Awesome "Live Webinar" Notification

[AC Tynker]

A/C Tinker

Again I see that you can't hold back your attack of the organizers of AMFA. You are a TWU supporter by your own admission and yet when someone who is attempting to bring info to others you have to make it a personal attack. The member who you got this from made a comment about the IBT and yet you attack him for that.
All you guys that throw the "Personal Attack" term around must have lived a sheltered life at prestigious private gentleman schools or something. If I were to "Personally Attack" him I would have wrote a bio about his "Personal" life that I know about but, I didn't and won't. If you took the time to read there were words like "Mutual Respect" and "Professionalism" that I addressed. Again if I would have attacked him the story would have been that I went to the turbine building and jerked him off his bicycle and punched his lights out. It wasn't a comment it was a slang.

You also get some satisfaction from people who are signing IBT cards, so that tells me you really don't support the union that is in house NOW or EVER. You are either a TWU stooge or just a simple liar.
I point out the fact that the IBT drive is not a figment of someones imagination like has been portrayed on this board. You may or may not want to make such quick assumptions trying your hand at reading people because you're not very good at it and couldn't be more wrong in your read of me. It doesn't really matter one way or the other to me just friendly advice.
Your kind of lowering yourself are you not with the use of the term "Stooge"? I'm sure you have some long winded reasoning. You can use all the names or labels you feel gets your message across makes me no difference and you won't get a rise out of me. Oh by the way, if you are going to follow the AA AMFA script of name calling it is "Common" liar not "Simple".

If you were as you said then I would expect to see an something good about the TWU and saying that
the AMFA supporters are attemping to bring mis-truths or just another failed attemp to remove your UNION the TWU.
That is what Overspeed , RealityChk, High Speed Steel and Anomaly are exceptional at are pointing out all the mis-truths with dates and numbers. I'm not sure what I could add really.

Just shows us all that you as are NOT the TWU supporter you say, and your just here to put down any thing that may disrupt the betterment of our class and craft and keep the same old BS.
See insert above

You even attack the method of getting information out, but YOU will not get involved, just want to sit on the side line and put down others. The TWU has fancy boards to hang thier stuff behind glass.
Again, if I were "Attacking" the method of Information Dissemination I would have tore the 8x11 AMFA flyers off of a toolbox and punched its lights out. I ask you, what good would that have done by beating a piece of paper up? I am involved with helping out to a point that "I" am satisfied with and no I won't put my Union Involvement Resume on here. Believe or Don't Believe the choice is yours.
The IBT has colored flyers as well since most of the computers at AA just have white paper, so any color will bring attension to it and maybe you'll read it.
I'm not totally following your point here but, not important enough to ask for clarification. My point since again you failed to understand is TWU, IBT etc have enough financial backing to spend even a few hundred dollars showing that they are interested and just point blank care enough to have Professional looking and sounding information and to show level of commitment in my opinion. If an entity will not show enough commitment to financially back people trying to get information out that may cost even $1000 speaks volumes in my book. Hopefully Informer isn't having to pay for added bandwith and web space for the webinar out of his own pocket. What's the guarantee that if we needed financial backing for legal purposes that went above and beyond what the locals could pay such as a bankruptcy or strike just for example that they would not use the semi blind eye that they have demonstrated so far just for flyers and commitment cards like they have for the last 15 or so years Informers been trying to organize? I guess the locals would have to depend on donations, bake sales, toolbox raffels of fallen AMTs? How much money can be raised during a "Walk-a-Thon for Lawyer Fees" or a "Jump Rope-a-Thon for Strike Fund"
The crayon comment was cute, child like comment.
Glad you liked it, I figured you could relate.

Either get involved with the TWU and defend them, or join the supporters at your station to push the IBT.
See way up above

 

[TWU informer]

Try to get a grasp on the idea of ALL INDUSTRY MECHANICS into one union, and maybe the bickering and personal attacks will stop.

Here we are fighting one another like fools in a dumbass battle.
One group of us wants to stay divided in 3 different industrial unions, which is what has got us to this point and decimated, and these same stooges really only want to protect the union institutions status quo and their appointed for life 6 figure salaries, the other group of us wants to UNITE into one craft union and to protect the profession and reverse the trend of us all being used against one another like pawns on a chess board by airline management.

Which do you choose?

 

[iluvaa]

I find it hilarious that not one TWU supporter says one bad thing about the IBT only bash AMFA hmm no partnership though I'm sure of it.

 

[TWU informer]

Dave I'm not complaining. Just point out the holes in your "facts". Fact is your hero union AMFA has no interest in you. They just want to represent an ever smaller group of line AMTs. You have an A&P Dave, nope. I do. Does that make me better than you? Nope. I think you deserve a job. How many welders and machinists are working at AS and WN? How's AMFA looking now for you Dave in a AA AMFA world? Not very good Dave. Better sign up for A&P school quick. Your career dissipation caution light is illuminated. Resetting the Master Caution is not going to help and with AMFA at AA, your career dissipation warning light will be illuminated, make an immediate landing at the nearest unemployment line.

You are pointing out facts? Well what about this fact?
Here is a document that shows the layoffs at United happened after the Reamsters were certified at UAL.
You blame AMFA, but that is not FACT. What you are spreading is easily proven LIES, not facts.

 

[TWU informer]

This link has a few "facts" for you also:​

http://www.mechanicsforchange.com/files/fliers_48.pdf​

 

[TWU informer]

And you cannot help but love this website for more "FACTS"

http://www.mechanicsforchange.com/site_broken_promises.shtml

 

[TWU informer]

How about more unvoted on letters of agreement?

IBT is just like the TWU

http://www.mechanics...files/bp_07.pdf

Teamsters in SFO sign LOA on work rule changes
without membership or shop stewards approval.
On September 13, 2009 Airframe Shop Stewards were presented with “proposed crew guidelines” for the
IPTE 777 project.

Dayshift OV stewards were given 3 pages of a 4 page LOA to change work rules for this
project.

The Shop Stewards objected to many of the proposed changes in the LOA that would weaken our
contract language.

The appointed business agents assured the OV shop stewards that this letter was only a proposal and that nothing had been agreed to by the union at that time.

The SFOOV stewards should have known better, nothing could be further from the truth.

The entire LOA that the Teamsters signed was discovered by mechanics working the IPTE crew the first
week of the new project.

The LOA contained a missing 4th signature page signed and dated September 9,
2009


It is clear now that the shop stewards were lied to by the Teamsters business agents in the shop steward
meetings and that the IBT Local 856 had already entered into an agreement to establish special B-777 IPTE
project crew guidelines without the SFOOV stewards knowledge or consent.
On September 9, 2009 the Officers and appointed Business agents of Local 856/986

and United Airlines
management memorialized an agreement made a month earlier July 25, 2009 without the knowledge or consent
membership or the shop stewards in SFOOV. The business agents tried to cover up this fact by not presenting
the 4

th signature page of the LOA to the UAL SFOOV shop stewards during shop steward meetings.
We will present the facts; you decide. Please review the entire LOA agreed to by Teamsters Local Union
856 signed and dated September 9, 2009 at Mechanicsforchange.com.

The practice of calling overtime by crew only excluding all other qualified mechanics in SFOOV
occurred often and on a regular basis during the first several project aircraft.

The practice of mechanics working 4 over and 4 early without the use of any overtime list continued
unchallenged by the union for months, despite clear language in the contract.

The Teamsters failure to enforce the contract cost many qualified mechanics thousands in lost overtime.

For months after the project started the union failed to properly file over 30 mechanic grievances on the
new IPTE contract violations and disposed of them in the union office.
These same Teamsters Local officers and representatives agreed to send half of the SFO membership to
Los Angeles Teamster Local 986 “For better representation” another Teamsters lie … our membership
should remember that during the IBT Local 856 and 986 officer elections.
The 986/856 Teamsters T-shirts given to UAL mechanics in SFO are a token bribe and represent a Union
and union leaders that will divide our mechanic membership for their own personal greed.

 

[Anomaly]

How about more unvoted on letters of agreement?

IBT is just like the TWU

http://www.mechanics...files/bp_07.pdf

Teamsters in SFO sign LOA on work rule changes
without membership or shop stewards approval.
On September 13, 2009 Airframe Shop Stewards were presented with “proposed crew guidelines” for the
IPTE 777 project.

Dayshift OV stewards were given 3 pages of a 4 page LOA to change work rules for this
project.

The Shop Stewards objected to many of the proposed changes in the LOA that would weaken our
contract language.

The appointed business agents assured the OV shop stewards that this letter was only a proposal and that nothing had been agreed to by the union at that time.

The SFOOV stewards should have known better, nothing could be further from the truth.

The entire LOA that the Teamsters signed was discovered by mechanics working the IPTE crew the first
week of the new project.

The LOA contained a missing 4th signature page signed and dated September 9,
2009


It is clear now that the shop stewards were lied to by the Teamsters business agents in the shop steward
meetings and that the IBT Local 856 had already entered into an agreement to establish special B-777 IPTE
project crew guidelines without the SFOOV stewards knowledge or consent.
On September 9, 2009 the Officers and appointed Business agents of Local 856/986

and United Airlines
management memorialized an agreement made a month earlier July 25, 2009 without the knowledge or consent
membership or the shop stewards in SFOOV. The business agents tried to cover up this fact by not presenting
the 4

th signature page of the LOA to the UAL SFOOV shop stewards during shop steward meetings.
We will present the facts; you decide. Please review the entire LOA agreed to by Teamsters Local Union
856 signed and dated September 9, 2009 at Mechanicsforchange.com.

The practice of calling overtime by crew only excluding all other qualified mechanics in SFOOV
occurred often and on a regular basis during the first several project aircraft.

The practice of mechanics working 4 over and 4 early without the use of any overtime list continued
unchallenged by the union for months, despite clear language in the contract.

The Teamsters failure to enforce the contract cost many qualified mechanics thousands in lost overtime.

For months after the project started the union failed to properly file over 30 mechanic grievances on the
new IPTE contract violations and disposed of them in the union office.

This is actually a good point. amfa had such a hard time with management at UA because there was no real leadership. Nobody was willing to take on a decisive role because of the fear of recall. This happened more than once when someone did enter in to an agreement or sign something on behalf of the membership. With the amfa philosophy promised by grass roots organizers of going back to the membership to vote on every single local letter of agreement or any outcome of any meeting, the company was not enthusiastic about returning work to us. If you take a good look at the letter you site, it is in fact guidelines for added work to the SFO maintenance base. This was done before the contract. was negotiated and something amfa could not accomplish. Could you be suggesting that the SFO members turn down the work until a contract would be ratified two years later? Only amfa and the groups opposing the Teamsters would view bringing work back in house as a bad thing.

This letter like many others distributed by the iam/amfa group did not gain any momentum at UAL and we are still Teamsters. Nice try though.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

This is actually a good point. amfa had such a hard time with management at UA because there was no real leadership. Nobody was willing to take on a decisive role because of the fear of recall. This happened more than once when someone did enter in to an agreement or sign something on behalf of the membership. With the amfa philosophy promised by grass roots organizers of going back to the membership to vote on every single local letter of agreement or any outcome of any meeting, the company was not enthusiastic about returning work to us. If you take a good look at the letter you site, it is in fact guidelines for added work to the SFO maintenance base. This was done before the contract. was negotiated and something amfa could not accomplish. Could you be suggesting that the SFO members turn down the work until a contract would be ratified two years later? Only amfa and the groups opposing the Teamsters would view bringing work back in house as a bad thing.

This letter like many others distributed by the iam/amfa group did not gain any momentum at UAL and we are still Teamsters. Nice try though.

More of your oh so typical twisted teamster logic.

No one said bringing work back was a bad thing, nor did they say we should wait for a new contract before signing anything.

The fact is the ibt presented this to the area stewards as a proposal when in fact they had signed the LOA 4 days prior. They deliberately deceived the OV stewards, and once again broke their campaign promise NOT to alter the contract without a vote of the membership.

Your inferred idea that the company is more willing to return work due to the letter is just as laughable. the IPTE work was already assigned to SFO, if the OT guidelines LOA had been voted on, and shot down, UAL still would've done the work in SFO, they would've simply had to follow the CBA vs the ibt LOA.

Nice try though.

 

[Anomaly]

Yet AMFA represented AMT's are better paid and not only have better benefits but more benefits. Spin that one PHAT DON.

Southwest had the highest paid mechanics when they switched to AMFA because they were covered by a
Teamster negotiated contract, and were part of a profitable airline. They still are a profitable airline but now negotiate cost neutral anfd flexible contracts.

http://www.blogsouth...ative-agreement

DALLAS, Dec. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southwest Airlines and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) are proud to announce that the parties have reached a tentative agreement with a four-year term. The Company is pleased with this cost neutral contract which delivers raises in exchange for work rule improvements and contract flexibility. The current collective bargaining agreement became amendable on August 16, 2008.

Work rule improvements and contract flexibility often result in lost jobs as we have seen at both UA and AA.

AMFA took over the contract in 2002 with the promise of being aggressive at the bargaining table. In 2004, Southwest told AMFA they'd give them a 3-year extension in lieu of a formal agreement. AMFA agreed to extend the economic package in spite of promises to do whatever it would take to obtain improvements ("Take a stand for 100K grand" was their campaign motto against the IBT). The ratification of the extension was a sharply divided vote and seen as a failure on AMFA's part to keep their promises. Other than pay, amfa has not been able to guarantee any additional securities. Even now they find difficulty in forcing the company to comply with earlier agreements for added work.

 

[Anomaly]

More of your oh so typical twisted teamster logic.

No one said bringing work back was a bad thing, nor did they say we should wait for a new contract before signing anything.

The fact is the ibt presented this to the area stewards as a proposal when in fact they had signed the LOA 4 days prior. They deliberately deceived the OV stewards, and once again broke their campaign promise NOT to alter the contract without a vote of the membership.

Your inferred idea that the company is more willing to return work due to the letter is just as laughable. the IPTE work was already assigned to SFO, if the OT guidelines LOA had been voted on, and shot down, UAL still would've done the work in SFO, they would've simply had to follow the CBA vs the ibt LOA.

Nice try though.

This was a Local agreement for guidelines affecting new work in SFO only. This agreement did not in any way alter the contract. In fact, there is no contract article or language that speaks to the 777 work in question. I will grant you that they did a poor job communicating the agreement, but you are attempting to create a crime where there simply is none.

Nice try though.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

This was a Local agreement for guidelines affecting new work in SFO only. This agreement did not in any way alter the contract. In fact, there is no contract article or language that speaks to the 777 work in question. I will grant you that they did a poor job communicating the agreement, but you are attempting to create a crime where there simply is none.

Nice try though.

And again....

Presenting a set of guidelines to Shop Stewards as a proposal when in fact it has already been agreed to is DECEPTION.

YOU may be okay with that, others are not.

Nice try though...again

 

[swamt]

Southwest had the highest paid mechanics when they switched to AMFA because they were covered by a
Teamster negotiated contract, and were part of a profitable airline. They still are a profitable airline but now negotiate cost neutral anfd flexible contracts.

http://www.blogsouth...ative-agreement

DALLAS, Dec. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Southwest Airlines and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) are proud to announce that the parties have reached a tentative agreement with a four-year term. The Company is pleased with this cost neutral contract which delivers raises in exchange for work rule improvements and contract flexibility. The current collective bargaining agreement became amendable on August 16, 2008.

Work rule improvements and contract flexibility often result in lost jobs as we have seen at both UA and AA.

AMFA took over the contract in 2002 with the promise of being aggressive at the bargaining table. In 2004, Southwest told AMFA they'd give them a 3-year extension in lieu of a formal agreement. AMFA agreed to extend the economic package in spite of promises to do whatever it would take to obtain improvements ("Take a stand for 100K grand" was their campaign motto against the IBT). The ratification of the extension was a sharply divided vote and seen as a failure on AMFA's part to keep their promises. Other than pay, amfa has not been able to guarantee any additional securities. Even now they find difficulty in forcing the company to comply with earlier agreements for added work.

LIES, LIES and yet again more LIES!!!
Actually you are correct about one thing. Yes we fired the teamsters and brought in AMFA, therfore, by law AMFA had to take over the exsisting contract.
Then you bash AMFA for only extending the 2004 contract. Yes this was the first contract for AMFA at SWA. It's also the first contract after 9-11. AMFA and SWA nego an extension. At the time it was the very best thing to do, period. No pay cuts, no bennie cuts, no cuts what so ever. Also NO LAY-OFFS, "ZERO" "NOTTA".
What did all the other airlines do? Huh? Answer that "Scab Supporter". Including your airline. They all cut everything. They all also had thousand upon thousands of LAY-OFFS and loss jobs, which your union "AGREED" to in 2003. It was "CONCESSIONS" that all the other unions at all the other carriers (except for cargo carriers) agreed to. AMFA did better than all the other unions combined, period. Especially for the first contract following 9-11.
It was NOT considered a failure, matter fact it was considered an improvement at a time when all the others were cutting, chopping, and putting hundreds of thousands of workers to the street, THIS IS FACT.
AMFA has been adding work as well as, as you put it, securities ever since that contract that you are talking about. You always try to make AMFA look bad, when in fact you are always making AMFA look great. I will take an extention anytime instead of concessions and lay-offs--anyday... If the members of AMFA vote in a contract extension then so be it, it was what the members wanted. At least AMFA is nego positive contracts instead of negative ones like the TWU does and is currently. As well as the teamsters nego negative contracts with lay-offs and pay cuts. Name me one other airline that has nego positive increases imeadiately following the 9-11 attacks. Here let me help you, NONE, NOTTA, Zilch. Only Alaska has been able to nego the #2 contract behind SWA and guess who nego that? Yup, your right, it too was AMFA. Carry on "SCAB SUPPORTER"

 

[Anomaly]

And again....

Presenting a set of guidelines to Shop Stewards as a proposal when in fact it has already been agreed to is DECEPTION.

YOU may be okay with that, others are not.

Nice try though...again

So by your explanation, each time amfa did that to us at UA, it was deception and not just poor leadership? Good to know.

When amfa chose to remove LOA 74-1M "Bumping rights of laid off Employees" from the UA agreement, this did affect contract language and the entire membership and caused significant distress to several of our members which still affects some. This change to the contract was done without a vote by the membership. Deceptive.

Do I have to mention again that under amfa NWA mechanics were sent out on strike without a look and vote on the companies last best and final offer? More deception.

YOU may be okay with that, others are not.

Nice try though...again

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

So by your explanation, each time amfa did that to us at UA, it was deception and not just poor leadership? Good to know.

And just when did AMFA EVER present a proposal to the UAL stewards/membership that they had already previously agreed to?

When amfa chose to remove LOA 74-1M "Bumping rights of laid off Employees" from the UA agreement, this did affect contract language and the entire membership and caused significant distress to several of our members which still affects some. This change to the contract was done without a vote by the membership. Deceptive.

When the ALRs voted to remove LOA74-1 without a membership vote, it was wrong. As they freely told the membership when they did it, it WAS NOT Deceptive.

Additionaly, they stood accountable to the membership via recall, which one here in SFO was.

Do I have to mention again that under amfa NWA mechanics were sent out on strike without a look and vote on the companies last best and final offer? More deception.

AMFA members were well aware of the companys last offer at NWA, which was WORSE than the previous they had voted down. No deception there.

I would've offered another "Nice Try" but your arguments are getting abit ridiculous.