it worth it's weight in IAM gold?
 
Why should I risk any of my money in a risky "Snake Oil" scheme?
 
Can you guarantee,that if I help fund your pension you will not share it will any other work group or profession
or ultimately Train, Bus or any other members of the IAM, including the members at the Internationals of both unions or Association ?

First off, I'm with you, not against you.  And I used a lot of sarcasm in my post.
 
We resisted the IAMNPF for more than 2 years until it was rammed down our throats in yet another concessionary contract that just narrowly passed, helped in part by my blind, apathetic coworkers, who saw that one dollar raise, and the beat down America West Mechanics who had nothing.  We were forced to give up 401K match money that had a good rate of return.
 
My advice to any AA people, Fleet included, stay far away from the pyramid scheme called the IAMNPF.  It relies on people coming in after you to support you.  You just need to find those people.
 
That's where the sarcastic "join me" came from.
 
Maybe not too many of us post here, but the feeling on the floor is that we don't like this nasty situation any more than you people do.  
 
We are just used to it.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

And the Trump mechanics scabbed and performed struck work in BOS, LGA, and DCA, when we were in strike in 92.

 
So you get caught in a blatant lie, and now you want to try and change the subject to scabbing?
 
Sorry - Nice Try.

 

[Rogallo]

He's something ain't he? Not a very good ambassador for the IAM. His credibility is shot.

 

[700UW]

I don't work for the IAM and I don't give a crap what you all think.

You all wallow in your self pity and blame everyone else for your problems instead if looking in the mirror and taking personal responsibility.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I don't work for the IAM and I don't give a crap what you all think.

You all wallow in your self pity and blame everyone else for your problems instead if looking in the mirror and taking personal responsibility.

 
So when were YOU planning to take some "personal responsibility" and own the LIE you just got caught in?

 

[conehead777]

Is this topic about AMTs?

yes it is and your not a amt. and you say you do not work for the iam but you keep up with the iam is the best thing ever. Most of us on here no better then that . And we're not interested in the iampf you keep forcing down our throats fully funded are unfounded I do not care because I do not want the union running my retirement and do not want any part of it. And now some of the us air people are speaking up saying it's no good. Also it dose not matter amt have not had benefit cuts like fleet has. If it happened to fleet it can happen to amts . See I know all your selling points it want work. Your rude condescending and if no one agrees with you you say they can't comprehend . Well they are disagreeing with you . You like wt used to put info on here to your liking but do not put on here proving facts like a link the delta people are tired of you to they keep telling you it's there business but you keep up with your iam stuff . If you do not work for iam I have a hard time be leaving that as much as you post and not get paid for it something dose not add up there .go make you a iam thread and post your stuff there. And I do not care you have been on a nc to me that means nothing . And us that have not been on the nc have as much right to post our dissatisfaction of the nc when there not doing there jobs nor allowing observers . And they hold back info to there members

 

[Vortilon]

 
700 does have a point, we are in a "union", and a majority of the union members DID vote for the 2003 concessions, a majority DID vote down the 2010 TA, a majority DID vote in the 2012 bankruptcy contract, a majority DO NOT sign AMFA cards or IBT cards. The majority did vote us into the position we are in today, It's just that the loudest guys are in the minority and think they were wronged by some kind of skullduggery.
 
just because it's from 700 doesn't make it wrong.

 
Over simplification would be an understatement of your assessment.  Especially with regards to the AMFA card drives.  BTW, we know we were wronged, and the documentation is all readily available.  Your anti AMFA bias is not unexpected, wouldn't want to lose those AMTs.  Stick to the baggage handler forum.

 

[bigjets]

 
Over simplification would be an understatement of your assessment.  Especially with regards to the AMFA card drives.  BTW, we know we were wronged, and the documentation is all readily available.  Your anti AMFA bias is not unexpected, wouldn't want to lose those AMTs.  Stick to the baggage handler forum.

 
My preference is AMFA, then No union, over the twu. I certainly DO NOT want anything to do with IAM pension. Talked to some of the older LUS guys, they won't support any union but IAM because of their pension. I don't care what the money is, I vote NO for anything that puts me into IAM pension, I'm expecting 13% contribution to my 401k, Pilots get 17%, FA's get 10%, I'm thinking 13% is fair. 
 
Yes over implication of card drives, but the fact is we never could get Tulsa on board with AMFA, AMP or IBT. But all the votes we took are just a fact, but I didn't mention the apathy amongst the guys that don't even vote, which is inexcusable. Their votes could have meant all the difference. 

 

[AANOTOK]

 
My preference is AMFA, then No union, over the twu. I certainly DO NOT want anything to do with IAM pension. Talked to some of the older LUS guys, they won't support any union but IAM because of their pension. I don't care what the money is, I vote NO for anything that puts me into IAM pension, I'm expecting 13% contribution to my 401k, Pilots get 17%, FA's get 10%, I'm thinking 13% is fair. 
 
Yes over implication of card drives, but the fact is we never could get Tulsa on board with AMFA, AMP or IBT. But all the votes we took are just a fact, but I didn't mention the apathy amongst the guys that don't even vote, which is inexcusable. Their votes could have meant all the difference. 

I think the agents only got 5.5 match. I would be willing to bet ours mirrors theirs a lot more than the Pilots and F/A's.

 

[Overspeed]

AANOTOK,
The APFA got in the BK CBA an accelerator for those over age 50 that does give those members more defined contribution. I believe it is only until the end of the CBA and then they all get the same match and defined contribution. I would like an accelerator for us that now have less time to save in the 401k. If you are younger you have more time but the match and defined contribution could be improved.

 

[DallasConehead]

I would be will to bet their gonna stick us in the ass with a hot poker and we're gonna vote yes for it.