JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Albert]

No. And besides Al what NYer is talking about is being able to run for an office which I do agree your record of paying dues should be impeccable. The DOL though doesn't exactly see eye to eye with that opinion and is more than happy to let the homeless guy down by the river run for an office.

That's what happened a number of years back that I was not in MIA for.

I would have to know why he didn't pay the dues, that's very important. If it was some BS excuse I wouldn't vote for him I would be crazy to, Unless of course his opponent was worse

 

[NYer]

[


Weez just for future reference can dues objectors and members not in good standing vote in the TWU elections?

Al. Whoever is in bad standing cannot participate in union activities, including running for office, per the TWU Constitution. However, there is a process to put someone in bad standing and it is not an automatic designation as it was attempted in the 2015 elections of Local 568, also as per the TWU Constitution.

Luckily, there was an Election Committee with integrity that followed the Constitution and prevented another contested election.

 

[Koolcat]

[


Weez just for future reference can dues objectors and members not in good standing vote in the TWU elections?

No they can't vote

 

[B737 driver]

"Rumor" has it that you have been ordered to conduct a trial and are continuing to ignore that order and by proxy an in good standing dues paying local 568 member?

If true I have to ask why oh why do you continue to ignore this issue?

Tick Tock.

The rest of your diatribe is nothing but mindless rambling babble not worthy of an engagement to be quite frank and honest.

At least you guys know who you are voting for, with AMFA bylaws they , running for office can't do station visits, because that is called politicking, not allowed. That results in us voting for people we don't know, oh you can send them an email or read a profile but that's it. It's like on line dating.

 

[NYer]

I would have to know why he didn't pay the dues, that's very important. If it was some BS excuse I wouldn't vote for him I would be crazy to, Unless of course his opponent was worse

The guys WeAA ran with tried to keep others from running, to enhance their chances which failed miserably. As a Local, it has been a long practice, including with the Treasurer WeAA ran with, to not pursue the collection of dues from those Members that went off payroll due to a work-related injury. Therefore, no one, under those circumstances, walked their dues to the Local and it wasn't pursued as outlined in the Consitution.

OK. In a particular case, the Member did pay their dues on a monthly basis to take away a technicality from those in office since they had a history of trying to exclude others from running. Constitutionally, our dues are paid monthly so each month the dues were sent it.

In January of 2015, we had a three check month, so the Treasurer wanted to make the argument of the dues being late even though our dues are monthly, not per pay period. Aside from that, they had the check at the beginning of the month, but they waited until after the grace period passed to bring up the discrepancy. Once the member was notified, indirectly, there was another check delivered to the Local to comply with the pay period argument, but by that time they said it was too late.

The bigger argument is that there is a process, a Constitutional process, which gives the Member the ability to pay what he is in arrears over a 30-day period once they send a letter to the member to notify them of the discrepancy. Obviously, that process was never done, and it excluded four other potential candidates who were also reported as in bad standing even though they were never given a chance to make up the dues and those four didn't even make an attempt to pay their dues.

Given the facts, the Election Committee did the right thing and allowed everyone to run since the Treasurer didn't fulfill the requirement of the Constitution. WeAA wants to defend a Treasurer that didn't comply with the Constitution but wanted to exclude the competition from the local elections.

 

[AANOTOK]

Weez do me a favor when you can near a computer can you look up your wage rate in Workbrain I'm still at $30.17

Let me step in the middle this cat fight for a second Al, as of yesterday I was showing "rate of pay" at $30.81.

 

[WeAAsles]

Al. Whoever is in bad standing cannot participate in union activities, including running for office, per the TWU Constitution. However, there is a process to put someone in bad standing and it is not an automatic designation as it was attempted in the 2015 elections of Local 568, also as per the TWU Constitution.

Luckily, there was an Election Committee with integrity that followed the Constitution and prevented another contested election.

No one ever tried at all in any way to block "YOU" from running. You are and have always been FOS.

Please provide "proof in writing" that ANYONE was even trying to do that? And as a matter of fact who made sure your dumb arse got in to make your dues payment? Who had your friend call you? I firmly believe that rumor. "Someone" made sure you would be ok to run. (Again you slandered a good man)

It always revolves around "YOU" here at Local 568. "Some" are finally beginning to see through you though.

 

[WeAAsles]

The guys WeAA ran with tried to keep others from running, to enhance their chances which failed miserably. As a Local, it has been a long practice, including with the Treasurer WeAA ran with, to not pursue the collection of dues from those Members that went off payroll due to a work-related injury. Therefore, no one, under those circumstances, walked their dues to the Local and it wasn't pursued as outlined in the Consitution.

OK. In a particular case, the Member did pay their dues on a monthly basis to take away a technicality from those in office since they had a history of trying to exclude others from running. Constitutionally, our dues are paid monthly so each month the dues were sent it.

In January of 2015, we had a three check month, so the Treasurer wanted to make the argument of the dues being late even though our dues are monthly, not per pay period. Aside from that, they had the check at the beginning of the month, but they waited until after the grace period passed to bring up the discrepancy. Once the member was notified, indirectly, there was another check delivered to the Local to comply with the pay period argument, but by that time they said it was too late.

The bigger argument is that there is a process, a Constitutional process, which gives the Member the ability to pay what he is in arrears over a 30-day period once they send a letter to the member to notify them of the discrepancy. Obviously, that process was never done, and it excluded four other potential candidates who were also reported as in bad standing even though they were never given a chance to make up the dues and those four didn't even make an attempt to pay their dues.

Given the facts, the Election Committee did the right thing and allowed everyone to run since the Treasurer didn't fulfill the requirement of the Constitution. WeAA wants to defend a Treasurer that didn't comply with the Constitution but wanted to exclude the competition from the local elections.

(Rumor has it)

That member was you. And the Treasurer attempted to do the right thing by telling your friend to call you. He NEVER needed to inform you at all and then you could have been really screwwed. (Rumor has it)

And the making up of dues was to make sure the member never was put in bad standing to continue to attend meetings and vote on items, not to run for office. I read in the Constitution that was much more restrictive. (As it should be unless you like scammers like the guy collecting a Cheif Steward Check on ID by coming to the monthly meetings, not back to work)

 

[Albert]

Let me step in the middle this cat fight for a second Al, as of yesterday I was showing "rate of pay" at $30.81.

Thanks AANOTOK it seem us LUS are getting bent over again. I believe I have a busted O ring this time and since my Conehead brahs only know how to work a volt meter I'm up the creek. No sitting for me tonight

 

[WeAAsles]

Let me step in the middle this cat fight for a second Al, as of yesterday I was showing "rate of pay" at $30.81.

It's all garbage to be honest and thank you for stepping in.

The saddest part is long term friendships because of this are permanently destroyed.

All because of NYer and DB.

 

[Albert]

Let me step in the middle this cat fight for a second Al, as of yesterday I was showing "rate of pay" at $30.81.

Yes I thought Irma was going to bring the closer, oh well, guess we'll have to wait for the next catastrophe

 

[Albert]

It's all garbage to be honest and thank you for stepping in.

The saddest part is long term friendships because of this are permanently destroyed.

All because of NYer and DB.

Weez put your efforts into getting your IAM brothers their 63 cents

 

[WeAAsles]

Check this out. This is the President of TWU Local 505 in SFO where they are having the next picketing session.

She's wearing a TWU/IAM Association T Shirt.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Weez put your efforts into getting your IAM brothers there 63 cents

Yes, he will, how about that last traffic ticket Al, did you pay it off?

 

[NYer]

No one ever tried at all in any way to block "YOU" from running. You are and have always been FOS.

Please provide "proof in writing" that ANYONE was even trying to do that? And as a matter of fact who made sure your dumb arse got in to make your dues payment? Who had your friend call you? I firmly believe that rumor. "Someone" made sure you would be ok to run. (Again you slandered a good man)

It always revolves around "YOU" here at Local 568. "Some" are finally beginning to see through you though.

HAHHAAHAHAHHHAHHAHA.

You want things in writing when you're losing the debate and at the SAME TIME you share with us that you "firmly believe that RUMOR," when it is in your favor.

HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA. That is just hilarious.

By the way, here is an appeal in writing from one of the folks was told they weren't eligible to run because of the dues issue. I wrote the appeal, and shared it, which assisted all those were targeted to be able to run, including those on opposing slates. Your guys wanted to exclude, but we helped to include.