American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[Tim Nelson]

Sounds to me like AMFA (as an example) would be the Straw man. However, as I have said before (and now I will get blunt) who gives a fuk until the SM law is enacted and/or enforced?? Stop with the BS "what if's" or what ever's. Currently we will all go with "THE" current law and rules and regs under the NMB to do a card drive as we see fit. None of the mechanics give two shites about your "what if" questions. As you are not a mechanic...

Amfa has never been nor can ever become a strawman. You and NYer dont understand the text, it appears.
A strawman was used by non union people. Previous nmb rules didnt allow a card that said "no union".
The only thing that will change is that there wont be a need for a strawman for non union peeps anymore.
This change will happen but it doesnt change anything with amfa campaigns or the ALM current raid against the iam flight attendants.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Actually, the only strawman that was successful, was a group that wanted to be alpa and were currently non union. Alpa didnt organize them so they made a strawman, to trigger a vote, and they voted in alpa.

 

[swamt]

Amfa has never been nor can ever become a strawman. You and NYer dont understand the text, it appears.
A strawman was used by non union people. Previous nmb rules didnt allow a card that said "no union".
The only thing that will change is that there wont be a need for a strawman for non union peeps anymore.
This change will happen but it doesnt change anything with amfa campaigns or the ALM current raid against the iam flight attendants.

Point I made. Again, the mechanics could care less about this SM crap.
I turned sarcastic since some people just do not get it the first, second, third or fourth time again and again.
You fleet folks just don't get it. And probably never will.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Point I made. Again, the mechanics could care less about this SM crap.
I turned sarcastic since some people just do not get it the first, second, third or fourth time again and again.
You fleet folks just don't get it. And probably never will.

Most dont, but the mx have their own set of problems and dont get it either, at least the ones at American who have no understanding that the Association is awful for them.
Not sure why mx dont dump the assoc for amfa or amp other than ignorance.
I also think Fleet should separate from mx since mx is limiting our progress now. MX has to compete globally with mechanics making $3 in third world countries. It pretty much wiped out your profession here as your numbers have shrunk massively.

 

[NYer]

Sounds to me like AMFA (as an example) would be the Straw man. However, as I have said before (and now I will get blunt) who gives a fuk until the SM law is enacted and/or enforced?? Stop with the BS "what if's" or what ever's. Currently we will all go with "THE" current law and rules and regs under the NMB to do a card drive as we see fit. None of the mechanics give two shites about your "what if" questions. As you are not a mechanic...

Copy.

But your tirade answered the question, even if indirectly.

I'll also make note of not being able to have a conversation in a forum designed for conversation.

Obviously, you have an interest for AA mechanics to go the AMFA route and I'm not discouraging that, if it's what they want.

Wow. That's a lot.

 

[NYer]

Not to force a vote, ( I agree with you ) but to take control over the rogue TWU International President that overstepped his position in the Robert Isom move. I do not believe that Samuelson realized that Aircraft Mechanics basically cannot strike.

He has staff to advise him.

I believe he was misinformed or mislead to how any action could be interpreted by the NMB. Postings submitted in the court filings explicitly call for voluntary actions to be avoided then referenced that as to not being illegal.

Seems their theory wasn't vetted through the lawyers.

 

[NYer]

Amfa has never been nor can ever become a strawman. You and NYer dont understand the text, it appears.
A strawman was used by non union people. Previous nmb rules didnt allow a card that said "no union".
The only thing that will change is that there wont be a need for a strawman for non union peeps anymore.
This change will happen but it doesnt change anything with amfa campaigns or the ALM current raid against the iam flight attendants.

Incorrect, Tim. Read the actual rules in making changes in union and the decertification process. Any change in the certification from one union to another includes the need to certify a straw man (which could be another union) in the event the decertification was to lead to new representation. It was done simultaneously. With the proposed changes, the decertification and certification of a replacement would be done separately unless they get enough write in votes.

 

[NYer]

Actually, the only strawman that was successful, was a group that wanted to be alpa and were currently non union. Alpa didnt organize them so they made a strawman, to trigger a vote, and they voted in alpa.

Here is partial testimony from ALPA President Joe Depete on the proposed rule change (full testimony attached)

"It would also freeze decertifying employees out of any union representation and the protections of a collective bargaining agreement for two full years, even if the employees merely want a change from their current representative. This is a marked change from current practice, and this proposed organizational bar contradicts the contention that this initiative is merely designed to restore balance to the union election process under the RLA."

 

[Tim Nelson]

Here is partial testimony from ALPA President Joe Depete on the proposed rule change (full testimony attached)

"It would also freeze decertifying employees out of any union representation and the protections of a collective bargaining agreement for two full years, even if the employees merely want a change from their current representative. This is a marked change from current practice, and this proposed organizational bar contradicts the contention that this initiative is merely designed to restore balance to the union election process under the RLA."

That's true, decertifying employees would have to wait 2 years. But I was involved in this discussion and Mary Johnson explained that it truly has nothing to do with going non union if a rival union petitioned. Doesn't even make sense. Because the choices will be "Amfa", "Ass" and "No union". This change is only in the context of a strawman. And they are changing the bar to 2 years, from the current 1 year decertification bar.

Not sure what you are saying unless you are saying that if the majority of employees vote for AMFA, that AMFA wouldn't win and that everyone would go non union? Again, doesn't make sense nor did I read any of that in the proposed document.

 

[NYer]

That's true, decertifying employees would have to wait 2 years. But I was involved in this discussion and Mary Johnson explained that it truly has nothing to do with going non union if a rival union petitioned. Doesn't even make sense. Because the choices will be "Amfa", "Ass" and "No union". This change is only in the context of a strawman. And they are changing the bar to 2 years, from the current 1 year decertification bar.

Not sure what you are saying unless you are saying that if the majority of employees vote for AMFA, that AMFA wouldn't win and that everyone would go non union? Again, doesn't make sense nor did I read any of that in the proposed document.

In a vote to decertify and bring in a another option, that option IS the straw man. It doesn't matter if it's a John Doe or another union like AMFA, they'd both be considered a straw man.

Read the testimony attached above.

 

[Tim Nelson]

He has staff to advise him.

I believe he was misinformed or mislead to how any action could be interpreted by the NMB. Postings submitted in the court filings explicitly call for voluntary actions to be avoided then referenced that as to not being illegal.

Seems their theory wasn't vetted through the lawyers.

my hunch is that he listens to peterson, whose grand plan was a hot summer. Peterson is slick enuf that he was the background guy pulling the strings, so only alex and samuelson got pegged to sign the letter.

 

[Tim Nelson]

In a vote to decertify and bring in a another option, that option IS the straw man. It doesn't matter if it's a John Doe or another union like AMFA, they'd both be considered a straw man.

Read the testimony attached above.

You may be right nyer but the text doesnt support that view. As far as alpa, his reference to alita was his perspective and context. Using a strawman (union or not) to trigger an election for a write in. I dont believe he was referring to the normal mano mano elections. We will find out and i hope your wrong.
I do believe this change is coming in shortly. I contacted the nmb about our alm campaign against the iam flight attendants (my concern was also your concern) and it assured me that nothing changed regarding raids.

 

[swamt]

Most dont, but the mx have their own set of problems and dont get it either, at least the ones at American who have no understanding that the Association is awful for them.
Not sure why mx dont dump the assoc for amfa or amp other than ignorance.
I also think Fleet should separate from mx since mx is limiting our progress now. MX has to compete globally with mechanics making $3 in third world countries. It pretty much wiped out your profession here as your numbers have shrunk massively.

You two just keep going as you are. You guys really have no clue. Although Tim has more than NYer.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Good evening all,

Just been reading the back and forth here on the NMB " straw man " rule, and there seems to be alot of misunderstanding/bad info going around.

First, the "straw man" only comes into play currently, when a represented group wishes to decertify their current representative, and go non-union/unrepresented.

Here is an example where a small group of Dispatchers used the "straw man" and dumped the teamsters at Allegiant.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business...-dispatchers-vote-out-teamsters-on-a-7-7-vote

Second, the proposed rule change, even if adopted, does NOT change the way one union may be replaced (decertified) by another union

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/31/2019-00406/decertification-of-representatives

From the link above - (emphasis mine)

Under its current procedures, the NMB allows indirect rather than direct decertification. The Board does not allow an employee or a group of employees of a craft or class to apply for an election to vote for their current representative or for no union. Employees who wish to become unrepresented must follow a more convoluted path to an election because of the Board's requirement of the “straw man.” This straw man requirement means that if a craft or class of employees want to decertify, they must find a person willing to put their name up, i.e. “John Smith,” and then explain to at least fifty percent of the workforce that John Smith does not want to represent them, but if they want to decertify they have to sign the card authorizing him to represent them. Thus, in order to become unrepresented, employees are required to first sign an authorization card to have a straw man step in to represent them. In the resulting election, the ballot options will include the names of the current representative; John Smith, the straw man applicant; “no union;” and an option to write in the name of another representative. To decertify, employees have to vote for no representation.

Clearly, this rule is for those groups seeking to decertify only, not for those seeking to change representatives.


Don't be misled into believing this rule will make a decertification of your current representative(s) any more difficult.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Good evening all,

Just been reading the back and forth here on the NMB " straw man " rule, and there seems to be alot of misunderstanding/bad info going around.

First, the "straw man" only comes into play currently, when a represented group wishes to decertify their current representative, and go non-union/unrepresented.

Here is an example where a small group of Dispatchers used the "straw man" and dumped the teamsters at Allegiant.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business...-dispatchers-vote-out-teamsters-on-a-7-7-vote

Second, the proposed rule change, even if adopted, does NOT change the way one union may be replaced (decertified) by another union

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/31/2019-00406/decertification-of-representatives

From the link above - (emphasis mine)




Clearly, this rule is for those groups seeking to decertify only, not for those seeking to change representatives.


Don't be misled into believing this rule will make a decertification of your current representative(s) any more difficult.

That is correct. I'm Director of the American Labor Movement (thealm.org) and am working with the NMB procedures and confirmed that a strawman has nothing to do with normal and customary certifications like raids from competing unions. The ALM gave a commitment to United Storekeepers to file their cards and we will keep our commitment to them. And the IAM Flight Attendants contacted us and are doing their organizing. We anticipate success on both properties.