AMFA......read on

[1AA]

That is incorrect. "Prior" has nothing to do with it. If there is a representational dispute that is triggered, as a result of the merger, then whichever union wins an election is free to use its own internal procedures. That's the law. And, of course, that is exactly what happened at United and all other airline cases.  At United, the AFA is free to use its own seniority rules even though it didn't represent any sCO flight attendants.  Same with the IAM with the ticket agents [non union], and ramp [IBT].  
 
I think the biggest problem that AMFA has is that it either doesn't understand NMB rules, and MBA law, and has made serious embarrassing missteps, with the most recent one being last year when it 'assumed' it had more time, or AMFA is being intellectually dishonest.   It screws itself in organizing drives.  And it lies out its ass about the processes.  Just tell everyone that you couldn't get 50% of the cards, don't claim you have to shift the campaign due to some separate gate agent dispute.  AMFA screws itself with such statements, it would do much better being honest and focusing on its craft advantages and more focused representation than the Association could have with two unions representing one group.
 
But 700 is right about the IAMPF.  If the mechanics vote out the IAM, then  the I'll Ask Management Union may play hard ball and team up with management and refuse to make the IAMPF available. It's the stuff that lawsuits are made of.  So, when AMFA says that mechanics can't possibly lose their future company contributions into the IAMPF, such a statement is incredibly irresponsible.  Yes.  Yes it can happen.  In fact, I think it is probable since the IAM will want to protect itself from other groups doing the same thing. Do I think it would be of ill repute on the IAM's part? Yes.  But the IAM knows any lawsuit would take an extended time and that AMFA would eventually come to an agreement with management, and such agreement will mean that AMFA would have to drop any suits.  Nobody really knows the outcome but it is asinine and irresponsible to tell mechanics, "The IAM can't do that".  It can, and the company would love to stop making contributions.  It may not even be a violation of the agreement if it does, but if it is, then AMFA will have most likely settled a new TA with management anyways.  Whatever happens, expect a mess with that since the IAM US AIRWAYS mechanics chose to have terrible non protective language in their contract regarding that item.  Remember, I think we can all agree that management is more comfortable with the Associaiton but will fight AMFA every step of the way.  Anyone voting for AMFA should expect more than just pension battles.  In the long run, it may be worth the fight since the current unions have done a poor job [to say the least], but it will take years to straighten out the mess.
 
Mike 33 is right about the MBA, due to the exception clause which still applies, provided there was a representation dispute.  One clarification, someone noted that there is already a seniority integration agreement.  I haven't actually read that seniority agreement in such a long time but I assumed it was an agreement between both unions regarding the future association, and not necessarily an agreement with management between the IAM or TWU.  If I'm incorrect about that, and management signed a non conditional seniority integration agreement, then I stand corrected and it won't matter if AMFA or the Association represents the mechanics as the agreement will still stand.

I see plenty of I THINK and IF's in your story telling. In one sentence you used the words IN FACT, THINK and PROBABLE. Insure of yourself in your opinion but yet are unsure of any outcome. You asked yourself questions and answered them based on how you feel, but yet keep saying no outcome has been decided on your self questions. Sounds like your unsure of yourself and are just venting or trying to convince others here on what ever logic you are using in your post. BTW the last miss step you referred too a explanation and apology was made and distributed by one of the main organizers not AMFA National. Again it is US the M&E members running the card drive not AMFA. We need to get the cards signed to a point that the organizing committee will present them to the AMFA National for filing. That is FACT and no IF's, AND's, I THINK or PROBABLY about it. AMFA does not go and knock on peoples door, hand out free T-shirts and make false promises like opening contracts and so on.

 

[737823]

Don't worry about your IAM pension it's going to disappear, since the IAM will not be representing anyone at AA,  Ref.  ( TWU Local 591- TWU/IAM Association NMB Appeal)   [/size]http://www.local591.com/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=444033

Awesomeness

Josh

 

[1AA]

Don't worry about your IAM pension it's going to disappear, since the IAM will not be representing anyone at AA,  Ref.  ( TWU Local 591- TWU/IAM Association NMB Appeal)   http://www.local591.com/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=444033

Not correct. The pension will still be there. Will it continue to accrue? That remains to be seen after all this mess is sorted out. The USAir guys are better off with the 401K match. It contributes more from the company and it is compounded with overtime and holiday pay. The IAM pension is a flat payment regardless of OT and Holiday Pay.

 

[700UW]

Lets see I have the letters from the Pension plan that clearly states what will happen.
 
Were you at US last summer during the raid?
 
I was, and the pension people met with the IAM Members and everything was clearly explained.
 
No longer in the IAM, no future contributions, and US keeps the money, as there is no recourse in the CBA on what happens, unlike Fleet that clearly states what will happen.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way.

 

[737823]

Lets see I have the letters from the Pension plan that clearly states what will happen.
 
Were you at US last summer during the raid?
 
I was, and the pension people met with the IAM Members and everything was clearly explained.
 
No longer in the IAM, no future contributions, and US keeps the money, as there is no recourse in the CBA on what happens, unlike Fleet that clearly states what will happen.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way.

Fear and intimidation. They will not lose their vested benefits. You are lying and deceiving people.

Josh

 

[700UW]

Fear and intimidation. They will not lose their vested benefits. You are lying and deceiving people.

Josh

Well look the troll crawled back out from his bridge.
 
I have clearly stated over and over future contributions will cease, I have never stated they will lose what they have vested.
 
What they have accrued  will be frozen and no further contributions will be made if they leave the IAM.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way, funny how Tim and you are back at the same time.

 

[737823]

Well look the troll crawled back out from his bridge.
 
I have clearly stated over and over future contributions will cease, I have never stated they will lose what they have vested.
 
What they have accrued  will be frozen and no further contributions will be made if they leave the IAM.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way, funny how Tim and you are back at the same time.

You really think I am Tim? Seriously? You know full well that you aren't being truthful and that by law they will not lose the vested portion, you know this but don't want to post factual information.

Josh

 

[700UW]

Show me where I stated they will lose their accured benefits, never stated it.
 
I have stated many times they will lose any future benefits.
 
I have the letter from the fund director Steve Sleigh that clearly what will happen.
 
Stop lying, oh wait you are a pathological liar.

 

[737823]

The IAMNPF is such a joke to begin with and US fleet had contributions cut effective 1/1/14, and also at one point earlier.

Josh

 

[mike33]

AMFA doesn't sign cards, mechanics do.
The onus is on them.

When SWA mechanics dumped the IBT, AMFA didn't even know about our card drive until it was already at critical mass. We mechanics made it happen not AMFA.

If you want to control all aspects of your union with complete transparency then sign a card.
Or keep being slaves to unelected union leaders.
It is in the mechanics hands not AMFAs.

Like i said, if you are still seeking cards, then you probably don't have enough.

 

[700UW]

And fleet just got an increase in the new CBA. Dont let the facts get in your way.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

That is incorrect. "Prior" has nothing to do with it. If there is a representational dispute that is triggered, as a result of the merger, then whichever union wins an election is free to use its own internal procedures. That's the law. And, of course, that is exactly what happened at United and all other airline cases.  At United, the AFA is free to use its own seniority rules even though it didn't represent any sCO flight attendants.  Same with the IAM with the ticket agents [non union], and ramp [IBT].  
 
I think the biggest problem that AMFA has is that it either doesn't understand NMB rules, and MBA law, and has made serious embarrassing missteps, with the most recent one being last year when it 'assumed' it had more time, or AMFA is being intellectually dishonest.   It screws itself in organizing drives.  And it lies out its ass about the processes.  Just tell everyone that you couldn't get 50% of the cards, don't claim you have to shift the campaign due to some separate gate agent dispute.  AMFA screws itself with such statements, it would do much better being honest and focusing on its craft advantages and more focused representation than the Association could have with two unions representing one group.
 
But 700 is right about the IAMPF.  If the mechanics vote out the IAM, then  the I'll Ask Management Union may play hard ball and team up with management and refuse to make the IAMPF available. It's the stuff that lawsuits are made of.  So, when AMFA says that mechanics can't possibly lose their future company contributions into the IAMPF, such a statement is incredibly irresponsible.  Yes.  Yes it can happen.  In fact, I think it is probable since the IAM will want to protect itself from other groups doing the same thing. Do I think it would be of ill repute on the IAM's part? Yes.  But the IAM knows any lawsuit would take an extended time and that AMFA would eventually come to an agreement with management, and such agreement will mean that AMFA would have to drop any suits.  Nobody really knows the outcome but it is asinine and irresponsible to tell mechanics, "The IAM can't do that".  It can, and the company would love to stop making contributions.  It may not even be a violation of the agreement if it does, but if it is, then AMFA will have most likely settled a new TA with management anyways.  Whatever happens, expect a mess with that since the IAM US AIRWAYS mechanics chose to have terrible non protective language in their contract regarding that item.  Remember, I think we can all agree that management is more comfortable with the Associaiton but will fight AMFA every step of the way.  Anyone voting for AMFA should expect more than just pension battles.  In the long run, it may be worth the fight since the current unions have done a poor job [to say the least], but it will take years to straighten out the mess.
 
Mike 33 is right about the MBA, due to the exception clause which still applies, provided there was a representation dispute.  One clarification, someone noted that there is already a seniority integration agreement.  I haven't actually read that seniority agreement in such a long time but I assumed it was an agreement between both unions regarding the future association, and not necessarily an agreement with management between the IAM or TWU.  If I'm incorrect about that, and management signed a non conditional seniority integration agreement, then I stand corrected and it won't matter if AMFA or the Association represents the mechanics as the agreement will still stand.

 
 
As I said before, both you and Mike need to do some research on MBA because you're both wrong.
 
Mike keeps using "invoke" as if its something the unions trigger, it isn't.  The IAM & TWU fell under the provisions of the MBA when the AA/US merger was first approved - the seniority agreement that the IAM & TWU agreed to was done under the provisions of the MBA - The MBA isn't just about arbitration, it also covers those agreements reached amicably.
 
You are also incorrect when you claim "Prior" has nothing to do with it. There are numerous articles out there on the MBA and its legal interpretations, here is just one that clearly explains that the exception you keep referring to is when the union represents both groups "PRIOR" to the merger.
 
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/164186/Aviation/Seniority+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute
 
Key sections to note...
 

 
The legislation, known as the McCaskill-Bond statute, was signed into law in December 2007 and is codified at 49 U.S.C. § 42112.
The statute applies when two or more air carriers are involved in a "covered transaction," described as:

1. A transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
2. Involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
3. 
   50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11,   United States Code) of an air carrier; or
4. 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 42112 (b)(4).

When such a covered transaction "results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act," "sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board ("CAB" or the "Board") in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers." Id. § 42112(a).1

 

 
CAB and Judicial Interpretations of Section 3. Under the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, the unions (or other representatives) of the merging employees often agreed among themselves on the method of seniority list integration and presented that proposal to the carrier for approval. See, e.g., Nat'l Airlines Acquisition, Arbitration Bd., 95 C.A.B. 584, 594 (1982) ("NAA I") (noting the board's "long-held and judicially approved view" on such arrangements); Northeast Master Exec. Council v. CAB, 506 F.2d 97, 100-01 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (noting that the board's reliance on intra-employee negotiations "is recognition of a practical means to reach a result meeting the statutory standard"). When the Air Line Pilots Association International ("ALPA") represented pilots at both carriers before the merger, ALPA applied its internal policies to produce an integrated seniority list. See, e.g., Allegheny-Mohawk Merger Case (Petition of Kingston), Order 79-11-53 (Nov. 7, 1979). The Board consistently held that a carrier's acceptance of a seniority integration agreement negotiated in this manner satisfied the obligations created by Section 3, even without active involvement by the carrier in the process. See, NAA I, 95 C.A.B. at 584.
Although Section 3 gave the CAB jurisdiction over the seniority integration process, the CAB limited this oversight to negotiations between the merging carriers and employees, not to those between the merging employee groups (or their pre-merger collective bargaining representatives). See, e.g., Great Northern Pilots Ass'n, 91 C.A.B. 795, 799 (1981) (noting that disputes between employee groups "do not come within the long-established purview of section 13(a)"). Further, under Section 3, the carrier had to negotiate seniority integration with both merging unions. Where a carrier negotiated with and entered into a seniority integration agreement with only one of the unions, the CAB and courts routinely held that the LPPs took precedence over the negotiated seniority rights of one union, even if they were vested in existing contracts. See, e.g., NAA I, 95 C.A.B. at 584; Am. Airlines v. CAB, 445 F.2d 891 (2d Cir. 1971).

 

 
Internal Union Merger Policy. Where one union represented both employee groups affected by a transaction prior to a merger, the CAB held that a carrier's acceptance of an integrated seniority list produced pursuant to that union's internal merger policy satisfied the obligations under Section 3. The McCaskill-Bond statute explicitly provides that the union's internal policy applies in this circumstance.

 

[TRAVIS]

And them are the facts. SPOT ON..

 

[700UW]

Oh and still waiting for you to post where you claim I said they would lose their pension and not just future contributions if they are no longer IAM. And josh you lied and broke your promise not to post in a mechanics thread.

 

[Tim Nelson]

 
 
As I said before, both you and Mike need to do some research on MBA because you're both wrong.
 
Mike keeps using "invoke" as if its something the unions trigger, it isn't.  The IAM & TWU fell under the provisions of the MBA when the AA/US merger was first approved - the seniority agreement that the IAM & TWU agreed to was done under the provisions of the MBA - The MBA isn't just about arbitration, it also covers those agreements reached amicably.
 
You are also incorrect when you claim "Prior" has nothing to do with it. There are numerous articles out there on the MBA and its legal interpretations, here is just one that clearly explains that the exception you keep referring to is when the union represents both groups "PRIOR" to the merger.
 
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/164186/Aviation/Seniority+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute
 
Key sections to note...
 
 
 

All seniority questions are under MBA.  Nobody disputes that.  But where the union represents each group, the MBA allows the exception.   And all results of representational disputes WILL fall under this exception since the winner will represent both groups.  The MBA was constructed for situations like TWA where there was no representational dispute.  And there isn't any qualifier in the law that bars a union from using its internal policies if it wins a representational election.   In fact, it doesn't even make sense what you are talking about.  Are you saying that a union will argue against itself if it wins a election like the IAM did against the IBT regarding Fleet service at United?   The reality, and application of this law, was that the IAM decided to employ a seniority advisor and consider his written opinion on the matter. Did the IAM represent both groups, prior? Of course not but that had nothing to do with it.
 
Could be prior, could be after, etc.  In fact, each case 'after' has just applied internal union decisions, which are allowed under the MBA.  You can't cite me one case  [NOT ONE], using the MBA,  where there is a representational dispute that backs up your argument.  See Southwest/AirTran, and United/Continental.  In each and every case, where a representational dispute exist, as with this case, the union used internal decisions to work out seniority questions, because the MBA gave them the freedom to do so.  In the cases where a representational dispute did not exist, like at Southwest, then cases were resolved by two unions or arbitration.
 
This may be a wasted point anyways, i.e., as management signed an unconditional seniority integration agreement with the IAM/TWU. Would AMFA be able to change the agreed upon conditions if management didn't want to reopen it?