No to the Alliance!

[topDawg]

I'm not talking about outsourcing, I'm talking about pay, sick, vacation, shift diff. LAA just went through bankruptcy, if AA wanted outsource more OH it would have. Seeing all the talent at TUL and how OK bends over backwards for AA that's why TUL is still open. Not anything the TWU negotiated.

and i am saying you have a management team now that doesn't seem to care for heavy work. Tulsa is older, needs updating to stay current.....I don't see Parker doing it without a union telling him he has to. 
 
but I believe that in BK AA wanted to take more than they did, they didn't because the TWU gave them pay/benefits for jobs. 
 
 

If your saying the TWU negotiated that, then you're also saying the TWU sacrificed AFW MCI MSP DTW etc etc

 The unions don't pick bases, the company does. (at least for the most part) 

 
 
but the important thing to remember here is, like it or not, you guys don't compare well to Delta. A lot of work we do is because of the MRO. If it wasn't for the MRO a lot more work would be gone. Parker and the Unions don't seem to give a crap about making money with MX, thus i bet without a union you get Northwested.

 

[dfw gen]

DOT data shows that for 2013, AA spent $2.25 billion on aircraft maintenance and outsourced 30.3% of their maintenance dollars for $1.56 billion spent on in-house maintenance.

US spent $1.06 billion and outsourced 54.2% of it for $485 million spent on in-house maintenance.

DL spent $2.56 billion and outsourced 41.8% of it for $1.49 billion on in-house maintenance.
based on DL's financial statements, DL Tech Ops also does between $400-500 million per year in insourced (MRO) work.

UA spent $2.7 billion on maintenance and outsourced 52.1% of it for $1.3 billion in in-house maintenance spend.

Neither AA or UA report MRO revenue as a source of revenue on their financial statements.

DL Tech Ops is about the same size as AA/US in-house maintenance on a combined basis based on 2013 DOT statistics.

Go away a**wipe

 

[topDawg]

Go away a**wipe

somewhat my fault dfw gen
 
just want you guys to know its not all roses and rainbows over at Delta. You guys are in a hard spot, but with the management you got, no way in hell would i take my chances without a CBA. 

 

[saywhat]

I have read section 16 obviously you haven't as it clearly states -

 

 
This is triggered only in the event of a tie - it is not what you claimed

Read it again, if a tie or no majority, then it's rerun. You guys should read before you post, 700 is correct.

 

[Buck]

Read it again, if a tie or no majority, then it's rerun. You guys should read before you post, 700 is correct.

Ok, however didn't the NMB deviate from precedence set not so long ago? Only one of the board members dissented.... 

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Read it again, if a tie or no majority, then it's rerun. You guys should read before you post, 700 is correct.

 
Perhaps you should read it again - its not a majority of eligible voters, its a majority of valid ballots cast, it only goes to a runoff in the event of a tie - 700 is wrong, as are you.

 

[700UW]

I am not wrong, call the board.
 
It just happened at UA last between the IAM and IBT for the ramp and CSA votes.
 
If the IAM didnt get 50+1 of all votes cast, there would have had to be a runoff as the ballot was:

IAM
IBT
Write In
NO
 
Would you like the person who was there in the room for the IAM at the NMB send you an email explain it to you?
 
Or better yet, just call the NMB, I have worked numerous airline campaigns and that is how it is.
 
Ok so explain this one then, and yes it was the old tally rules:
 
US Air Fleet Service Ballot

IAM
IBT
USWA
 
No union got 50%+1, but all union votes cast did, there was a runoff between the two highest vote getters, which was the IAM and USWA and the IAM won.
 
The only change current is 50%+1 of all votes cast, instead of all eligible voters.

 

[saywhat]

 
Perhaps you should read it again - its not a majority of eligible voters, its a majority of valid ballots cast, it only goes to a runoff in the event of a tie - 700 is wrong, as are you.

Seriously, if a majority of votes are not achieved or a tie vote, it's a rerun. It can't be any clearer. I see comprehension is lacking in regards to the language you posted.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I am not wrong, call the board.
 
It just happened at UA last between the IAM and IBT for the ramp and CSA votes.
 
If the IAM didnt get 50+1 of all votes cast, there would have had to be a runoff as the ballot was:
IAM
IBT
Write In
NO
 
Would you like the person who was there in the room for the IAM at the NMB send you an email explain it to you?
 
Or better yet, just call the NMB, I have worked numerous airline campaigns and that is how it is.
 
Ok so explain this one then, and yes it was the old tally rules:
 
US Air Fleet Service Ballot

IAM
IBT
USWA
 
No union got 50%+1, but all union votes cast did, there was a runoff between the two highest vote getters, which was the IAM and USWA and the IAM won.
 
The only change current is 50%+1 of all votes cast, instead of all eligible voters.

 
As I said before - the NMB was called - you are wrong.
 
From the ibt lawyers on the subject -
 
http://www.bapwild.com/blog/nmb-announces-proposed-rule-in-runoff-elections/
 
And if there is still any doubt whatsoever - this is the rule as entered into the FEDERAL REGISTER
 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-21/html/2012-30853.htm
 

Sec.  1206.1  Run-off elections.

    (a) In an election among any craft or class where three or more
options (including the option for no representation) receive valid
votes, if no option receives a majority of the legal votes cast, or in
the event of a tie vote, the Board shall authorize a run-off election.
    ( B) In the event a run-off election is authorized by the Board, the
names of the two options which received the highest number of votes
cast in the first election shall be placed on the run-off ballot, and
no blank line on which voters may write in the name of any organization
or individual will be provided on the run-off ballot.
    (c) Employees who were eligible to vote at the conclusion of the
first election shall be eligible to vote in the run-off election
except:
    (1) Those employees whose employment relationship has terminated;
and
    (2) Those employees who are no longer employed in the craft or
class.
 

 
 
You are wrong.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Seriously, if a majority of votes are not achieved or a tie vote, it's a rerun. It can't be any clearer. I see comprehension is lacking in regards to the language you posted.

 
Its your comprehension thats lacking but if you want to continue to wallow in your(or 700s) ignorance, then by all means knock yourself out.

 

[Buck]

Shop Steward Training: The TWU-IAM Association Agreement

August 5, 2014

The July Steward Training covered the upcoming Association Agreement that our membership will soon be voting on. We began the training by going over the Trumka letter that aired his concern of a costly labor battle amongst AFLCIO Unions while not adding a single new member to organized labor. Trumka encouraged the TWU and IAM to work out a case of dual representation. This is where the Association Agreement came from.
The Agreement Regarding Seniority Integration states, your seniority will be based on the date of each employee’s entry into the basic classification, as set forth in the existing Collective Bargaining Agreements and the Current Seniority Lists maintained by American and USAir for each group. Once the Seniority List integration process is completed, The TWU and IAM will form a committee to address and resolve any individual challenges, which must be raised by submitting a letter identifying the alleged problem to the committee within 30 days after the integrated seniority list is published.
The TWU and IAM jointly agreed for the formation of Association Agreements of the three joint labor organizations representing the Craft and Classes of, Maintenance and Related, Material Logistics Specs, and Fleet Service Clerks. The membership will vote on whether to accept these Association Agreements. Once the Associations are accepted a ratio of current TWU and IAM members will determine the ratio of TWU and IAM members that will be maintained going forward. Your station location will determine if you are TWU or IAM. There will be some shuffling of our current stations to maintain the ratio resulting in current members changing unions.
The Association is a small organization that would own the Bargaining Agreement with American. The Association will be located in Washington DC and will hold no assets. The cost will be covered jointly by the TWU and IAM. A Chairman and Vice Chairman will preside over the Association they will be the International Presidents or their appointee. The Officers in the Association will come from the ranks of the TWU and IAM and meet a minimum of 4 times a year. Negotiations will be handled by committee formed from an equal number of representatives from the IAM and TWU. The first order of business for this committee will be to harmonize the two current agreements between the TWU and IAM into a single agreement.
We also have a joint agreement on Pensions. The IAM has a National Pension Fund (IAMNPF). The IAM and TWU will propose to allow current TWU members into the IAMNPF. They further agree to make this a high priority when we harmonize our current agreements.
Some very important steps in our near future will be the vote on the Association and then the Harmonizing of the twoCBA’s. The Association vote will be the same as any representation vote if the Association isn’t voted in we would lose our current CBA. With no CBA we become “At Will Employees”. That means you can be fired for no reason. You lose all the negotiated rights of pay, seniority, transfers, and riff procedures, just to name a few.
 
 
 
 
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57487-gary-yingst-vote-letter-is-incorrectgo-figure/

 

[saywhat]

 
As I said before - the NMB was called - you are wrong.
 
From the ibt lawyers -
 
http://www.bapwild.com/blog/nmb-announces-proposed-rule-in-runoff-elections/
 
And if there is still any doubt whatsoever - this is the rule as entered into the FEDERAL REGISTER
 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-21/html/2012-30853.htm
 
 
 
You are wrong.
 
You crack me up, you highlight it and then you misinterpret the language. You are posting the correct language and I would be all in if your poker skills are as good as your comprehension skills.  
 
 

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 

 
As I said before - the NMB was called - you are wrong.
 
From the ibt lawyers -
 
http://www.bapwild.com/blog/nmb-announces-proposed-rule-in-runoff-elections/
 
And if there is still any doubt whatsoever - this is the rule as entered into the FEDERAL REGISTER
 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-21/html/2012-30853.htm
 
 
 
You are wrong.
 
You crack me up, you highlight it and then you misinterpret the language. You are posting the correct language and I would be all in if your poker skills are as good as your comprehension skills.  
 
 

 

 
Just what part of ...."majority of legal votes cast" .... don't you understand?

 

[saywhat]

IF NO OPTION RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF THE LEGAL VOTES CAST,(what this means is that if someone doesn't attain 50% +1 then runoff of top 2), OR IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE.(or a run off if tie)

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

IF NO OPTION RECEIVES A MAJORITY OF THE LEGAL VOTES CAST,(what this means is that if someone doesn't attain 50% +1 then runoff of top 2), OR IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE.(or a run off if tie)

 
Okay - good so far
 
Now - since you claim 700 is NOT wrong explain how this says the same thing.

 

No, if there is a write in and neither gets 50%+1, but combined they do, then there will be a runoff election.
 
Election procedures have changed.
 

 
Here's a hint - there is no 50% +1 requirement anymore - its about valid votes cast.