LAX Maintenance Town Hall 2/24/15

[Bob Owens]

No they are not, prove it.
 
There is a signed agreement between the IAM and TWU.
We know you already hired Seeham to file a lawsuit once the NMB announces their decision.
 
The Association Agreement is a binding and legal document,and the TWU already tried to get out of it, they were told by lawyers they cant.
 
So if they try to push themselves on the ballot there will be consequences.
 
Bob, you are just like WT, you spin things to your narrative and when shown to be wrong, you never reply about that post.

Just like I showed you how after the IAM M&R at US voted down a TA and we went on strike.  Funny I heard crickets from you after that post.

 
 
 
 
Who is "we".?
 

TWU already tried to get out of it, they were told by lawyers they cant.
 

 
So you admit that this was Jim Littles baby and that our current leaders dont want it. So how is that for a start?  The IAM is already forcing the TWU to accept things their way or "there will be consequences". No shyte, there will be if they don't as well. Is this what we want to be partners with? A shotgun wedding? Real thugs when it comes to Union brothers but lambs when it comes to negotiating deals with a record profit making company. 
 

 
Just like I showed you how after the IAM M&R at US voted down a TA and we went on strike.  Funny I heard crickets from you after that post.
 

Sorry, I was unaware that I was obliged to every pointless statement you post. 

 

[swamt]

In 2005 the IBT and CWA formed an alliance when US and HP merged. I haven't been able to find where it says the results of a vote but the article does say there will be a vote by the membership on the Alliance.
 
http://peoplesworld.org/teamsters-cwa-form-airline-customer-service-alliance/

Huge differences here.  First of all it was brought in front of the membership as a "proposed alliance" and the membership did have a vote "prior" to the IBT/CWA filing with the NMB.  Key ways of communicating to the membership was that the 2 unions were proposing thew alliance of combining the 2 unions into one to continue representation. They also state that they will offer this proposal to the membership prior to filing with the NMB to find out if the membership wants the combination of the 2 unions into the alliance.  A whole world of difference the way the TWU and IAM rammed this to the membership even if there is a vote it was still done wrong, unprofessional, and not with the memberships needs put up front, only the needs of the TWU and IAM still maintaining a presence within the aviation mechanics class and that is the only reason they are forming this alliance plain and simple.  The way the TWU/IAM presented and disrespected the membership of both carriers by just assuming they all wanted and formed the alliance instead of proposing the alliance first, then forming, then filing with NMB, then having a vote by membership.  
 
Can anyone from this IBT/CWA alliance when the AWA and US merged answer this question please; What were the options on the ballot when they proposed this alliance to the membership?  Was it as the mechanics are being told with one being a No or Non-union option?  Or is this just a scare tactic by the TWU/IAM to get the membership forced into the alliance?  Maybe you know Bob Owens.  Thx in advance for any input... 

 

[700UW]

The rules were different then, they were changed after that.
 
And it was an internal vote, so it was straight up and down for the their association.

 

[swamt]

If thats the way it reads then we could write in TWU

Or AMFA, or any union the membership wishes.  They could also write in IAM so be carefull.  The write in option could very well force a run-off election and it may not include the TWU or the IAM on it.  This is why the unions are trying to get this thing to go thru without a vote, they are just praying that the NMB forces this thru.  I know they promised a membership vote, yea, yea, yea.  They have made numerous promises in the past, have they not gentlemen???  If there is a vote it will indeed get very exiting...

 

[CMH_GSE]

[/quote]

The rules were different then, they were changed after that.
 
And it was an internal vote, so it was straight up and down for the their association.

Please for the purpose of absolute clarity, POST a LINK to the rule changes, or else it's just you making shyte up.

 

[CMH_GSE]

As I understand it the ballot will read:
IAM/TWU Association
No Union
Write in option
So voting it down would mean no Union then. Meaning no CBA and no representation. "At Will" employment.
That's real square one.

Your understanding of the ballot, your opinion, or is there a source?

 

[CMH_GSE]

Or AMFA, or any union the membership wishes.  They could also write in IAM so be carefull.  The write in option could very well force a run-off election and it may not include the TWU or the IAM on it.  This is why the unions are trying to get this thing to go thru without a vote, they are just praying that the NMB forces this thru.  I know they promised a membership vote, yea, yea, yea.  They have made numerous promises in the past, have they not gentlemen???  If there is a vote it will indeed get very exiting...

Everything I've read from NMB elections makes me believe there is no such thing as a "run off" election.
Whoever receives the most votes wins, period.
And it doesn't need to be 50% of eligible voters either, it used to be but it seemed to have changed recently, I think 2011 or 2012, but I'd have to dig it up again to give a better time of the change.

 

[700UW]

It use to be 35% of the cards were needed to call for an election and people who didn't vote were counted as no votes.

The NMB changed the voting rules I be in 2010 where votes not cast weren't counter at all and that's when the representational ballots were changed to include a vote for no union and DL lobbied Congress to change the call for an election from 35% to 50%.

The only person making stuff up is you.

It's all out there for you too educate yourself.

 

[700UW]

And you are wrong there is still a runoff election if no Union gets 50% of the vote then there is a runoff election between the two highest vote getters if the two total combined get 50% +1 of ballots cast.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Ok 700, since your the All Knowing about NMB things,
When did the rules change for merger representation and how Associations get approved by the NMB, since the CWA and IBT first had to ask the membership if they wanted it, before they presented it to the NMB.

Enlighten me.

 

[CMH_GSE]

And you are wrong there is still a runoff election if no Union gets 50% of the vote then there is a runoff election between the two highest vote getters if the two total combined get 50% +1 of ballots cast.

I've seen vote results with less than 50% of all eligible voters, they were certified.

 

[700UW]

There are no rules about forming an association.

Since you seem to be speaking for the NMB show us any rules about unions forming an association.

And it already exists in the railroads and airlines for unions to have an association and coordinated bargaining.

 

[CMH_GSE]

There are no rules about forming an association.
Since you seem to be speaking for the NMB show us any rules about unions forming an association.
And it already exists in the railroads and airlines for unions to have an association and coordinated bargaining.

Showing of Interest

It's been posted here ad nuaseum.

There must be a showing of interest.
Two guys saying its good, doesn't qualify per the NMB.

Show me ONE TIME IT HAS.

 

[700UW]

I've seen vote results with less than 50% of all eligible voters, they were certified.

That is impossible as the rules use to state 50% +1 off all eligible votes and in 2010 it was changed to 50% +1 of all votes cast.

How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you over and over?

 

[Bob Owens]

Huge differences here.  First of all it was brought in front of the membership as a "proposed alliance" and the membership did have a vote "prior" to the IBT/CWA filing with the NMB.  Key ways of communicating to the membership was that the 2 unions were proposing thew alliance of combining the 2 unions into one to continue representation. They also state that they will offer this proposal to the membership prior to filing with the NMB to find out if the membership wants the combination of the 2 unions into the alliance.  A whole world of difference the way the TWU and IAM rammed this to the membership even if there is a vote it was still done wrong, unprofessional, and not with the memberships needs put up front, only the needs of the TWU and IAM still maintaining a presence within the aviation mechanics class and that is the only reason they are forming this alliance plain and simple.  The way the TWU/IAM presented and disrespected the membership of both carriers by just assuming they all wanted and formed the alliance instead of proposing the alliance first, then forming, then filing with NMB, then having a vote by membership.  
 
Can anyone from this IBT/CWA alliance when the AWA and US merged answer this question please; What were the options on the ballot when they proposed this alliance to the membership?  Was it as the mechanics are being told with one being a No or Non-union option?  Or is this just a scare tactic by the TWU/IAM to get the membership forced into the alliance?  Maybe you know Bob Owens.  Thx in advance for any input... 

From reading the Article the IBT didn't even have a contract so there wasn't much for an Association to iron out, the IBT members had nothing to lose with the Association and the CWA probably didn't want to battle it out with the much bigger IBT. 
 
700 states that the rules were changed, I'd like to see a reference to that. 
 
It is my understanding, but I do not recall the source that the Internal ballot for the CWA/IBT was Association or No Association, and I have little doubt that both Unions took it upon themselves to mislead, either through implication or omission, their members that voting No Association meant decertifying the Union, IMO all that internal vote could have determined was whether or not they were interested in the Association and if they would have voted it down they would have remained as they were until a filing was made for Single Carrier Status. At that point the CWA would have automatically been on the ballot and the IBT would have had to collect cards from CWA members to get on the Ballot. The NMB accepted those results as there was no dispute to settle and the members actively consented by approving the internal vote. 
 
The question is in the case of a new Collective Bargaining Agent is membership in a consenting Collective bargaining agent considered Consent without a vote? If it was then there would be no reason to ever have a vote in a merger and zero chance or any reason to have "No Union" on the ballot. Clearly active consent must be given to any change. 
 
We were told we would get a ballot, and some have claimed it would be the same as the IBT/CWA with a choice of either the Association or decertification of both unions, then we were told that despite being told there would be a Vote that the Association petitioned to get accepted without a vote. However, even though I have little faith in the NMB as far as integrity I think they have to at least keep up the "pretense of consent" by allowing a vote since none was ever conducted. They may advise the Unions to do their own internal one and accept the result as with CWA/IBT, or they may run through the NMB but I think that simply accepting the Associations petition, in light of all the evidence of opposition and the fact that we were told there would be a vote, would do too much damage to what little credibility the NMB has. Such a decision would be as offensive to the right as it is to the left. A blatant disregard for the whole concept of representation by consent. So one way or the other I believe there will be a vote. Putting aside the showing of interest part , going by the NMB rules there has to be at least three choices in an election conducted by the NMB, the petitioner, no union, or write in. But then again they change the rules as they see fit, and from where they are sitting they have both the Company and the Unions in favor of this, they really don't care what we think. So I will clarify or correct what I said earlier, if we get a ballott that simply says Association or No Association, then that would be an internal ballot, if we vote it down then we remain as we are, if we get a ballot from the NMB, by their current rules there would be at least three options, and I will not support the option of Association. 
 
And while I personally have not spoken to a lawyer about I would support legal action ensuring that our rights of consent to representation are upheld.