"AMP"' level of rEpreSEntaTion....?

[aapitbull]

_______________

I see nothing in the posted information on Federal sites (shown above) that affords the simple majority election to the "first" or primary application for representation of a non-union company, ie, an entity being organized for the first time.

"The new procedure will only apply to applications received on or after July 1, 2010."

The text marked in red above is rather self explanatory. The way I read it, the new "simple majority" rule will apply.
[/quote]

This is the way it was explained to me however were trying to get a reply from the NMB to be sure. but I would say you or right.

 

[Bob Owens]

Question: Lets just say AMP gets enough votes to force a vote in 2 months time. Then comes the vote, is it 50% +1 of the votes cast or of all eligible voters to produce a winner? What happens to us if neither AMP or the TWU receives the 50% +1 to win representation?

Under the old rules 50% plus 1 of those eligible must vote or the NMB determines that there is insufficient interest in Representation, so lets say you have two unions competing for representation, 26% of the eligible voters vote for Union A, 25% vote for Union B. Union A would win and be declared the Representative organization. Niether had to get 50% plus 1, but combined that figure had to be reached, if Union A got 25% and Union B got 24% they would have no union since only 49% voted.

So there was chance that should there be a representational dispute declared between two unions that we could end up with No union. But I dont think that its ever happened in the Airlines.

I recall that the opponents of the change, Airlines, Railroads, the ATA, the US Chamber of Commerce and other industrial organizations brought up that the change would make it easier for raiding and insinuated that the change would make it easier for more militant organizations to spring up (or current organizations would become more militant to retain members) which could lead to disruptions to commerce. Despite the huge gains carriers have made over the last 30 years at reducing wages and benifits for workers subjected to the RLA the organizations representing these workers have put forward very little resistance and really no major interuptions to commerce, they wanted to keep it that way. I heard the arguements in person at the NPRM Hearing in Washington DC last year.

Here's what the new language states;
in representation disputes, a majority of valid ballots cast will determine the craft or class representative

They will also add a 'NO" box for those who wish to not have a Union at all.

http://www.nmb.gov/whatsnew.html

The document can be viewed here;
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-11026.pdf

 

[Frank Szabo]

The simple majority of those voting is for new representation elections. This may be greyer area, since one of the outcomes could be decertification.

You might ought to read the rules, E - I dunna think so. That may well be a prayer of the corporate world, but the rules don't read that way.

 

[KUKUY]

My source is the NMB website.

This new rule is re: what constitutes a majority in a representational election - still the 50 pct. plus 1 on the card collecting to call for an election.

7. Q: What is a showing of interest?
A: A showing of interest is the percentage of the craft or class that has signed authorization cards. An application must be supported by an adequate showing of interest, in the form of employee authorization cards. Authorizations will be considered invalid if dated more than one year prior to the date on the NMB application. If the craft or class is already represented under the RLA and is covered by a valid existing collective bargaining agreement, the application must be supported from a majority (50% plus one) of valid authorization cards by employees in the craft or class. If the craft or class is unrepresented, the application must be supported by at least 35% of valid authorization cards by employees in the craft or class.
38. Q: What happens after the tally?
A: If a majority of the eligible voters voted in favor of representation, the NMB issues a certification the next business day after a tally. If less than a majority of eligible voters voted in favor of representation, the NMB issues a dismissal.
39. Q: If a representation application is dismissed, does the current representative of the craft or class of employees lose its representation rights?
A: It depends. If an organization files an application for a craft or class that is already represented, the incumbent organization is a party in the investigation and election. If the organization which filed the application does not have an adequate showing of interest or for some other reason the application is dismissed prior to an election, the incumbent organization will remain the representative of the craft or class. If the investigation proceeds to an election and a majority of the eligible voters in the craft or class do not vote in the election, then the application is dismissed and the incumbent organization loses its representation status. In determining whether a majority of employees voted, all votes for representation are totaled.

 

[Duke787]

With my time at AA, the only really good contract we got was in 2001, when the TWU was threatened by AMFA. With AMP coming from within us, and the TA looking like it will not get voted in, this might be the time either for the TWU to really come through for us or for AMP to get a good foot hold.

 

[paul1]

its 93 or 95 when the company gave us the 5 year pay scale

 

[Duke787]

its 93 or 95 when the company gave us the 5 year pay scale

But it was 2001 when we got the 22% pay raise 12 days sick time and another week of vacation.

 

[Bob Owens]

its 93 or 95 when the company gave us the 5 year pay scale

??? Every agreement since I've been here (1986) with the exception of 2001 was concessionary. We either gave up benifits or workrules or both for increases that didnt even keep up with inflation. 1995 was the worst agreement prior to 2003. Six years with only a 6% increase and the creation of SRPs. The Economy soared and we were completely left out.

But we had a "ME TOO Clause".

It was good to see that nearly two out of three saw the "Wage Opener" as another "Me Too".

I guess thats one disadvantage of having an older work force, they dont fall for the same old tricks!

 

[Bob Owens]

But it was 2001 when we got the 22% pay raise 12 days sick time and another week of vacation.

You must have a lot of time to have gotten an extra week, the only people who got an extra week in 2001 were those with more than 30 years, in 2003 we all lost a week. That was 9 years ago, so you must have 39 years with the company!

 

[Duke787]

You must have a lot of time to have gotten an extra week, the only people who got an extra week in 2001 were those with more than 30 years, in 2003 we all lost a week. That was 9 years ago, so you must have 39 years with the company!

I stand corrected it was the old timers that got the extra week, then in 2003 they went back to what they had. Thanks for the correction, and your work on our behalf.

 

[Bob Owens]

I stand corrected it was the old timers that got the extra week, then in 2003 they went back to what they had. Thanks for the correction, and your work on our behalf.

Well those with over 30 years went back to what they had, but the rest of us went below industry standard and had a week taken away that we always had.
If you look at the 2001 agreement it has all the steps in the chart in bold but the change was in that it used to be days instead of hours, with the adition of 4-10s in 2001 those with 4-10s would have been entitled to two more hours of vacation pay at for each day, so they changed it to hours.

 

[eolesen]

You might ought to read the rules, E - I dunna think so. That may well be a prayer of the corporate world, but the rules don't read that way.

I did read the rules, and they're not as clear as you want them to be. Decertification votes have different rules, and even though the intent is to replace them with another agent, "none of the above" as mentioned is a potential outcome.

At the very least, I'd get an opinion from the NMB before you make assumptions that your interpretation is indeed correct.

Then again, after last night's vote of no confidence, you might not have a problem getting 50%+1 of the total population.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I did read the rules, and they're not as clear as you want them to be. Decertification votes have different rules, and even though the intent is to replace them with another agent, "none of the above" as mentioned is a potential outcome.

At the very least, I'd get an opinion from the NMB before you make assumptions that your interpretation is indeed correct.

Then again, after last night's vote of no confidence, you might not have a problem getting 50%+1 of the total population.

The "flames" of the TA going down last evening weren't quite as bright as I'd have liked to see them, but I do believe the message got across. As I said before, it's the first baby step toward American's mechanics beginning to act as a union and not a group similar to the Three Stooges diving to the floor for a nickle - that's exactly how mid-level management "competes" amongst themselves for their scraps.

"Gentlemen - Gentlemen - People stampeded? Cattle raped? We have to do something to protect our phony-baloney jobs!!"

"I didn't get a HARUMPH out of that guy - You watch your ass ..." [sub]Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles[/sub]

 

[the cave]

It seems as if when the election between the TWU and AMP is held some fear less than 50% of those eligible will actually vote. Think a second. AMP will file with more than 50% +1 and those signing an AMP card are doing so to remove the TWU. These people will cast a ballot for AMP and the few TWU faithful will vote for the TWU. Stop this decertification what-ifs.

Fact: T/A was shot down.

Fact: Those presidents that voted yes to bring back this t/a were shown they were wrong and are now on notice.

Fact: The AMP drive is still driving strong and only picking up speed.

Fact: The AMTs and related at AA are awake and informed/educated about the TWU's failures.

Fact: The TWU will try and attack AMP because they can not defend the TWU.

P.S. Heard Don V. wasn't to excited about the final vote count yesterday. Now why would the International not be happy when the membership speaks out?

 

[KUKUY]

The fact that the presidents bought the TA back to the members was the right thing to do in the democratic process. Now the company knows how the membership feels not just the negotiators. The fact that the TA was rejected is just that, it was rejected. The attack on the TWU is just that, an attack. An Attack of the unwilling, to invest the time to make the change from within. We cannot ignore the results of AMFA’s raids on other airlines. It stood alone and now holds approximately 2,700 members according to their web site. There are too many loose ends on how AMP will survive financially, politically and fraternally. “The Proof Is In The Pudding” It didn’t work for AMFA. I can’t see it working for AMP.