iam twu alliance vote

[700UW]

Airlines are not under the NLRA, they are under the Railway Labor Act, RLA.

 

[Vortilon]

yea the congress set it up when they passed the national labor relations act
 
if you dont like it call your congressman... maybe you and them can write a better law..
 
Otherwise you have to ask which will be worse no union or the union you dont like?  do you trust the company that much to treat you fairly?

 
 
Pretty clear you have no idea of what you're talking about.  All this talk about no union is just BS!  August is just around the corner; at that point, the one year ban from AMFA submitting authorization cards to the NMB ends.  Turns out that had the IBT not attempted their false flag raids last year at US Air & AA - the AA AMTs had well over enough cards to call for a representational vote.  So you die hard "one size fits all" unionists will have to adapt to a REAL democratic process once the AMFA get voted in.

 

[swamt]

 
The company would love that

The co would not love it any more than they do now with the ever giving TWU.  The TWU agrees too much with the co, if there was no union it would be harder to get the employees to agree to all the concessions the TWU would just simply agree to, sell to the membership, threaten your job if you don't vote for it (scare tactics), and give the co every thing they want---With no snap back clause tied to it.  Pathetic.

 

[swamt]

Hey clueless people I haven't be had a union for 17 years. I will vote no for the alliance. I didn't set this up that a no for the alliance means no Union but someone did without asking any of us. My belief is the alliance will be 100% worse than what we have now I just won't vote yes on that period

And this is the exact scare tactic I am talking about.  Why would any union WANT one of your options to be non or no union.  A union that is trying to FORCE this alliance upon it's membership.  Boy, isn't that democratic.  If there is a "write-in"  option or "other" option then I know you guys know what to do.  But, I honestly don't think it will have to come to that.  But with all the past BS that the TWU, teamsters, IAM and the AA co has pulled over on you guys, and now the union trying to force their members into an alliance with no REAL democratic vote is beyond shame and pathetic, just for this reason alone the TWU should be fired and replaced...

 

[paul1]

If you want to know how the TWU/IAM alliance is going to work you should look it up. Read what is in store for us if we allow this to happen.
 
If you don't want to have members of both unions negotiating for us then we need to bring a vote to rid ourselves of the IAM/TWU.
 
Sign an AMFA card now so we can bring a vote here to AA.

well how is it going to work. I have not seen ****

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

well how is it going to work. I have not seen ####

Paul1
 
PM me and  i will send you the IAM/TWU ,manifesto and the Q&A

 

[AANYER]

To all,
 
Vote No against the TWU/IAM alliance travesty.

 

[Rogallo]

To all,
 
Vote No against the TWU/IAM alliance travesty.

 
"Vote No against" What does that mean?  A double negative?

 

[PHXConx]

Airlines are not under the NLRA, they are under the Railway Labor Act, RLA.

aw sh*t well i made an ass out of myself with that, yes absolutely RLA, is what i meant, I  spent the first 11 years associated in a union with UAW, and UBEW  and sometimes old habits die hard... especially when im on a roll (right off a cliff) 
 
My point is still the same, the RLA  and the NMB is an act of Congress... and the rules set forth is because of them... 
 
to all i apologize for being a pompous ass while posting erroneous stuff 

 

[Bob Owens]

Keep up the misinformation campaign and the TA is still better than YOUR contract.

So the TA which was forged after three years of negotiation, 9 years after exiting BK, with what is now the largest carrier in the country, which is showing record profits is slightly better than our contract which was forged in Bankruptcy, yet it is nowhere near as good as what UAL, SWA, or even Non union Jet Blue, Delta or Fed EX, offer their mechanics and you are boasting about that? Pathetic. If this is what we can expect from the IAM side all the more reason to reject any sort of Alliance. Pathetic. I just hope that your guys are informed and when they run around saying that we will catch up with the rest of the industry with Joint Negotiations they know that UAL has been in Joint for three years, that there is no NMB release and the Union has no real leverage.

 

[Bob Owens]

aw sh*t well i made an ass out of myself with that, yes absolutely RLA, is what i meant, I  spent the first 11 years associated in a union with UAW, and UBEW  and sometimes old habits die hard... especially when im on a roll (right off a cliff) 
 
My point is still the same, the RLA  and the NMB is an act of Congress... and the rules set forth is because of them... 
 
to all i apologize for being a pompous ass while posting erroneous stuff

Thats Ok your partner 700 does it all the time, we are used to it.

Where under the RLA does it say that a Collective Bargaining Agent, or two Collective Bargaining Agents can get together and walk away from representing members if they do not approve of a scheme to divide up the workforce between two Unions and give up all rights to choose who represents them in negotiations?

 

[700UW]

Thats Ok your partner 700 does it all the time, we are used to it.

Where under the RLA does it say that a Union, or two Unions can get together and walk away from representing members if they do not approve of a scheme to divide up the workforce between two Unions and give up all rights to choose who represents them in negotiations?

Where does it say you cant?
 
Precedent has already been set, the CWA and IBT have had it at US for years, with the CSA and RES.
 
The members voted on it, and will with the IAM and TWU, but you now this already.

 

[Bob Owens]

Where does it say you cant?
 
Precedent has already been set, the CWA and IBT have had it at US for years, with the CSA and RES.
 
The members voted on it, and will with the IAM and TWU, but you now this already.

Precident has not been set where a Collective Bargaining agent walked away from their members and the members lost their contract and became non-union because they did not approve of their plan. Yes precedence has been set that they can form an alliance, but they can't leave their members without representation simply because the members rejected the alliance. Precedence has also been set that two unions can represent the same class and craft at a carrier. So when the members vote "No alliance" they are not voting to decertify themselves from the Unions they are currently in.

Where does it say they cant walk away if we reject their plan? I believe it would fall under LMRDA. That would be no different than if the Union said if you guys elect Candidate "B" instead of Candidate "A" we will throw you all out of the Union. Its unreasonable discipline for them to throw us all out of the Union because we did not approve of their plan. They also have a fiduciary obligation to the membership in return for the dues they have collected. If they opt to leave then the membership would be entitled to any accumulated dues to be used to represent them in enforcing the contract just as when the members choose to leave they must leave those dues behind. unions are not for profit law firms, they are Non-profits and have obligations they can not simply walk away from. Even if they could throw us all out they would still have to enforce the contracts the members voted in place, but they would not be able to collect dues from us for doing so.

The Collective Bargaining Agent does not have the ability to void out a contract because the members did not vote on an internal issue the way they wanted them to, that has nothing to do with the terms of the contract.

They can not walk away from the CBA's they put in place unless we decide we do not want them to represent us. This vote will take place before Joint negotiations, so there are two current contracts in place and the Union is obliged to provide representation unless the members opt to decertify each union. So it would be illegal for them to in effect throw us all out of the Union(s) because we rejected their plan of an alliance that would split us between those two unions however the Alliance could in fact force it upon us and we could opt to decertify the Alliance but that would be through a regular NMB representation election process which would allow the members to choose another Union.

Bottom line is the Union is a democratic institution with membership rights provided under the LMRDA. They can not punish us by ejecting us from the Union because we voted against an internal issue, and they can not void our contract either.

 

[700UW]

So show the board where you obtained our Jurists Doctorate, since both the IAM and TWU legal department and lawyers said it is legitimage.
 
I know the man who wrote the alliance agreement and you will see when it is filed with the NMB.
 
The vote will be for the alliance or no representation.

 

[blue collar]

So show the board where you obtained our Jurists Doctorate, since both the IAM and TWU legal department and lawyers said it is legitimage.
 
I know the man who wrote the alliance agreement and you will see when it is filed with the NMB.
 
The vote will be for the alliance or no representation.

Why would he craft it so that a no vote for the alliance would lead to decertification? Was he worried it wouldn't pass unless there were repercussions for voting no?