AMFA......read on

[mike33]

All seniority questions are under MBA.  Nobody disputes that.  But where the union represents each group, the MBA allows the exception ( i.e. Association)?   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?

Thank You Tim

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

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., if management signed an unconditional seniority integration agreement with the IAM/TWU, if such agreement was based solely on the condition of the Association.  It would be an easy read to know, but I haven't the time right now to go back and read the agreement.

 

Southwest/Airtran Mechanics - AMFA vs ibt
 
The ibt mechanic group at Airtran was too small to trigger a representational dispute yet the SLI was negotiated under the MBA and an agreement was reached between AMFA and the teamsters without arbitration.
 
So to hear you tell it, if the teamster mechanics group at Airtran had been bigger and triggered a representational dispute, then once AMFA won they could impose whatever AMFAs seniority policy is at that time?
 
 
So if you're a small group and can't trigger an election you get the protections/arbitration under the MBA, but if you're larger and trigger an election and lose you're subject to the winners policies on SLI.
 
Your argument is nonsense.

 

[swamt]

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

Josh

He is also the one that started the fear rumor of the membership losing their pensions.  Yes scare tactics to the end by him and the unions.  It will get worse as the time gets closer...

 

[Tim Nelson]

 

Southwest/Airtran Mechanics - AMFA vs ibt
 
The ibt mechanic group at Airtran was too small to trigger a representational dispute yet the SLI was negotiated under the MBA and an agreement was reached between AMFA and the teamsters without arbitration.
 
So to hear you tell it, if the teamster mechanics group at Airtran had been bigger and triggered a representational dispute, then once AMFA won they could impose whatever AMFAs seniority policy is at that time?
 
 
So if you're a small group and can't trigger an election you get the protections/arbitration under the MBA, but if you're larger and trigger an election and lose you're subject to the winners policies on SLI.
 
Your argument is nonsense.

The small groups are the ones who MBA are suppose to protect to force a fair resolution instead of the larger group just bull rushing one.  AMFA and IBT worked out a solution.  However, the IBT could have went to arbitration.  The TWU and IAM at Southwest didn't have the same luck.  The TWU represented the ramp at WN, the IAM represented the ramp at AirTran. They went to arbitration and the arbitrated ruled that the TWU members would have two years imputed over the AirTran members, except in ATL. 
 
If the IAM had enough support at AirTran that triggered a vote, then the winner of such vote would have been excepted. In fact, that is exactly what happens, and has happened everywhere, including the United merger where there were representational disputes.  The MBA exception applies to all representational disputes by definition.  

 

[mike33]

 

Southwest/Airtran Mechanics - AMFA vs ibt
 
The ibt mechanic group at Airtran was too small to trigger a representational dispute yet the SLI was negotiated under the MBA and an agreement was reached between AMFA and the teamsters without arbitration.
 
So to hear you tell it, if the teamster mechanics group at Airtran had been bigger and triggered a representational dispute, then once AMFA won they could impose whatever AMFAs seniority policy is at that time?
 
 
So if you're a small group and can't trigger an election you get the protections/arbitration under the MBA, but if you're larger and trigger an election and lose you're subject to the winners policies on SLI.
 
Your argument is nonsense.

I think that we are missing the point that the MBA intervened because of the 2 different unions at WN and AT no matter the size. With the association i believe that it would involk the exception and basically see the association as one entity per say and the entity has agreed to seniority integration......IMO. Your interpretation is yours and mine is mine. We shall see.

 

[700UW]

He is also the one that started the fear rumor of the membership losing their pensions.  Yes scare tactics to the end by him and the unions.  It will get worse as the time gets closer...

How stupid are you?
 
The IAMNPF is quite clear, if you are not an IAM member anymore there will not accept any further future contributions and they will only have what was vested for their benefits.
 
Are you an IAM Member?  Are you in the IAMNPF?
 
Hey I have the letter from Steve Sleigh the Pension Director that states what I have posted quite clearly.
 
Why dont you call or e-mail the IAMNPF and ask them, you will get the answer that I have been posting.

 

[mike33]

How stupid are you?
 
The IAMNPF is quite clear, if you are not an IAM member anymore there will not accept any further future contributions and they will only have what was vested for their benefits.
 
Are you an IAM Member?  Are you in the IAMNPF?
 
Hey I have the letter from Steve Sleigh the Pension Director that states what I have posted quite clearly.
 
Why dont you call or e-mail the IAMNPF and ask them, you will get the answer that I have been posting.

[SIZE=10pt]You can participate in the National Pension Plan if you meet all three of the following conditions: [/SIZE]

• 
  [SIZE=6pt]■■  [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]You are represented for the purpose of collective bargaining by a lodge chartered by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). The collective bargaining agreement may be with another union [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]if accepted by the Trustees.[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]
  
• 
  [SIZE=6pt]■■  [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Your employer has agreed in writing to make contributions to the Plan on your behalf. [/SIZE]
  
• 
  [SIZE=6pt]■■  [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Your employer is accepted, in writing, as a contributing employer by the Board of Trustees, and makes the required contributions. [/SIZE]
  

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13829/IAM_SPD_11.pdf




 
Not a threat just a fact. The trustees can say no.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

The small groups are the ones who MBA are suppose to protect to force a fair resolution instead of the larger group just bull rushing one.  AMFA and IBT worked out a solution.  However, the IBT could have went to arbitration.  The TWU and IAM at Southwest didn't have the same luck.  The TWU represented the ramp at WN, the IAM represented the ramp at AirTran. They went to arbitration and the arbitrated ruled that the TWU members would have two years imputed over the AirTran members, except in ATL. 
 
If the IAM had enough support at AirTran that triggered a vote, then the winner of such vote would have been excepted. In fact, that is exactly what happens, and has happened everywhere, including the United merger where there were representational disputes.  The MBA exception applies to all representational disputes by definition.  

 
You stated - "The MBA exception applies to all representational disputes by definition."
 
You are wrong by that very definition
 

 
McCaskill Amendent

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
HR 2764

SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION.

(a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air
carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act
(45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil
Aeronautics 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; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each
of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding
integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this
section; and

(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the
terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be
affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement,
so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the
Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
 

 
If AMFA were to win a representational dispute at the new AA would it satisfy this requirement? No. AMFA didn't represent AA and didn't represent US, they could not trigger this exception.
 
The real example of this exception is what we at UAL are currently subject to. The mechanics at sUAL & sCAL were both ibt PRIOR to the merger, as such, by definition, we are subject to the ibts SLI policy - and as of this moment still do not have a combined seniority list

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I think that we are missing the point that the MBA intervened because of the 2 different unions at WN and AT no matter the size. With the association i believe that it would involk the exception and basically see the association as one entity per say and the entity has agreed to seniority integration......IMO. Your interpretation is yours and mine is mine. We shall see.

 
See my response to Tim, its not "my" interpretation its law

 

[mike33]

 
See my response to Tim, its not "my" interpretation its law

So what happens if AMFA doesn't get enough cards to trigger an election?. Seniority negotiated prevails!
 
US guys are not going to risk a MBA process where they won't know where they stand. Tims point as, i read it,  is that the arbitrator may say 2-1 because of the size in memberships and AA has more. 
 
This is why AMFA doesn't have enough cards yet from the US side. Yah Think?

 

[WNMECH]

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

And how far from the bottom of the industry does that put them?

Oh, you said fleet. Since this thread is about AMFA, where do the mechanics stand?

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

 

[700UW]

Lets see the IAM represented mechanics are the only mechanics out of the majors that have a pension.
 
AA, UA, WN and DL all have 401k(s) and you do realize a 401k was not designed to be a pension, it was to supplement a pension and Social Security?

 

[MetalMover]

Lets see the IAM represented mechanics are the only mechanics out of the majors that have a pension.
 
AA, UA, WN and DL all have 401k(s) and you do realize a 401k was not designed to be a pension, it was to supplement a pension and Social Security?

Yeah using money that WOULD have and SHOULD have went into the IAM represented mechanics' paychecks.
Nice spin trying to say that US is funding it. IT IS COMING OUT OF THE MECHANICS POCKETS!

 

[Rogallo]

How stupid are you?
 
The IAMNPF is quite clear, if you are not an IAM member anymore there will not accept any further future contributions and they will only have what was vested for their benefits.
 
Are you an IAM Member?  Are you in the IAMNPF?
 
Hey I have the letter from Steve Sleigh the Pension Director that states what I have posted quite clearly.
 
Why dont you call or e-mail the IAMNPF and ask them, you will get the answer that I have been posting.

 
Do all IAM stooges have your tact?
 
You're such a cheerleader for the other team!
 
I await your insult!!

 

[Tim Nelson]

You can participate in the National Pension Plan if you meet all three of the following conditions: [/size]

• 
  [COLOR=rgb(97.2%,59.3%,11.3%)]■■  [/size][/COLOR]You are represented for the purpose of collective bargaining by a lodge chartered by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). The collective bargaining agreement may be with another union [/size]if accepted by the Trustees.[/size] [/size]
  
• 
  [COLOR=rgb(97.2%,59.3%,11.3%)]■■  [/size][/COLOR]Your employer has agreed in writing to make contributions to the Plan on your behalf. [/size]
  
• 
  [COLOR=rgb(97.2%,59.3%,11.3%)]■■  [/size][/COLOR]Your employer is accepted, in writing, as a contributing employer by the Board of Trustees, and makes the required contributions. [/size]

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13829/IAM_SPD_11.pdf
true but the mx would have to respect the letter of refusal. Mx would prolly consider a dfr against the labor rep or arbitration against the company. Who knows other than alot of hate will b involved and reason out the door. The stuff that cases are made of.




 
Not a threat just a fact. The trustees can say no.