DL 142 Change of Control Grievance Update

[Charlie_Tuna]

You yourself have stated on this forum that the Leadership from CLT and Phl wanted to recommend a no vote but were overruled by Pit so my question to you Mr Dont let the facts get in your way is where was the leaderships gonads, it sounds like they were in Frank and Bills hands to me! If the members would have had leaders who didnt run around scared to death things might of turned out different! History shows at least at U East, the only thing the IAM will do is go around spewing pharses like they have in the past and in the end the members will take it in the shorts because the leaders are to concerned about keeping their kingdoms intact! If they were concerned about the members they would have not taken the profit sharing from the East and would have found money from the Intl to give to the West but Buffy and the gang needed a golf vaction in Hawaii!

You are so right on.....You notice how 700 never asks how someone voted but always says well the membership didn't have any gonads and voted yes. Yet when you say hey you were part part of that membership he all of a sudden backpedals and says well I had the gonads to vote no. LOL what a piece of work he is. I guess he thinks it was a landslide everybody voted yes but him.

By the way do you know the IAM practically had to have its arm twisted off to file this change of control grievance for the membership. Guess they grew some gonads or maybe someone shared theirs.

 

[awausairtech]

But on a brighter note for the membership, Some believe, the IAM has had a change of heart toward their dancing partner [the company],
Seems the IAM sees the recent failed Hostile takeover of Delta as an attempt to bust the unions @ Usairways..
It would be a breath of fresh air to see the IAM actually begin to act like a Union...

Ya dont say lol

 

[delldude]

If a court rules a major dispute under the RLA you are free to strike.

Oh my god.....

You notice how 700 never asks how someone voted but always says well the membership didn't have any gonads and voted yes. Yet when you say hey you were part part of that membership he all of a sudden backpedals and says well I had the gonads to vote no.

The important item isn't how you voted...its how many of your brethren voted for it,dude

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

The important item isn't how you voted...its how many of your brethren voted for it,dude

Or how many times it takes to get it to pass... or who is counting the votes.. or...

 

[delldude]

Or how many times it takes to get it to pass... or who is counting the votes.. or...

Or how many never took the strike authorization vote seriously then freaked

Frank,Frank...I want to change my vote.... :mf_boff:

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

700 refuses to provide anything that says a union can strike after a major dispute ruling or to strike after a companies violation of status quo. Yet he continues to say they can. I wonder how he will explain this away? Saying this only has to do with section 6 negotiations? Again. I bet he will and also I bet he won't produce anything that will support what he says.

The legality of strikes under the RLA

"the only circumstance in which a union may engage in self-help against a carrier is if it fully exhausts the “major dispute†procedures of the RLA.6 In all other cases – if the parties have not exhausted or cannot exhaust major dispute procedures – it may not strike. There are no loopholes or special cases or exceptions. In particular, there is no basis under the RLA’s bright-line rule for strikes or other uses of economic force in response to a perceived violation of the RLA by a carrier. Illegal behavior by a carrier does not mean that a union can respond with illegal behavior of its own. Rather, the availability of judicial actions for damages and injunctions provide the sole – but entirely adequate – remedy through which the unions can seek redress of unjustified or unlawful carrier conduct, such as a violation of Section 2 Seventh. Nor should pre-exhaustion strikes ever be justifiable as a response to political disputes, third party behavior, or any other similar rationale"

"As for major disputes, the statute requires lengthy negotiation and mediation procedures -- the so-called “status quo†period -- during which time both sides are forbidden from engaging in self-help. As in the case of minor disputes, courts have the power to ENJOIN self-help during the status quo period. It is only once these major dispute procedures are exhausted that the employees may take to the streets or the carrier may lock out employees. In other words, once the Act’s procedures have failed to produce agreement, all bets are off."

"The usual paradigm involves a dispute over an existing collective bargaining agreement, where the union asserts that a carrier’s asserted interpretation is really just a pretext for a unilateral change in the agreement (a“major disputeâ€). The courts have adopted a standard providing that so long as the carrier’s position is “arguably justified†or not “frivolous,†it does not constitute an attempt to circumvent the restriction onunilateral changes under Section 2 Seventh and so is a minor dispute subject to arbitration. See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. RLEA, 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (“Conrailâ€). Unfortunately, this standard tends to invite disagreements about whether the carrier’s position is indeed “arguable†or not."

A bright-line rule, or bright-line test, is a term generally used in law which describes a clearly defined rule or standard, comprised of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application.

Bright-line rules are usually standards established by courts in legal precedent or by legislatures in statutory provisions. Bright-line rules are often contrasted with "squishy" balancing tests, where a result is dependent on weighing several factors; which could lead to inconsistent application of law, reduce objectivity.

 

[delldude]

This is unequivocably one of your finer posts....

 

[700UW]

It is a copy and paste I read the samething yesterday.

Plus the mods asked me to ignore him as he seems to make all the posts about me.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

This is unequivocably one of your finer posts....

Thank You Dell

.but according to 700 you need to give him the credit LOL Of course he has no rebuttal on it. Sure it is a copy and paste..well duh 700 ..I provided link didn't I?..So it is cut and paste.. I forgot you have never copy and pasted or provided a link right?..Since when did you ever listen to the mods? Did they have a talk with you after you complained about me? Maybe telling you I haven't done anything wrong and you should just ignore me if I bother you? Funny I haven't heard from the mods about doing anything wrong or posting about you. I am debating a issue and you can't defend your position. So now your plan of attack is to ignore me and try to stick your head in sand and hope this topic just goes away. What number was that one my list of his mode of operation...hmmm...#4.. 4. He will change the subject in a heartbeat and/or avoid yours by responding to someone else. Or he will jump on something you did and call you names thereby avoiding the issue at hand (ex. jump on your spelling or say you are off topic or do what he just did to you...act like he doesn't know what you are talking about)...oh and this one with no number...." he reports you because he feels he is being mistreated by you.".... you know he reported me why else would he have gotten a message from them to ignore me. LOL


We are still waiting for you to defend your position with something at least half-way believable.

LOL I love how you take credit for finding my link yesterday that I posted today yet you didn't bother citing my source to defend your position.. oh wait no wonder that is because it defends my position and refutes yours. ..duh my bad.

Or wait...We all know how you are always pointing out how you were the first to post something and how you are so quick to point out that a topic someone started has already been mentioned in another topic somewhere else...does this mean now since you claim to have read something a day before it is posted we need to chalk it up as your find? How about a year before? Is there a statute of limitations?

You know I totally forgot about mentioning his famous mode when debating him that you are just making it about him...oh oh and that one about you are stalking him...oh oh oh and

 

[diogenes]

It is my opinion IAM never intended to resort to a strike. All during both BK's, IAM spend a lot of time and money explaining BK to us, and not a nickel or a minute exploring strike options.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

It is my opinion IAM never intended to resort to a strike. All during both BK's, IAM spend a lot of time and money explaining BK to us, and not a nickel or a minute exploring strike options.

I do remember the union saying if the contract was abrogated (which it was but not enforced pending the membership voting on the companies final offer) that the union could strike. I also believed the union could strike but now after more research I don't believe the court would have allowed it. It makes me sick to think a union that is being paid to be represent you is letting you go through the BK procedure and letting you vote blindly for you and your families livelihood without giving you the whole story or even the courtesy of a vote recommendation.

 

[Nothin Less Than Victory]

there are too many hands going into everyones pockets up top for a strike to happen. I'm sure all those DC trips were not just on talks of merger of LCC and DL. You pat my back I pat yours, the government would find a way for it to be a safety issue and force employees to work. besides, the IAM is a business just like LCC, with the focus of making money anyway they can.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

This is where unions mistakenly say/think they have the right to strike during a major dispute and before the negotiating and mediation processes are complete. But in fact the court was just arguing on why the company could not (as this court affirmed the injunction against the company against violating the status quo) be expected to be able to violate the status quo of a major dispute without expecting that the union should then be able to strike. The court NEVER said the union could strike, no quite the opposite, if you look at the last sentence it says BOTH sides needed to be equally restrained. (The company from violating status quo and the union from striking)

U.S. Supreme Court

The Shore Line's interpretation of the status quo requirement is also fundamentally at odds with the Act's primary objective - the prevention of strikes. This case provides a good illustration of why that is so. The goal of the BLF&E was to prevent the Shore Line from making outlying assignments, a matter not covered in their existing collective agreement. To achieve its goal, the union invoked the procedures of the Act. The railroad, however, refused to maintain the status quo and, instead, proceeded to make the disputed outlying assignments. It could hardly be expected that the union would sit idly by as the railroad rushed to accomplish the very result the union was seeking to prohibit by agreement. The union undoubtedly felt it could resort to self-help if the railroad could, and, not unreasonably, it threatened to strike. Because the railroad prematurely resorted to self-help, the primary goal of the Act came very close to being defeated. The example of this case could no doubt be multiplied many times. It would be virtually impossible to include all working conditions in a collective-bargaining [396 U.S. 142, 155] agreement. Where a condition is satisfactorily tolerable to both sides, it is often omitted from the agreement, and it has been suggested that this practice is more frequent in the railroad industry than in most others. 22 When the union moves to bring such a previously uncovered condition within the agreement, it is absolutely essential that the status quo provisions of the Act apply to that working condition if the purpose of the Act is to be fulfilled. If the railroad is free at this stage to take advantage of the agreement's silence and resort to self-help, the union cannot be expected to hold back its own economic weapons, including the strike. Only if both sides are equally restrained can the Act's remedies work effectively. 23

 

[NevadaHP]

before our very eyes the company is not staying status quo. they are in the middle of changing all procedures and trying to become one certificate. so can we now strike? On MAy 1st they are changing the TL program on the west to mimic that of the east and we have seen no stopping by the IAM to prevent this from happening. they need to file an injunction on this immediately like the pilot group did.

 

[delldude]

It is my opinion IAM never intended to resort to a strike. All during both BK's, IAM spend a lot of time and money explaining BK to us, and not a nickel or a minute exploring strike options.

Thats because it would have gone away for everyone at that juncture....whether everyone would be better served by that is another story.