2015 AMT Discussion
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
Wrong again. You were promising a vote for the association from the moment it was announced that they would combine. I told you that there would be no vote held by the NMB from the very get go--Period. You NEVER said that would be no vote for the association until it was put in writing from the unions that they were certified and forced upon the membership. You and I went back and forth for several, several months. I even contacted (more than twice) leaders at the NMB to confirm or deny this about a vote for the association and was told numerous times that the NMB will not have jurisdiction over a vote for the two unions combining. While all the time you and the IAM and the TWU were saying there would be a vote by the membership for or against the association coming in at the new AA---PERIOD. Matter fact #5 of the association questions listed and authored by the unions for the association asked if the membership will in fact get to vote for r against the association to represent them and they put it in writing that they would in fact get to vote. Now I ask you, what the he!! happen to that vote? You can twist this up all you want, but it is still all in that closed thread originally started about the association. Again, you never said that there would not be a vote, until it was too late and the association all of a sudden was certified without a membership vote. And those are the facts---Period...700UW said:
How long are all the groups over here at SWA in nego's. The co is holding out for the big three groups as I have explained before.700UW said:
Sorry for trespassing in the AA'ers topics, but he just continues on with his blatant lies and I will not allow it to continue. Pretty sure most all of you know this by now though. If the pension fund ever does make it into the contract pretty sure once again you guys will more than likely have no say so about it until--BAM it's all of a sudden in the TA. Kinda just like the no vote for the association. Again sorry for the intrusion AA'ers...
No you didn't. It was too late once you finally admitted there would be no vote. You ran with it all the way until it was too late, maybe not certifies as of yet but it was announced that they were blessing the association. You were too late on purpose to help block another union from getting the cards to replace the unions because they new if the members new way ahead of time that there would have been a mad rush of card collections. Again, you never admitted it until it was too late for the membership, and it took you 2 weeks of getting drilled, not only by me, but many, many others out here. Holy crap I feel like I am conversing with WT again. Everyone out here knows exactly what you as well as the 2 unions were after. I hate to say it but hey, you and the unions won that battle and FAILED the membership big time by keeping the membership from having a voice, any voice about this new association at the new AA. Way to go, I hope you are really proud of yourselves. So now that you do admit that a vote was not allowed after yourself and the association said there would be one answer this; If you truely and honestly really did think there was going to be a vote (and as you claim you were still being told there would be a vote) what changed that 700? Why no vote from the membership after your promises of one and as the association also promised in writing that there would be one? What was the big smoking gun that changed from the membership voting on the ass. to the membership having no say so what so ever? How do you respond to that? You at least owe the memberships at AA and US the answer to this question...
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,454
- 5,257
Neither of us knew for a 100% certainty that the NMB would rule that a vote wasn't needed. We just both did the one thing that most didn't do, read the filing by the two Unions to the NMB. That filing argued that a vote was unnecessary since both Unions already represented a majority of the classes and crafts and a new Union wasn't being formed.700UW said:
Understandably many were miffed that they weren't given a choice if they wanted dual representation before it was filed. But when I hired on I also wasn't given a choice if I wanted Union representation and particularly represented by the TWU. Since I took the job obviously I was ok with it and since no one has had a successful card drive within my group to change that, we continue on forward I guess.
Which also proves that the union knew from the get go that there would be no vote. The whole time the ass. was telling the membership that they would get a chance to vote on the ass. the union knew they were going to file with the NMB stating that there was no need for a vote as both sides were already represented by a majority and a new union wasn't being formed. Now, did the union ever put out (especially since they were screaming there would be a vote in writing of the Q and A's #5) that they were going to file with the NMB and ask for no vote to take place? NO they did not ever put that out until it was too late and they did it on there own and the membership found out after the fact, true? Thx for chiming in and telling the truth and time frame of things that happened. I am still surprised that there was never a DFR filed against all three, TWU, IAM and the combined ass. itself to cover all basis. It is very clear that they were all leading the membership to thinking there was going to be a vote, then, bam NMB rules (after the unions file with them requesting no vote) and the NMB came out and blessed the ass. and ruled there would be no vote. 700 is wrong, dead wrong. He tries to say I don't have any credibility but I was the one yelling from the day they announced the combination that there would be no vote. He as well as others ran with there would be a vote up and until it was too late, period. Your post actually speaks volumes about how the ass. and others hid the fact that there would be no vote just by the filling where both unions requested and got it granted in their favor by the filling they filed to request that a vote not be held. Gentlemen, if that is not enough to file a DFR, then I don't know what is. I was shocked that no-one was barking up that tree except for a very loud certain president of one of the locals but I do not recall the number, I believe it was Peterson, is that correct? Thx for clearing that up, later...WeAAsles said:
- Banned
- #1,945
You dont, the NMB Certified the Association, you clearly stated over and over the NMB would have nothing to do with it, yet they did.
The minute I found out there would be no vote, I told you specifically, "you will surprised what will happen now."
And you accuse others of acting like WT, and you are doing the same.
And DFR is only for when the union doesnt represent the member under the CBA, explain how the Association is a DFR case.
The minute I found out there would be no vote, I told you specifically, "you will surprised what will happen now."
And you accuse others of acting like WT, and you are doing the same.
And DFR is only for when the union doesnt represent the member under the CBA, explain how the Association is a DFR case.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,454
- 5,257
swamt said:
At the time there was no Association that could speak for what was or was not going to happen. I don't recall any updates by the IAM saying that there would be a vote after they had filed? And I actually believe that some TWU reps really believed that there would be one? They should have said we are waiting on the decision of the NMB as to how we proceed next and that there "might" be a vote.
As for a DFR. What would you base that on? "Duty of Fair Representation" Since the President of Local 591 already tried to get out of the association don't you think he's already exhausted all his possibilities for that? Just curious how you would approach it and what remedy you would be seeking?
And after I read the filing myself and started to let it sink in I also remember arguing with you that I didn't believe there was going to be a vote. Even had big back and fourths with my own ex/current Local President that we weren't going to vote IMO.
It was still and always ultimately up to the NMB and from other things I've read you can't sue them. I think the term I read on them was "Ultimate Governing Body"
And again guys before you hit me. I also said 100 times that we should have been allowed to vote on the Association before it was agreed to.
conehead777
Veteran
- Dec 8, 2014
- 829
- 811
swamt said:
dont be sorry for posting on the amt board you are a amt unlike w and 700swamt said:
