How Can The Twu Defend That List
- Thread starter dreese
- Start date
Decision 2004
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 1,618
- 0
One day, everyone will look into and read labor history.
You will find more than you want to know about the CIO before the merger with the AFL Craft Unionist.
You will discover the reason the Communist funded the formation of the TWU.
You will then stop wondering why freedom and democratic rule are NOT within the agenda of the TWU or the AFL-CIO.
The mission of these organizations is to convert society to a socialist society. I think Bob Owens might be correct, the TWU would even embarass the socialist sympathizers. At least those political views don't advocate being corporate lapdogs at the expense of the workers paycheck and benefits.
You will find more than you want to know about the CIO before the merger with the AFL Craft Unionist.
You will discover the reason the Communist funded the formation of the TWU.
You will then stop wondering why freedom and democratic rule are NOT within the agenda of the TWU or the AFL-CIO.
The mission of these organizations is to convert society to a socialist society. I think Bob Owens might be correct, the TWU would even embarass the socialist sympathizers. At least those political views don't advocate being corporate lapdogs at the expense of the workers paycheck and benefits.
Nightwatch
Veteran
- Jun 8, 2004
- 888
- 2
So you stating Mr. NO DECISION 2004, that we are all commies now?...go grab a kleenex, clear them swollen eyes up a bit, pat each other on the back, and get over it! You're a loser man, and AMFA's a loser, whaaaaa.Decision 2004 said:
Go weld yourself some nice little doggie collars and go strolling.
1. The ineligibility of 24 retired employees, Attachment B to Investigator’s Rulings;
2. The ineligibility of 20 employees, who have resigned, Attachment C to Investigator’s Rulings;
3. The ineligibility of 144 Fleet Service Clerks, Attachment E to Investigator’s Rulings;
4. The ineligibility of 89 former employees laid-off while on probation without any recall rights, Attachment F to Investigator’s Rulings (AMFA’s Exhibit E – Probationary Layoff –No Recall Rights), (AA’s Exhibit E – Employees laid off from probation);
5. The ineligibility of 4 Management Employees, Attachment G to Investigator’s Rulings;
6. The ineligibility of 1 Former TWA Employee Without an Employer-Employee Relationship With AA And Without Recall Rights, Attachment H to Investigator’s Rulings;
7. The ineligibility of 24 Former Employees Working At Other Airlines, Attachment I to Investigator’s Rulings;
8. The ineligibility of 25 Furloughed Employees Who Have Waived/Declined Recall, Attachment K to Investigator’s Rulings;
9. The ineligibility of 1 Employee Working Outside the Craft or Class, Attachment L to Investigator’s Rulings;
10. The ineligibility of 1 Terminated Employee, Attachment M to Investigator’s Rulings;
11. The ineligibility of 249 Fleet Service Fuelers, Attachment N to Investigator’s Rulings, (AMFA’s Exhibit M – Fleet Service Fueler), (AA’s Exhibit M – Fleet Service Clerk/Fuelers), (AA’s Addendum to Exhibit M, Fuelers);
12. The ineligibility of 366 Cleaners and 149 Janitors, (AMFA’s Schaible (2) Decl. and Schaible (3) Decl);
13. The ineligibility of 244 Miscellaneous Other Exclusions contained within Declarations accompanying AMFA’s April 22, 2004 Challenges and Objections, which were not considered in the Rulings,
a. The ineligibility of 10 additional retired employees not considered in the Rulings,
b. The ineligibility of 104 additional employees who have resigned not considered in the Rulings,
c. The ineligibility of 4 additional Fleet Service Clerks not considered in the Rulings,
d. The ineligibility of 6 additional former employees laid-off while on probation without any recall rights not considered in the Rulings,
e. The ineligibility of 5 additional management employees not considered in the Rulings,
f. The ineligibility of 21 additional Former TWA Employees Without an Employer-Employee Relationship With AA And Without Recall Rights not considered in the Rulings,
g. The ineligibility of 12 additional Former Employees Working At Other Airlines not considered in the Rulings,
h. The ineligibility of 3 additional Deceased Employees not considered in the Rulings,
i. The ineligibility of 65 additional Furloughed Employees Who Have Waived/Declined Recall not considered in the Rulings,
j. The ineligibility of 7 additional Terminated Employee not considered in the Rulings,
k. The ineligibility of 8 additional miscellaneous individuals ineligible for various reasons and not considered in the Rulings.
14. The ineligibility of 1,167 Cabin Cleaning and Lavatory Service Personnel, Attachment O to Investigator’s Rulings,
a. 15 duplicates not removed from Attachment O,
b. 2 additional duplicates not removed from Attachment O,
c. 28 names on eligibility list not removed from Attachment O,
d. 2 names removed from Attachment O but not removed from eligibility list,
e. Double counting of 14 individuals alleged to be Cabin Cleaning and Lavatory Service Personnel who have been counted as Fuelers,
f. 5 ineligible AA employees should not have been added to the AA eligibility list,
g. 1,167 Ineligible Fleet Service Clerks.
15. The ineligibility of 21 Former TWA Furloughees, Attachment P to Investigator’s Rulings;
16. The ineligibility of 46 Individuals from AMFA’s May 24, 2004 Submission, Exhibit “O†entitled “AA Eligibility List – TWA Exhibit D – Additional Info Acquired From,†not considered in the Rulings;
17. The ineligibility of 36 additional retired employees from Flagship News not considered in the Rulings;
18. The ineligibility of 150 additional TWA employees Not on TWU’ Exhibit D and therefore without contractual recall rights, not considered in the Rulings;
2. The ineligibility of 20 employees, who have resigned, Attachment C to Investigator’s Rulings;
3. The ineligibility of 144 Fleet Service Clerks, Attachment E to Investigator’s Rulings;
4. The ineligibility of 89 former employees laid-off while on probation without any recall rights, Attachment F to Investigator’s Rulings (AMFA’s Exhibit E – Probationary Layoff –No Recall Rights), (AA’s Exhibit E – Employees laid off from probation);
5. The ineligibility of 4 Management Employees, Attachment G to Investigator’s Rulings;
6. The ineligibility of 1 Former TWA Employee Without an Employer-Employee Relationship With AA And Without Recall Rights, Attachment H to Investigator’s Rulings;
7. The ineligibility of 24 Former Employees Working At Other Airlines, Attachment I to Investigator’s Rulings;
8. The ineligibility of 25 Furloughed Employees Who Have Waived/Declined Recall, Attachment K to Investigator’s Rulings;
9. The ineligibility of 1 Employee Working Outside the Craft or Class, Attachment L to Investigator’s Rulings;
10. The ineligibility of 1 Terminated Employee, Attachment M to Investigator’s Rulings;
11. The ineligibility of 249 Fleet Service Fuelers, Attachment N to Investigator’s Rulings, (AMFA’s Exhibit M – Fleet Service Fueler), (AA’s Exhibit M – Fleet Service Clerk/Fuelers), (AA’s Addendum to Exhibit M, Fuelers);
12. The ineligibility of 366 Cleaners and 149 Janitors, (AMFA’s Schaible (2) Decl. and Schaible (3) Decl);
13. The ineligibility of 244 Miscellaneous Other Exclusions contained within Declarations accompanying AMFA’s April 22, 2004 Challenges and Objections, which were not considered in the Rulings,
a. The ineligibility of 10 additional retired employees not considered in the Rulings,
b. The ineligibility of 104 additional employees who have resigned not considered in the Rulings,
c. The ineligibility of 4 additional Fleet Service Clerks not considered in the Rulings,
d. The ineligibility of 6 additional former employees laid-off while on probation without any recall rights not considered in the Rulings,
e. The ineligibility of 5 additional management employees not considered in the Rulings,
f. The ineligibility of 21 additional Former TWA Employees Without an Employer-Employee Relationship With AA And Without Recall Rights not considered in the Rulings,
g. The ineligibility of 12 additional Former Employees Working At Other Airlines not considered in the Rulings,
h. The ineligibility of 3 additional Deceased Employees not considered in the Rulings,
i. The ineligibility of 65 additional Furloughed Employees Who Have Waived/Declined Recall not considered in the Rulings,
j. The ineligibility of 7 additional Terminated Employee not considered in the Rulings,
k. The ineligibility of 8 additional miscellaneous individuals ineligible for various reasons and not considered in the Rulings.
14. The ineligibility of 1,167 Cabin Cleaning and Lavatory Service Personnel, Attachment O to Investigator’s Rulings,
a. 15 duplicates not removed from Attachment O,
b. 2 additional duplicates not removed from Attachment O,
c. 28 names on eligibility list not removed from Attachment O,
d. 2 names removed from Attachment O but not removed from eligibility list,
e. Double counting of 14 individuals alleged to be Cabin Cleaning and Lavatory Service Personnel who have been counted as Fuelers,
f. 5 ineligible AA employees should not have been added to the AA eligibility list,
g. 1,167 Ineligible Fleet Service Clerks.
15. The ineligibility of 21 Former TWA Furloughees, Attachment P to Investigator’s Rulings;
16. The ineligibility of 46 Individuals from AMFA’s May 24, 2004 Submission, Exhibit “O†entitled “AA Eligibility List – TWA Exhibit D – Additional Info Acquired From,†not considered in the Rulings;
17. The ineligibility of 36 additional retired employees from Flagship News not considered in the Rulings;
18. The ineligibility of 150 additional TWA employees Not on TWU’ Exhibit D and therefore without contractual recall rights, not considered in the Rulings;
Mark Inman
Advanced
- Jun 22, 2004
- 194
- 0
The TWU spokesmen are asking ART Luby to help them come up with a good lie just like the lie that only 54% of the local 514 voted. Anyone care to do a survey to see what percent in their area returned a ballot? On dock 5-A it was over 70%.
