IBT No Show Forum

[AvTech04]

I honestly can't say for sure. I only know what they've told us and they've told is their intent is arbitration. They've wanted arbitration from the beginning but the AT mechs wanted to try and work something out so we formed our own committee. It's seems like after the IBT got wind of the proposal and all the grief coming from both sides, SWA and AT mechanics, they stepped in and blamed US, AT mechs and AMFA committee, and said they were taking charge and filing for arbitration. That's the last I've heard. Rumors are spreading that the AT committee is trying to reconvien in hopes of one last try at the table but the IBT is fighting with them, again just a rumor. I also heard another rumor tht if the IBT does come back to the table that they are going to make a final offer and if it's not accepted then no more talks and the arbitration continues.

As SWAboeingonly said above, a lot of us are on the same page, we just want one list and I get it over and done with. Most of us simply want to be right where we are at, no one wants to take anything away from any SWA mechanic, if anything, we want to work together on this next CBA and beyond, so we can all benefit. Hopefully the AMFA committe and the IBT are listening...

 

[swamt]

2 SWA mechanics returned from ATL and said they talked with several AT mechanics and they feel as we do. To quote 'we don't want fences, just a 1 time hit and move on'. The 2 SWA AMT's said that the people were all very friendly and want too get this over with and start working as 1. Just passing on in case anyone is interested.

Good to hear. Thx for the update. How ironic, both sides want the same thing. Make the changes and revote! Sounds simple. Oh wait, nevermind, we are dealing with the IBT. Actually look forward to the up comming meeting if this is voted down that is....

 

[swamt]

From my understanding if/when this is voted down they are filing for arbitration to get the process started. I don't know if they will or won't go back to the table while they wait. I don't think anybody wants the fences, but they don't want 70% either.

Your statement is very fair. I too have stated that the SWA/AMFA guys are going to have to be willing to move if the fences/ restrictions go away. I still say 25-35% reduction, one time hit (get rid of this ridiculous 70% phantam boost). Plus were all on a single senority list.
Glad to hear the AT committee is still putting pressure on the IBT to allow you guys to try one last time back at the table. Send out a link and maybe we too could help, strictly professional. The more you guys speek up the more they probably will. I honestly think they will, but they may like you said offer an offer, look at AMFA's new offer and make a decision.

 

[Swadl]

It should be what the AT mechanics want, not what IBT wants.

 

[MadMan337]

It clearly says, "should a mx controller bid another position in the catagory". That is what is written. Now if it don't mean what it says, well, it should state clearly what it is intended to mean. It either means they can bid or will be able to at a later date. Abiguity is just another good reason to vote no.

I am one of the authors of this language and I actually have a very clear understanding of its intent. It was very much the intent that the Mx Controllers have no bidding rights as a Mechanic or Mechanic as a Mx Controller. The Company and AMFA could not agree on what the requirements for bidding a Mx Controller position should be and decided to table that issue until Sec. 6. If it seems ambiguos, sorry. Still hope you didn't vote no because you misunderstood.

 

[lineguy]

I am one of the authors of this language and I actually have a very clear understanding of its intent. It was very much the intent that the Mx Controllers have no bidding rights as a Mechanic or Mechanic as a Mx Controller. The Company and AMFA could not agree on what the requirements for bidding a Mx Controller position should be and decided to table that issue until Sec. 6. If it seems ambiguos, sorry. Still hope you didn't vote no because you misunderstood.

It's clear enough from the LOA language that the mx controllers WILL be able to bid at a later date into another position in the mechanical catagory. You as one of the authors of this contradictory LOA accuse a member of this forum {Pobit} for taking it at face value and having incorrect knowledge. Maybe you should first look at yourself for helping to write a POS LOA. Your aim should have been to make sure it was written so EVERYONE would have a clear understanding of it.

 

[swamt]

From my understanding if/when this is voted down they are filing for arbitration to get the process started. I don't know if they will or won't go back to the table while they wait. I don't think anybody wants the fences, but they don't want 70% either.

Well, if the AT guys don't want the fences or the 70% boost I would expect a no vote from them. And if this is the case at hand, then the IBT/teamsters should allow the AT nego team back to the table and work it out. We are so close and seem to have the same goals in mind. It looks like it would take very little time to come up with something. If the IBT still wants to pound their chest and continue to try and "get back" at AMFA SWA mechs then they are truly on their own agenda which will look extremely bad to the other carriers with the teamsters that currently represent them. As bad as the teamsters really do want to do that, I actually would think they are not that stupid, it would in fact have a response from other airlines that currently have the teamsters as well as any future drives that they may want to do. They are being closely watched by the UAL/CAL mechanics. If they press on to arbitration against the AT mechanics wishes it could very well be detrimental to future representation for the teamsters. We'll all know next week.

 

[swamt]

It should be what the AT mechanics want, not what IBT wants.

Exactly!

 

[MadMan337]

It's clear enough from the LOA language that the mx controllers WILL be able to bid at a later date into another position in the mechanical catagory. You as one of the authors of this contradictory LOA accuse a member of this forum {Pobit} for taking it at face value and having incorrect knowledge. Maybe you should first look at yourself for helping to write a POS LOA. Your aim should have been to make sure it was written so EVERYONE would have a clear understanding of it.

The language is fine. It is impossible to write contractual language that is dumbed down enough for everyone to understand. Thank goodness this "POS LOA" was accepted by the more diligent Members who took time to ask their ALR's about any interpretation concerns instead of reading a blog.

 

[lineguy]

The language is fine. It is impossible to write contractual language that is dumbed down enough for everyone to understand. Thank goodness this "POS LOA" was accepted by the more diligent Members who took time to ask their ALR's about any interpretation concerns instead of reading a blog.

You come across like a high minded, pompous ass. Obviously humility is not a trait you are familiar with. You must have a little Teamster left in you.

 

[AvTech04]

The language is fine. It is impossible to write contractual language that is dumbed down enough for everyone to understand. Thank goodness this "POS LOA" was accepted by the more diligent Members who took time to ask their ALR's about any interpretation concerns instead of reading a blog.

If the previous posts pertaining to the MX controllers are all verbatim from the LOA/contract, then you have an obvious error in the language. And like I tell everyone, when it comes down to contractual language, read what's written not what's explained. A mechanic could ask 3 different shop stewards of a meaning of a paragraph in an article and if there are 3 different interpretations given, then you have poor language. In lineguys posting it blatantly states that MX controllers who bid out of a MX controller position and into another MX position would hold the seniority date as of May 2011. But if they stay in a MX controllers position, then they bid with full classification seniority. I didn't quote that because I'm typing from my phone, but that's how I would interpret that paragraph... What is your article 5 pertaining to?? Bidding, seniority, vacation, etc... And why, since the MX controllers seniority is mentioned, isn't article 5 listed under the articles you, madman, listed in your previous post?

This 'blog' might not be much but it's a good means of open line communication between YOUR union members and YOUR soon to be union members. That's the greatest tool a union has, collaboration and communication! The company DOESN'T want to see that because it makes for a more powerful union. Airtran management has done a superb job in separating and segregating us from ourselves, all thanks to your new DOM for the east coast, Jim Treblecock and all of his peons. I can only hope AMFA changes all that....

 

[MadMan337]

You come across like a high minded, pompous ass. Obviously humility is not a trait you are familiar with. You must have a little Teamster left in you.

I am very confident in my knowledge of the CBA and all of the LOA's. When someone makes an incorrent statement as to the interpretation of the language, I'll speak up. If it comes across as pompous or high minded I will not apologize. I am a very dedicated AMFA Member who has put in more time and effort maintaining our organization than most Members. Keep your little lame Teamster and Mangement comments for someone that it applies to.

 

[lineguy]

I am very confident in my knowledge of the CBA and all of the LOA's. When someone makes an incorrent statement as to the interpretation of the language, I'll speak up. If it comes across as pompous or high minded I will not apologize. I am a very dedicated AMFA Member who has put in more time and effort maintaining our organization than most Members. Keep your little lame Teamster and Mangement comments for someone that it applies to.

Just reviewing the LOA vote results, and the fact that our AMFA leadership recommended a yes vote on all 4 of them. I'd say they are a little out of touch with what the majority of the memberships wants. You tell everyone they need to vote yes on everything in your authoritarian manner. It, to me resembles the Teamster mode of operation which is , "we know what you need better than you do". No ,the membership isn't dumb as you infer, they merely like to think for themselves and make their own decisions.

 

[grmach1]

Just reviewing the LOA vote results, and the fact that our AMFA leadership recommended a yes vote on all 4 of them. I'd say they are a little out of touch with what the majority of the memberships wants. You tell everyone they need to vote yes on everything in your authoritarian manner. It, to me resembles the Teamster mode of operation which is , "we know what you need better than you do". No ,the membership isn't dumb as you infer, they merely like to think for themselves and make their own decisions.

I don't know about you Lineguy but I'm thinking Jack Coonrod. I'm just surprised that he has taken time away from his side business to grace us with his knowledge.

 

[buscador]

Ok .. just a slight interruption from the peanut gallery... who is madman but more importantly why did he take so long to come to the dance
?

Hell I am a fa and I have been here and annoying people far longer