AMFA Organizing Drive to Replace Association

[swamt]

Sorry bout that, didn't realize chellow already posted from another web page. Oh well, worth reading twice, LOL.

 

[chellow]

Sorry bout that, didn't realize chellow already posted from another web page. Oh well, worth reading twice, LOL.

PDF file is better.

 

[1AA]

Coming up on a week since both sides challenged the eligibility and card count. The longer it takes the more suspicious this filing becomes.

 

[swamt]

Coming up on a week since both sides challenged the eligibility and card count. The longer it takes the more suspicious this filing becomes.

You know the NMB. They never do anything quickly. But a week should be plenty of time to get a response. And it will make people wonder while in wait...

 

[iluvaa]

Coming up on a week since both sides challenged the eligibility and card count. The longer it takes the more suspicious this filing becomes.

Been posted on Facebook last night, the NMB requested more info from the company and gave them a week to provide it.

 

[swamt]

Been posted on Facebook last night, the NMB requested more info from the company and gave them a week to provide it.

Can you provide a link or at least copy and paste it here???

 

[Rogallo]

Can you provide a link or at least copy and paste it here???

 

[1AA]

View attachment 15802 View attachment 15803

If I'm reading this correctly then it's only a small handful of employees and some are now or have been in management. If the ones that were not in management at the time of filing and are now in management then they should not be eligible to vote. Same as if one was on the payroll at time of filing but has since separated from the company such as retirement etc...

 

[Rogallo]

If I'm reading this correctly then it's only a small handful of employees and some are now or have been in management. If the ones that were not in management at the time of filing and are now in management then they should not be eligible to vote. Same as if one was on the payroll at time of filing but has since separated from the company such as retirement etc...

They're grasping!

 

[swamt]

I still do not get how any supervisor would be included. There is no way in hell a manager would be included, his title of "manager" is in the description "management", hello asso.
I do know that there is not one supervisor or management position employee at Southwest under the Mechanic and Related list, not one.
I like the investigators request in #8's request for info. Asso. sent in the bid start date for deicing positions, and the investigator is asking for the "start date" of actually performing the deicing duties. Bids take longer than a mere 4 days from start to performing the duties in that bid location. So I see those positions getting axed off the list.
I also like the request of "percentage of time" that the employees actually do that titled work. Most all are just minutes out of the day.

Rogallo is correct, they are GRASPING big time just hoping they will stick.
At least, in final sentence, the investigator gave all parties the opportunity to rebut any challenges and objections in the April 2 responses deadline;

"Additionally, if any participant wishes to file a reply to any of the April2, 2021 Responses to the Challenges or Objections to the list, it must do so by 4 p.m. ET on Thursday, April 15, 2021."

Great info Rogallo,
Thanks for posting

 

[swamt]

If I'm reading this correctly then it's only a small handful of employees and some are now or have been in management. If the ones that were not in management at the time of filing and are now in management then they should not be eligible to vote. Same as if one was on the payroll at time of filing but has since separated from the company such as retirement etc...

They're grasping!

In the NFL they call that a "Hail Mary"

 

[1AA]

I still do not get how any supervisor would be included. There is no way in hell a manager would be included, his title of "manager" is in the description "management", hello asso.
I do know that there is not one supervisor or management position employee at Southwest under the Mechanic and Related list, not one.
I like the investigators request in #8's request for info. Asso. sent in the bid start date for deicing positions, and the investigator is asking for the "start date" of actually performing the deicing duties. Bids take longer than a mere 4 days from start to performing the duties in that bid location. So I see those positions getting axed off the list.
I also like the request of "percentage of time" that the employees actually do that titled work. Most all are just minutes out of the day.

Rogallo is correct, they are GRASPING big time just hoping they will stick.
At least, in final sentence, the investigator gave all parties the opportunity to rebut any challenges and objections in the April 2 responses deadline;

"Additionally, if any participant wishes to file a reply to any of the April2, 2021 Responses to the Challenges or Objections to the list, it must do so by 4 p.m. ET on Thursday, April 15, 2021."

Great info Rogallo,
Thanks for posting

Supervisor hands out disciplinary action against the union members. How can any union allow a member of management to be in the same union, be on the same side and yet hand out discipline? Management is not under any contractual agreement with the Association.

 

[swamt]

Supervisor hands out disciplinary action against the union members. How can any union allow a member of management to be in the same union, be on the same side and yet hand out discipline? Management is not under any contractual agreement with the Association.

And I agree.
I read just the other day where the IAM was working on getting a vote at another airline for their mechanics and the company added supervisors and I think management and the investigator (Hennessey I think) approved some of the added sups. The IAM FAILED to argue them off the eligibility list. How? I have no clue, but it's in the NMB list of unions looking for representational elections from either last month or the month before. I posted about it one of these threads, somewhere.
Now it all could be their strategy for the next drive to include the sups and they too will become union members and can no longer discipline the other union members, now that would be funny and a direct shot back at the company that included them in order to get out of having the union vote go thru.

 

[1AA]

And I agree.
I read just the other day where the IAM was working on getting a vote at another airline for their mechanics and the company added supervisors and I think management and the investigator (Hennessey I think) approved some of the added sups. The IAM FAILED to argue them off the eligibility list. How? I have no clue, but it's in the NMB list of unions looking for representational elections from either last month or the month before. I posted about it one of these threads, somewhere.
Now it all could be their strategy for the next drive to include the sups and they too will become union members and can no longer discipline the other union members, now that would be funny and a direct shot back at the company that included them in order to get out of having the union vote go thru.

There is no contractual language that covers any member of management in our agreement for representation. If they add them then how do you represent them in a contractual agreement that never had any intention of representing them? How do you add them into our JCBA? What roll do they have if they are ruled to be part of the unionized work force? This is mere desperation from the Association. This tells me that Association knows that a vote is stacked against them. The Association is hoping the NMB will find something in its investigation to show insufficient interest of some kind. Up front we all know we have more than enough cards. Question is will the Association pull a fast one to convince and or have the NMB go along with some legality or rule clarification that may fall in a gray area? I never underestimate the corruption of the industrial unions who have shown time and time again their interest in dues over representation of its members.

 

[swamt]

There is no contractual language that covers any member of management in our agreement for representation. If they add them then how do you represent them in a contractual agreement that never had any intention of representing them? How do you add them into our JCBA? What roll do they have if they are ruled to be part of the unionized work force? This is mere desperation from the Association. This tells me that Association knows that a vote is stacked against them. The Association is hoping the NMB will find something in its investigation to show insufficient interest of some kind. Up front we all know we have more than enough cards. Question is will the Association pull a fast one to convince and or have the NMB go along with some legality or rule clarification that may fall in a gray area? I never underestimate the corruption of the industrial unions who have shown time and time again their interest in dues over representation of its members.

My same thoughts.
Agree about the no language to cover management. I am still completely baffled on what I read before too.