I.A.M VS I.B.T

[320tech]

when a new union wins representation they "maintain" the previous contract until it expires then they negotiate their own.thats the way its been done....would have gone that way when AMFA tried to get in at U.you even pay dues to the "winning" union even though they have limited power other than maintenance of the existing agreement until expiration.

and your present negotiations can drag on forever under RLA...thats a given.

your IAM contract is with the old us airways, the new us airways has no contracts with our work groups thats why the nmb decides whitch union will rep the workers not the company. all the examples that 700 use are not the same situation we have here those companys still are around thats why they have to honor those contracts.

 

[700UW]

Wrong,

All CBAs are still in effect with all unions.

Do you pull this stuff out of your rear end?

Each contract contains succesorship language, and if no contracts were valid why is the company abiding by all the terms of each union's CBA?

PSA is not around when it merged with US, PI is not around anymore when it merged with US, Trump Shuttle is not around when it merged with US.

Don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[Smartest Loser]

Every time 700 & Dell post the IBT percentage points go up.

Wonder why..??

SL

 

[delldude]

because you and many others are blind fools eager to digest anything without reason?
you are a loser by chosen name...must I say more?

 

[delldude]

your IAM contract is with the old us airways, the new us airways has no contracts with our work groups thats why the nmb decides whitch union will rep the workers not the company. all the examples that 700 use are not the same situation we have here those companys still are around thats why they have to honor those contracts.

you portray a fool......suddenly without contract you have gotten a huge wage increase???
have the work rules suddenly changed??
methinks thou need a drug test...
what have you been smoking,man??

 

[Bird Doctor]

Pinocchio(700UW), Delldude, 320tech Please add links to you post so we can see where your info is comming from. Or PLEASE post somewhere else.

 

[700UW]

When it becomes bird brain aviation then you can tell us what and where to post.

We are just refuting another poster's post.

 

[delldude]

Pinocchio(700UW), Delldude, 320tech Please add links to you post so we can see where your info is comming from. Or PLEASE post somewhere else.

don't have to dude...free site...you don't control anything except what you pack for lunch.
truthfully we have already posted many,many times before and now to fog the truthful facts we've posted on other threads that you fail to answer time and time again....you have opened a new thread to further try and hide from answering what we've already queeried.If you could answer our queeries,why then didn't you in previous threads ???
why do you have to start a new thread about all the things that you were afraid to reply to??

 

[Paul]

I believe that what Bird Doctor was asking for was proof of your refute. That you have the right to refute someone's post is not in question.

Same goes for you 320tech. If you are posting something as fact, please post the proof to your statement(s).

It is a simple game folks. Either you have it or you do not. There are at least 4-5 other topics that you can banter back and forth with out posting links as proof. This one was set up so other members could have and share said information.

 

[delldude]

I believe that what Bird Doctor was asking for was proof of your refute. That you have the right to refute someone's post is not in question.

Same goes for you 320tech. If you are posting something as fact, please post the proof to your statement(s).

It is a simple game folks. Either you have it or you do not. There are at least 4-5 other topics that you can banter back and forth with out posting links as proof. This one was set up so other members could have and share said information.

what you're missing here is these refuted claims have been alrady posted over and over again in those other threads that you mention paul....talk about beating a dead horse....go see for yourself. :blink:

 

[Bird Doctor]

I believe that what Bird Doctor was asking for was proof of your refute. That you have the right to refute someone's post is not in question.

Same goes for you 320tech. If you are posting something as fact, please post the proof to your statement(s).

It is a simple game folks. Either you have it or you do not. There are at least 4-5 other topics that you can banter back and forth with out posting links as proof. This one was set up so other members could have and share said information.

Delldude
what you're missing here is these refuted claims have been alrady posted over and over again in those other threads that you mention paul....talk about beating a dead horse....go see for yourself.
THANK YOU Paul.
Dell there has only been a few links to post to you and Pinocchio RANT. You two keep talking history, the past thing are changing.

As I have been tring to get across to all is that We will not have to live under the IAM contract tell 2009++ if the IBT win. Do you agree?
Under 19.602 http://www.nmbfacts.com/RepManual-Index.htm

The IBT contract is going good: http://www.teamsterslocal104.org/negotiations_summary.htm and
http://www.teamsterslocal104.org/Files/cur...t_1998-2003.pdf which has the scope for maintenance.

Why would you want to stay under IAM's contract tell 2009++?

 

[delldude]

give it a rest dude...you've already made a fool out of yourself and your union by ignoring facts.

 

[smmech]

what you're missing here is these refuted claims have been alrady posted over and over again in those other threads that you mention paul....talk about beating a dead horse....go see for yourself. :blink:

What your missing is the proof part of the game.. You hav e refuted claims all over and made bold statements about cases.. Provide links..

Heres an example of 700 refuting 320

Each contract contains succesorship language, and if no contracts were valid why is the company abiding by all the terms of each union's CBA?

Artical 3 para E.
http://www.teamsterslocal104.org/Files/M_R...ft_9_07_05_.pdf

Debating can be benificial to all , but neither of us know each other and with such union bias's your word is no good to us , the same as ours is no good you.

 

[awausairtech]

Artical 3 para E.
http://www.teamsterslocal104.org/Files/M_R...ft_9_07_05_.pdf

Debating can be benificial to all , but neither of us know each other and with such union bias's your word is no good to us , the same as ours is no good you.

That one sent them into the books. LOL

 

[Smartest Loser]

because you and many others are blind fools eager to digest anything without reason?
you are a loser by chosen name...must I say more?

Yes, you are correct..!! I was blind in believing what the IAM told the membership. You and 700’s argument revolve around “Official IAM Statements,†That’s not what was conveyed to the membership on the floor…you both know what I’m talking about.

The facts remain:

I lost my 23-year pension under IAM leadership

I lost 23% of my pay under IAM leadership

I lost weeks of vacation under IAM leadership

I lost work, which will NEVER be brought back into house under IAM leadership.

Now I’ll type what you and 700 are gonna say next…†You voted for itâ€

Excuse me Sir, no I didn’t…I didn’t 3 times to be exact…The IAM is blind to think after such a track record its membership wants a change. Wake up and look around, the IAM is U’s lap dog ..they can do whatever they want.

And Yes, I am a Loser… because I work for USAirways…!!!

SL