IAM Strikes Back!

[Tim Nelson]

IAM Strikes back with blanks.
by Tim Nelson

Anyone who has graduate research experience can see that the IAM court papers, filed today, are 'flimsy' and embarassing juvenile. The IAM's argument in the court filing is the equivalent of an argument from a 10th grade constitution team. It's actually more of a complaint after pointing out the who's on first stuff.

I doubt atty Bush was drunk or unprepared. I think it is most likely that the IAM is maneuvering and setting the stage for another concessionary contract where the east will once again be asked to give up millions. Although this time they won't be giving it up for their company.

This time, the east will give up for the west, and in typical IAM fashion, they won't even be asked.

regards

 

[700UW]

Gimme a break, when you get your law degree and license then you can become an expert on the legal issues.

The issue is cut and dry.

Back what you say up with some facts instead of just trying to stir the pot.

The rest of the case will be presented in court at a hearing, not in a motion filed.

 

[diogenes]

The IAM had an iron clad opportunity to kill the neo- Lorenzo virus spreading in the industry, if they had the membership's interests at heart.

All they had to do was go reject the last best offer and go out on strike.Sure, the immediate results could be bad, but consider how the Eastern strike spared the industry for the next decade.

Did they seriously consider a strike, or ask the membership? Given the total lack of strike prep, and the way they finessed the vote, no serious observer believes so.

The IAM has established a pattern of trading wages for membership (read 'dues structure' to the cynical). Who has seen any indication that will change?

If the membership is waiting for a signal from the leadership to act, hell will freeze over first. The leadership is counting on the members doing nothing, then acting in secret, then springing a last-minute 'best deal' with no time to disccuss it or amend it.

You read it here first.

 

[hp_fa]

The issue is cut and dry.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but no contested issue before a federal court is "cut and dry".

 

[flyingcat]

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but no contested issue before a federal court is "cut and dry".

 

[700UW]

The IAM huh Dio?

The members VOTED in the agreements and VOTED NOT TO strike.

But hey blame the organization and not the members if it makes you feel better.

 

[aerosmith]

I'm sure the membership will vote "YES" to whatever the Co & Union force feeds them. Even if it takes more than one vote. :down: :down:

 

[allstrike]

The leadership is counting on the members doing nothing, then acting in secret, then springing a last-minute 'best deal' with no time to disccuss it or amend it.
You read it here first.

Oh man this is some implication here.You mean you think the ink was dry on the deal along time before it was ever given to the membership to read.Organized catigorized and blessed by meca and back from a union printer in less than 24 hrs,but it got out early it was sent to everyone.

Ya it was voted on,twice least you forget...NLRB material if I ever saw it. :down: :down: :down:

 

[diogenes]

The IAM huh Dio?

The members VOTED in the agreements and VOTED NOT TO strike.

But hey blame the organization and not the members if it makes you feel better.

Being accurate always makes me feel good.

 

[Awa Contract]

The IAM filing made the local news in PHX last night.

 

[700UW]

Allstrike,

You need to educate yourself on Airlines, Unions and the RLA.

Airline workers are not covered by the NLRB and the NLRA.

They are covered by the NMB and RLA.

 

[allstrike]

Allstrike,

You need to educate yourself on Airlines, Unions and the RLA.

Airline workers are not covered by the NLRB and the NLRA.

They are covered by the NMB and RLA.

Workers Excluded from NLRB Coverage



The NLRA does not include coverage for all workers. The Act specifically excludes from its coverage individuals who are:



* employed as agricultural laborers
* employed in the domestic service of any person or family in a home
* employed by a parent or spouse
* employed as an independent contractor
* employed as a supervisor (supervisors who have been discriminated against for refusing to violate the NLRA may be covered)
* employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act, such as railroads and airlines
* employed by Federal, state, or local government
* employed by any other person who is not an employer as defined in the NLRA

I regress....you win.What a shame..hu.we could us more help.

 

[700UW]

The Trump Shuttle issue were covered under the Railway Labor Act, which is overseen by the National Mediation Board, go read the law.

The Trump issue with the IAM went to court.

The other issues of representation was decided by the NMB, not the NLRB, they have no jurisdiction in the matter.

You need to go back and read again.

The NMB is for workers covered under the RLA.

The NMB is fow workers under the NLRA.

NO Unionized airline worker falls under the NLRA and NLRB.

Don't let the facts get in your way!