IBT vs IAM

gonzo said:
LOL......aaah yea....that's what the IAM does. I'm sure the NMB will play by the rules, ask Fred. I'm thinking this is a new situation for the NMB considering all the possibilities that are occuring with this merger. Merger, Small vs Large membership, acquiring company, 2009 plus vs section 6, yada, yada, yada. :)
Click to expand...
From what I heard........the NMB is looking at the IAM contract and the fact that Utility and Stock Clerks are under the M&R contract BECAUSE one of the most RECENT precedences was set when the NMB wouldn't allow the Stock Clerks at AWA to be included in the M&R contract. Also heard that the IAM wants the NMB to delay a ruling on this so that the Utility and Stock Clerks will be in the numbers......in hopes that they will not vote IBT. Just what I heard............. :unsure:
 
AIRWOMAN said:
From what I heard........the NMB is looking at the IAM contract and the fact that Utility and Stock Clerks are under the M&R contract BECAUSE one of the most RECENT precedences was set when the NMB wouldn't allow the Stock Clerks at AWA to be included in the M&R contract. Also heard that the IAM wants the NMB to delay a ruling on this so that the Utility and Stock Clerks will be in the numbers......in hopes that they will not vote IBT. Just what I heard............. :unsure:
Click to expand...

You were seeking representation for the first time....slight difference here between two unions with this issue already at hand.....AMFA tried it and lost so did others....funny seems like the IBT's whole ball of wax is hinging on technicalities as IAM asks only to go by the existing rules and regulations that NMB has done in the past.

No delay in the ruling,they've filed for a hearing on the issue as it states you may in the NMB rules and regulations and they are to be included in the count as thats the way its done in this type of situation.nothing terribly different with this merger as others...get over it.quit trying to split hairs. ;)
 
delldude said:
You were seeking representation for the first time....slight difference here between two unions with this issue already at hand.....AMFA tried it and lost so did others....funny seems like the IBT's whole ball of wax is hinging on technicalities as IAM asks only to go by the existing rules and regulations that NMB has done in the past.

No delay in the ruling,they've filed for a hearing on the issue as it states you may in the NMB rules and regulations and they are to be included in the count as thats the way its done in this type of situation.nothing terribly different with this merger as others...get over it.quit trying to split hairs. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't understand what difference it makes if you are seeking representation for the first time or not. As debated before, precedent was set with Stock Clerks and Utility with the IAM BUT that precedence wasn't followed with the IBT at AWA. :unsure:

Guess we'll have to wait and see what transpires at/after the hearing.

Get over what?
 
AIRWOMAN said:
I don't understand what difference it makes if you are seeking representation for the first time or not. As debated before, precedent was set with Stock Clerks and Utility with the IAM BUT that precedence wasn't followed with the IBT at AWA. :unsure:

Guess we'll have to wait and see what transpires at/after the hearing.

Get over what?
Click to expand...
when seeking representation where none existed is the time to set class and craft.any other scenario is looked upon as status quo.

like I said look at AMFA's attempt at NWA..they had no stock or ute's like IBT and they too lost their appeal.

precedence was not set with U IAM stock and utes...
 
delldude said:
when seeking representation where none existed is the time to set class and craft.any other scenario is looked upon as status quo.

like I said look at AMFA's attempt at NWA..they had no stock or ute's like IBT and they too lost their appeal.

precedence was not set with U IAM stock and utes...
Click to expand...
OK........understand now. Will have to wait for the results. When is this hearing?
 
delldude said:
filed 2-28 i think....awaiting word when.
Click to expand...
OK. Now, it appears that the NMB was considering that the Stock Clerks and Utility be removed from the Mechanic and Related contracted. Why? I don't know for sure but I'm sure someone will come forth with that information. So because of that consideration, the IAM has filed an objection which will go to a hearing. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been an objection filed. Interesting turn of events.
 
First of all the NMB does not have the authority to remove a group of workers off a contract.

Each representation case is assigned a number, the NMB can only decided class and craft in a certification, not who is on what contract.

You cant just remove workers from a certification who have been part of the group for 50+ years. AMFA tried it at UAL and NWA and failed.
 
700UW said:
First of all the NMB does not have the authority to remove a group of workers off a contract.

Each representation case is assigned a number, the NMB can only decided class and craft in a certification, not who is on what contract.

You cant just remove workers from a certification who have been part of the group for 50+ years. AMFA tried it at UAL and NWA and failed.
Click to expand...
Then what is the objection that was filed all about???

Then why did the NMB rule that the Stock Clerks at AWA were not allowed under the M&R contract?? Just a thought, but maybe any transition agreements will steer the CBA more towards the IBT contract and that's why the NMB is looking at it. I don't know anything for sure but.....

When you say "certification" what is it that you are referring to??
 
Certification is what the NMB calls it when a group is unionized.
 
700UW said:
Certification is what the NMB calls it when a group is unionized.
Click to expand...
Please answer these questions this time around or tell me if you don't know.

Then what is the objection that was filed all about???

Then why did the NMB rule that the Stock Clerks at AWA were not allowed under the M&R contract?? Just a thought, but maybe any transition agreements will steer the CBA more towards the IBT contract and that's why the NMB is looking at it. I don't know anything for sure but.....

From a previous post of yours: You cant just remove workers from a certification who have been part of the group for 50+ years. AMFA tried it at UAL and NWA and failed.
Weren't the Ground Communication Technicians removed from the Mechanic and Related contract??? :unsure:
 
They were not removed by the NMB, the company eliminated the jobs in the final offer.

They classification still exists, but they are none at US anymore, the work is now outsourced.

You will have to ask the NMB why the HP Stock clerks are on their own, I do not work for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Iam Or Ibt
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
fanlube
F
B
Labor Is Divided
Replies
4
Views
1K
Decision 2004
D
U
Why Is Iam Sending Confusing Message?
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
unit4clt
U
N
TWU vs IAM
Replies
10
Views
2K
NevadaHP
N
Tim Nelson
  • Locked
Organizing drives to oust the IAM 141
7 8 9
Replies
132
Views
22K
Edward
Edward

Latest posts

Back
Top