Seham's letter about TWU/teamsters lies

[swamt]

SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

445 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 1204

WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601

TEL: (914) 997-1346

FAX: (914) 997-7125

[email protected]

www.ssmplaw.com
March 25, 2013


Mr. Don Rodgers
AMFA-AA Organizing Committee



Re: Threats of Economic Retaliation



Dear Mr. Rodgers:


You have brought to our attention that the TWU has engaged in intimations of economic retaliation by American Airlines and/or the TWU in response to an effort by the Mechanics and Related Employees to change their representation. These threats reportedly related to both contractual wage increases and the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake.


We consider these threats to be unlawful and that, furthermore, any effort to fulfill such threats would subject American and/or the TWU to enormous potential liability.


Contractual Wage Increases

The Railway Labor Act prohibits any effort by a carrier to "influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization." 45 U.S.C. 152, Fourth. Significantly, the federal judiciary has held that a change in union representatives does not alter the employees' existing contractual rights.

Nevertheless, in a Q&A published March 14, 2013, the TWU shamelessly asserts that "the New American will have a strong argument" that negotiated wage increases would not be payable to those employees who decided to change unions.

We say "shamelessly," not just because the TWU is wrong, but because, when the IBT made an analogous argument - i.e., that the IBT would have the automatic right to reopen an existing TWU-negotiated CBA - the TWU effectively blasted the IBT propaganda as a lie. The TWU correctly informed its members that, under federal law, a successor union steps into the contractual shoes of its predecessor.

So who is lying now? Federal courts and the National Mediation Board provide the answer.

The federal courts have consistently held that a change in union representation does not change existing contractual right and obligations. See Association of Flight Attendants v. USAir, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, 146 L.R.R.M. 2534 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Air Transp. Employees v. Western Airlines, 105 L.R.R.M. 3004, 3008 (C.D. Cal 1980); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 843 F.2d 1119, 1123 n.5 (8th Cir. 1988), vacated as moot, 854 F.2d 1088 (8th Cir. 1988); Order of Ry. Conducts & Brakemen v. Switchmen's Union of North America, 269 F.2d 726, 730 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 899 (1959).

The National Mediation Board has also repeatedly recognized the principle of contractual continuity. In 1935, the Board wrote:


When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives. The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement.


First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 23-24 (1935) (emphasis supplied). In 1976, the Board further explained:



The purpose of such a policy is to emphasize a principle of the Railway Labor Act that
agreements are between the employees and the carrier....


Forty-Second Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 39 (1976) (emphasis supplied).

The Board's position was reaffirmed on June 7, 1994 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which cited the "well-established principle that a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreements." Association of Flight Attendants, 24 F.3d at 1438.

Equity Stake

Interestingly enough, the TWU refrains from making a similar economic threat regarding the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake. With respect to these monies, the TWU's March 14 Q&A indicates that, even with a change of union representation: "Mechanics and Related, as a class or craft, will receive an appropriate share of this equity." Nevertheless, we understand that TWU representatives have been making oral threats that the TWU might withhold the Mechanics' share of equity stake in retaliation for their support of alternative union representation.

The TWU's written commitment to provide Mechanics and Related Employees an "appropriate share" of the equity undoubtedly reflects its awareness that the Railway Labor Act prohibits a labor union from stripping employees of contractual benefits based on their preference for alternative union representation. See, Ramey v. International Association of Machinists, 378 F.2d 269 (2nd Cir. 2004) (IAM liable for damages and attorneys fees where it seniority integration decisions regarding USAir Shuttle Mechanics were based on its animus toward these mechanics based on their advocacy for AMFA); Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. NLRB, 825 F.2d 608, 612 (1st Cir. 1987) ("When a union attempts to prefer [on group of] workers based solely on [their loyalty to their guild]," it has breached its duty of fair representation).

We do not believe that the oral threats that have been made, in conflict with the TWU's written commitment, will be fulfilled. Moreover, we can assure you that any effort to cheat the AA Mechanics and Related Employees of their contractual rights will meet with an aggressive litigation response.

Sincerely,






Lee Seham





Pretty damn sad when unions have to OUTRIGHT lie and practically blackmail their members to stick with them. As stated above the TWU "corrects" the teamsters about their lies to re-open the contract, and turns right around and claims that they and the company can withhold written contract rewards. Not gonna happen guys, don't fall for the TWU/company lies. They will say and do anything to try and keep the TWU on property. Great letter, gotta love the last paragraph. Spread this letter thru-out the membership. Don't let the TWU and company install scare tactics to help deflect AMFA from getting in. Very pathetic tactics indeed...

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Thank you Mr. Seham for explaining the facts. Sure is a shame the twu atd doesn't care for those who pay their over inflated salaries.

 

[Goey]

Crickets and silence from the TWU boys

 

[CIO]

Letter to Claire McCaskill From James Little RE: FAA Safety and Security Concerns



March 28, 2013
March 26, 2013

The Honorable Claire McCaskill
717 Hart Senate Office Building U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCaskill:

I am writing you to ask you if the FAA has closed any additional safety and security items noted in their response to you January 11, 2010′. Within that letter to you, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that they had reviewed the FAA’s progress on the safety and security gaps in our nation’s aircraft maintenance systems that were revealed during three separate investigations. 2Within the OIG’s series of reports, 23 recommendations have been made to close the gaps and as of the Mr. Scovel’s letter to you in 2010 only 7 of those items had been completed. As a frequent flyer, aviation mechanic, and representative of the Transport Workers Union I have been monitoring the U.S. DOT, OIG website and have not seen and progress. What has the FAA done to address the OIG recommendations?

There is a new push by ARSA to have the ban on issuing new repair station licenses lifted and the FAA is seriously considering it. Their request to have the ban lifted ignores the fact that the FAA has not corrected the oversight issues cited by the OIG. Non-airline MROs foreign and domestic would be allowed to operate with no background checks and no drug testing for those employees who work on aircraft that operate within the U.S. airspace. The FAA has not addressed all the recommendations from the OIG and until such time they are addressed the ban should not be lifted.

On behalf of the over 50,000 aircraft maintenance professionals, 10,000 aircraft mechanics that the TWU represents and the traveling public I urge you to inquire with the FAA as to if there has been any progress on the OIG recommendations? If not, then what are the next steps to ensuring and maintaining the highest level of safety and security of our air transportation system? As a representative of the TWU I am not asking for special protection through excessive regulation but that the FAA maintains a consistent and uniform approach to regulation. I strongly believe that if the rules and regulations are applied equally to foreign and domestic aircraft maintenance organizations that American union labor will not only survive but thrive.

Thank you Senator McCaskill for your time and service.

Sincerely
James C. Little
International President


What has Amfa done lately???????? Besides Raid other Unions!!!!!!!!!

In Solidarity,
CIO

 

[swamt]

Letter to Claire McCaskill From James Little RE: FAA Safety and Security Concerns



March 28, 2013
March 26, 2013

The Honorable Claire McCaskill
717 Hart Senate Office Building U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCaskill:

I am writing you to ask you if the FAA has closed any additional safety and security items noted in their response to you January 11, 2010′. Within that letter to you, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that they had reviewed the FAA’s progress on the safety and security gaps in our nation’s aircraft maintenance systems that were revealed during three separate investigations. 2Within the OIG’s series of reports, 23 recommendations have been made to close the gaps and as of the Mr. Scovel’s letter to you in 2010 only 7 of those items had been completed. As a frequent flyer, aviation mechanic, and representative of the Transport Workers Union I have been monitoring the U.S. DOT, OIG website and have not seen and progress. What has the FAA done to address the OIG recommendations?

There is a new push by ARSA to have the ban on issuing new repair station licenses lifted and the FAA is seriously considering it. Their request to have the ban lifted ignores the fact that the FAA has not corrected the oversight issues cited by the OIG. Non-airline MROs foreign and domestic would be allowed to operate with no background checks and no drug testing for those employees who work on aircraft that operate within the U.S. airspace. The FAA has not addressed all the recommendations from the OIG and until such time they are addressed the ban should not be lifted.

On behalf of the over 50,000 aircraft maintenance professionals, 10,000 aircraft mechanics that the TWU represents and the traveling public I urge you to inquire with the FAA as to if there has been any progress on the OIG recommendations? If not, then what are the next steps to ensuring and maintaining the highest level of safety and security of our air transportation system? As a representative of the TWU I am not asking for special protection through excessive regulation but that the FAA maintains a consistent and uniform approach to regulation. I strongly believe that if the rules and regulations are applied equally to foreign and domestic aircraft maintenance organizations that American union labor will not only survive but thrive.

Thank you Senator McCaskill for your time and service.

Sincerely
James C. Little
International President


What has Amfa done lately???????? Besides Raid other Unions!!!!!!!!!

In Solidarity,
CIO

A lot more for the craft and class than any other union period. BTW, your odd topic, take that post of yours somewhere else.

 

[comatose]

Letter to Claire McCaskill From James Little RE: FAA Safety and Security Concerns



March 28, 2013
March 26, 2013

The Honorable Claire McCaskill
717 Hart Senate Office Building U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCaskill:

I am writing you to ask you if the FAA has closed any additional safety and security items noted in their response to you January 11, 2010′. Within that letter to you, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that they had reviewed the FAA’s progress on the safety and security gaps in our nation’s aircraft maintenance systems that were revealed during three separate investigations. 2Within the OIG’s series of reports, 23 recommendations have been made to close the gaps and as of the Mr. Scovel’s letter to you in 2010 only 7 of those items had been completed. As a A-5 frequent flyer, aviation mechanic(although all I do is play with my joystick), and incompetent representative of the Transport Workers Union I have been monitoring the U.S. DOT, OIG website and have not seen and progress. What has the FAA done to address the OIG recommendations?

There is a new push by ARSA to have the ban on issuing new repair station licenses lifted and the FAA is seriously considering it. Their request to have the ban lifted ignores the fact that the FAA has not corrected the oversight issues cited by the OIG. Non-airline MROs foreign and domestic would be allowed to operate with no background checks and no drug testing for those employees who work on aircraft that operate within the U.S. airspace. The FAA has not addressed all the recommendations from the OIG and until such time they are addressed the ban should not be lifted.

On behalf of the over 50,000 aircraft maintenance professionals, 10,000 aircraft mechanics that the TWU pretends to represent and the traveling public I urge you to inquire with the FAA as to if there has been any progress on the OIG recommendations? If not, then what are the next steps to ensuring and maintaining the highest level of safety and security of our air transportation system? As a representative of the TWU I am not asking for special protection through excessive regulation but that the FAA maintains a consistent and uniform approach to regulation. I strongly believe that if the rules and regulations are applied equally to foreign and domestic aircraft maintenance organizations that American union labor will not only survive but thrive.

Thank you Senator McCaskill for your time and service.

Sincerely
James C. Little
International President


What has Amfa done lately???????? Besides Raid other Unions!!!!!!!!!

In Solidarity,
CIO

A few words were missing.

 

[Realityck]

A few words were missing.

No words missing here:


The B-Scale Plague

American Airlines adopted the benchmark B-scale in 1983, permanently reducing pay for newly hired pilots by 50 percent. In fact, under the AA system—negotiated while the Seham firm sat on the labor side of the table—pay rates and pensions for new employees would never merge with those of then-current employees.

Martin Seham wrote proudly of this accomplishment in Cleared for Takeoff: Airline Labor Relations Since Deregulation.

As general counsel to the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the independent certified representative of the American Airlines pilots, I was close to the negotiations that resulted, in 1983, in the earliest realization of the two-tier system. APA was not faced with an insolvent or failing carrier; it was, however, forced to deal with an economic environment that had changed dramatically because of the effects of deregulation and was, by virtue of its independence, mandated to reach an agreement consistent with the needs and objectives of its constituency. — Martin C. Seham


Although B-scales were not a new concept, their initial format was unique to the airline industry. Following American’s lead, other airlines began to demand similar packages—forcing the entire airline labor movement into a new era of concessions. Good for management; bad for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and all of the airline industry’s workers.

While ALPA pilots were forced to deal with this blight brought to the industry by APA and the Sehams, not one ALPA pilot group accepted a non-merging two-tier scale. The clearest example of this was the ALPA strike at United in June 1985, when the pilots refused to agree to a non-merging two-tier pay scale.

 

[Vortilon]

Letter to Claire McCaskill From James Little RE: FAA Safety and Security Concerns



March 28, 2013
March 26, 2013

The Honorable Claire McCaskill
717 Hart Senate Office Building U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCaskill:

I am writing you to ask you if the FAA has closed any additional safety and security items noted in their response to you January 11, 2010′. Within that letter to you, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that they had reviewed the FAA’s progress on the safety and security gaps in our nation’s aircraft maintenance systems that were revealed during three separate investigations. 2Within the OIG’s series of reports, 23 recommendations have been made to close the gaps and as of the Mr. Scovel’s letter to you in 2010 only 7 of those items had been completed. As a frequent flyer, aviation mechanic, and representative of the Transport Workers Union I have been monitoring the U.S. DOT, OIG website and have not seen and progress. What has the FAA done to address the OIG recommendations?

There is a new push by ARSA to have the ban on issuing new repair station licenses lifted and the FAA is seriously considering it. Their request to have the ban lifted ignores the fact that the FAA has not corrected the oversight issues cited by the OIG. Non-airline MROs foreign and domestic would be allowed to operate with no background checks and no drug testing for those employees who work on aircraft that operate within the U.S. airspace. The FAA has not addressed all the recommendations from the OIG and until such time they are addressed the ban should not be lifted.

On behalf of the over 50,000 aircraft maintenance professionals, 10,000 aircraft mechanics that the TWU represents and the traveling public I urge you to inquire with the FAA as to if there has been any progress on the OIG recommendations? If not, then what are the next steps to ensuring and maintaining the highest level of safety and security of our air transportation system? As a representative of the TWU I am not asking for special protection through excessive regulation but that the FAA maintains a consistent and uniform approach to regulation. I strongly believe that if the rules and regulations are applied equally to foreign and domestic aircraft maintenance organizations that American union labor will not only survive but thrive.

Thank you Senator McCaskill for your time and service.

Sincerely
James C. Little
International President


What has Amfa done lately???????? Besides Raid other Unions!!!!!!!!!

In Solidarity,
CIO

So, now Jimmy Little - along with his mail order diploma, NY state teaching certificate, and Dispatchers License, is now an aircraft mechanic as well? Why not add a few more titles while you're at it - a few come to mind.

 

[High Speed Steel]

SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

445 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 1204

WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601

TEL: (914) 997-1346

FAX: (914) 997-7125

[email protected]

www.ssmplaw.com
March 25, 2013


Mr. Don Rodgers
AMFA-AA Organizing Committee



Re: Threats of Economic Retaliation



Dear Mr. Rodgers:


You have brought to our attention that the TWU has engaged in intimations of economic retaliation by American Airlines and/or the TWU in response to an effort by the Mechanics and Related Employees to change their representation. These threats reportedly related to both contractual wage increases and the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake.


We consider these threats to be unlawful and that, furthermore, any effort to fulfill such threats would subject American and/or the TWU to enormous potential liability.


Contractual Wage Increases

The Railway Labor Act prohibits any effort by a carrier to "influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization." 45 U.S.C. 152, Fourth. Significantly, the federal judiciary has held that a change in union representatives does not alter the employees' existing contractual rights.

Nevertheless, in a Q&A published March 14, 2013, the TWU shamelessly asserts that "the New American will have a strong argument" that negotiated wage increases would not be payable to those employees who decided to change unions.

We say "shamelessly," not just because the TWU is wrong, but because, when the IBT made an analogous argument - i.e., that the IBT would have the automatic right to reopen an existing TWU-negotiated CBA - the TWU effectively blasted the IBT propaganda as a lie. The TWU correctly informed its members that, under federal law, a successor union steps into the contractual shoes of its predecessor.

So who is lying now? Federal courts and the National Mediation Board provide the answer.

The federal courts have consistently held that a change in union representation does not change existing contractual right and obligations. See Association of Flight Attendants v. USAir, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, 146 L.R.R.M. 2534 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Air Transp. Employees v. Western Airlines, 105 L.R.R.M. 3004, 3008 (C.D. Cal 1980); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 843 F.2d 1119, 1123 n.5 (8th Cir. 1988), vacated as moot, 854 F.2d 1088 (8th Cir. 1988); Order of Ry. Conducts & Brakemen v. Switchmen's Union of North America, 269 F.2d 726, 730 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 899 (1959).

The National Mediation Board has also repeatedly recognized the principle of contractual continuity. In 1935, the Board wrote:


When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives. The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement.


First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 23-24 (1935) (emphasis supplied). In 1976, the Board further explained:



The purpose of such a policy is to emphasize a principle of the Railway Labor Act that
agreements are between the employees and the carrier....


Forty-Second Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 39 (1976) (emphasis supplied).

The Board's position was reaffirmed on June 7, 1994 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which cited the "well-established principle that a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreements." Association of Flight Attendants, 24 F.3d at 1438.

Equity Stake

Interestingly enough, the TWU refrains from making a similar economic threat regarding the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake. With respect to these monies, the TWU's March 14 Q&A indicates that, even with a change of union representation: "Mechanics and Related, as a class or craft, will receive an appropriate share of this equity." Nevertheless, we understand that TWU representatives have been making oral threats that the TWU might withhold the Mechanics' share of equity stake in retaliation for their support of alternative union representation.

The TWU's written commitment to provide Mechanics and Related Employees an "appropriate share" of the equity undoubtedly reflects its awareness that the Railway Labor Act prohibits a labor union from stripping employees of contractual benefits based on their preference for alternative union representation. See, Ramey v. International Association of Machinists, 378 F.2d 269 (2nd Cir. 2004) (IAM liable for damages and attorneys fees where it seniority integration decisions regarding USAir Shuttle Mechanics were based on its animus toward these mechanics based on their advocacy for AMFA); Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. NLRB, 825 F.2d 608, 612 (1st Cir. 1987) ("When a union attempts to prefer [on group of] workers based solely on [their loyalty to their guild]," it has breached its duty of fair representation).

We do not believe that the oral threats that have been made, in conflict with the TWU's written commitment, will be fulfilled. Moreover, we can assure you that any effort to cheat the AA Mechanics and Related Employees of their contractual rights will meet with an aggressive litigation response.

Sincerely,






Lee Seham





Pretty damn sad when unions have to OUTRIGHT lie and practically blackmail their members to stick with them. As stated above the TWU "corrects" the teamsters about their lies to re-open the contract, and turns right around and claims that they and the company can withhold written contract rewards. Not gonna happen guys, don't fall for the TWU/company lies. They will say and do anything to try and keep the TWU on property. Great letter, gotta love the last paragraph. Spread this letter thru-out the membership. Don't let the TWU and company install scare tactics to help deflect AMFA from getting in. Very pathetic tactics indeed...

Wow. How bold is this? Seems the AMFA organizers and the Seham group are feeling left out. We have some coupon books prepared for Jimmy Hoffa to sign off to guarantee the TWU will surrender the entire 4.8% distribution to the Teamsters. Should we print a coupon booklet for the AMFA/Seham camp as well to prove them to be liars too?

One thing for sure is with the TWU you are 100% guaranteed you will get the distribution of the 4.8% equity and the 4.3% raise from the MOU. Any raiding organization such as Teamster, Amfa, or Seham who tells you they will guarantee the same is full of crap...

Have a great TWU day....

 

[limit]

I remember some of the people here saying over and over that the twu international owns the contract, I am pretty sure someone ,Bob maybe, that even mentioned a court case where this info came out.
Now this legal firm is saying the opposite is true.
Did I miss understand something ?

 

[AANOTOK]

Wow. How bold is this? Seems the AMFA organizers and the Seham group are feeling left out. We have some coupon books prepared for Jimmy Hoffa to sign off to guarantee the TWU will surrender the entire 4.8% distribution to the Teamsters. Should we print a coupon booklet for the AMFA/Seham camp as well to prove them to be liars too?

One thing for sure is with the TWU you are 100% guaranteed you will get the distribution of the 4.8% equity and the 4.3% raise from the MOU. Any raiding organization such as Teamster, Amfa, or Seham who tells you they will guarantee the same is full of crap...

Have a great TWU day....

The TWU will not be distributing the full 4.8% equity to it's members. They have already made that perfectly clear!

 

[AA-MRO.COM]

We dont want the 4.8 percent we would rather let the twu keep it so long as they vacate the premises.

 

[swamt]

We dont want the 4.8 percent we would rather let the twu keep it so long as they vacate the premises.

Now this speaks volumes. Members willing to give up the equity to rid themselves of the company union, the TWU. You guys will have your chance come May, vote proudly, and remember, vote for a union that will allow it's members to have input for any and all decisions within the union's structure and operations. Vote for the union that will let the members decide who is it's officers and National officers and can very well be recalled. AMFA is the only union that is democratic and transparent gentlemen, good luck to you all...

 

[comatose]

Now this speaks volumes. Members willing to give up the equity to rid themselves of the company union, the TWU. You guys will have your chance come May, vote proudly, and remember, vote for a union that will allow it's members to have input for any and all decisions within the union's structure and operations. Vote for the union that will let the members decide who is it's officers and National officers and can very well be recalled. AMFA is the only union that is democratic and transparent gentlemen, good luck to you all...

Wrong. I want what is deserved-the distribution of the 4.8% and the company toy union leave.
Nothing less will do.

 

[Bob Owens]

Letter to Claire McCaskill From James Little RE: FAA Safety and Security Concerns



March 28, 2013
March 26, 2013

The Honorable Claire McCaskill
717 Hart Senate Office Building U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McCaskill:

I am writing you to ask you if the FAA has closed any additional safety and security items noted in their response to you January 11, 2010′. Within that letter to you, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that they had reviewed the FAA’s progress on the safety and security gaps in our nation’s aircraft maintenance systems that were revealed during three separate investigations. 2Within the OIG’s series of reports, 23 recommendations have been made to close the gaps and as of the Mr. Scovel’s letter to you in 2010 only 7 of those items had been completed. As a frequent flyer, aviation mechanic, and representative of the Transport Workers Union I have been monitoring the U.S. DOT, OIG website and have not seen and progress. What has the FAA done to address the OIG recommendations?

There is a new push by ARSA to have the ban on issuing new repair station licenses lifted and the FAA is seriously considering it. Their request to have the ban lifted ignores the fact that the FAA has not corrected the oversight issues cited by the OIG. Non-airline MROs foreign and domestic would be allowed to operate with no background checks and no drug testing for those employees who work on aircraft that operate within the U.S. airspace. The FAA has not addressed all the recommendations from the OIG and until such time they are addressed the ban should not be lifted.

On behalf of the over 50,000 aircraft maintenance professionals, 10,000 aircraft mechanics that the TWU represents and the traveling public I urge you to inquire with the FAA as to if there has been any progress on the OIG recommendations? If not, then what are the next steps to ensuring and maintaining the highest level of safety and security of our air transportation system? As a representative of the TWU I am not asking for special protection through excessive regulation but that the FAA maintains a consistent and uniform approach to regulation. I strongly believe that if the rules and regulations are applied equally to foreign and domestic aircraft maintenance organizations that American union labor will not only survive but thrive.

Thank you Senator McCaskill for your time and service.

Sincerely
James C. Little
International President

Dear Sen McAskil, Hi Its the TWU, you know the Union over at AA that had no problem with putting thousands of your constituants out of work as our employer closed the MCI base and shrunk STL to a shadow of its former self. You and that guy Bond even wrote legisaltion so that in the future Unions could not do to other workers in mergers what the TWU did to your constituants but remember we were fairer than the APA and APFA. Well I have a favor to ask of you,,,,



In the meantime nothing is done about reforming the way Airline workers are treated compared to all other workers in the 1113 process.

Fluff, meaningless, uncontroversal fluff while real world issues go unresolved. Why till 2013 to ask about what was recommended in 2010? Why not go after how airline Unions are the only unions under the RLA that can have their contracts annuled in BK and why airline unions are the only unions in the country that can not strike when their contract is thrown out? Shouldnt Jim Little be demanding that the rules in BK are applied equally to Airline workers as they are to railroad workers who are also covered by the RLA and if not at least given equla protections under the RLA given the same freedoms as workers who are not under the protections of the RLA. The courts have twisted the law to place an unfair limitation on our rights to protect our interests and the TWU isnt doing anything about it. We got screwed by this, we set new standards for as low as labor can go in BK because of this unfair situation and we pay the TWU hundreds of dollars a year to represent us yet they stay silent about this. Why?