Shop Stewards new athority

[TWU informer]

So the brief as written shows only the contentions of the association. I see the amfa was hanging their hat on LOA 74-1M. Was this a letter of agreement between the IAM and UAL before amfa became the BA? Is this LOA incorporated into the amfa agreement at UAL?

What was the decision by the arbitrator?

What's the matter, did they run out of twisted facts down on Pine, and now you want some truth?

 

[High Speed Steel]

What's the matter, did they run out of twisted facts down on Pine, and now you want some truth?

Yes the truth would be nice. It seems to always come out in arbitration. Third Seat has accused Bill of relying upon hearsay knowledge of the happenings at UAL and he posted a brief of the contentions of the association from an arbitration hearing.

Is what Third Seat posted hearsay? Was he present at the hearing, or is he the author of the briefing?

He has become quite active within this forum and seems to be trying desperatly to defend the actions of the amfa as well as solicit support for their grand idea for all of us. With his presence there must be some grumblings going on within the "woodpile"!!!

I think Third Seat should include the contentions of the company, discussion and opinion of the arbitrator, and the remedy.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

So rather than address the fact that Bill was wrong about NWA being the only management to utilize force majuere, you're now attempting to deflect attention away by calling into question the fact that I didn't provide you each and every detail concerning the AMFA IND layoff arbitration.

A fairly sad attempt to say the least.

Yes the truth would be nice. It seems to always come out in arbitration. Third Seat has accused Bill of relying upon hearsay knowledge of the happenings at UAL and he posted a brief of the contentions of the association from an arbitration hearing.

First of all, this is what bill originally posted, and my response:

Over the next four years the Company implemented three rounds of force majeure layoffs impacting over three thousand workers and was the only management that managed to declare the Iraq war a force majeure incident.

My response:

In a word, WRONG.

NWA was NOT the only management to implement force majuere.

March, 2003. The management at UAL layed off over 1,000 AMTs from IND due to force majuere.

.......Oh, and that was under the iam.

Bill himself admits UAL invoked force majuere only his attempt at spin was to try and deflect to the iams severance benefits settlement. Never mind that the layoff was improper and wasn't settled til arbitration by AMFA aproximately 2 years later.

As for me accusing Bill of relying on hearsay knowledge, you need to learn to read. Bill in his own posting ADMITS TO IT.

Third Seat argued that, contrary to what I said, NWA wasn't the only carrier that used the Iraq War to invoke force majeure. I made this last statement based on information given me by an amfa rep out in the hallway after one of their Tulsa meetings a while back who told me that there was no way that amfa would lose force majeure II (the Iraq War) because NWA was the only carrier that invoked force majeure on this event, and that he expected me to sign a card when they won. They, of course as we all know now, lost.

In case you were wondering, second hand knowledge, by definition, is HEARSAY.

Is what Third Seat posted hearsay? Was he present at the hearing, or is he the author of the briefing?

Again with the hearsay, No, what I posted was not hearsay, its a matter of record. No, I was not at the hearing. No, I am not the author of the brief.

He has become quite active within this forum and seems to be trying desperatly to defend the actions of the amfa as well as solicit support for their grand idea for all of us. With his presence there must be some grumblings going on within the "woodpile"!!!

Quite active? I've been a member of this forum since December 04' Longer than some, less than others.

As to your ridiculous remark

"....and seems to be trying desperatly to defend the actions of the amfa as well as solicit support for their grand idea for all of us"

You mean calling the likes of you and Bill on your BS posts constitutes desperation? Looks to me like your logic is whats desperate.

Just to let you know, I no longer work in aviation. I haven't for going on 4 years now. I'm defending nothing but the truth from individuals such as yourself, who seem to thrive on revisionist history.

I think Third Seat should include the contentions of the company, discussion and opinion of the arbitrator, and the remedy.

Why? Because you're too lazy to do your own research?

I entered this thread to refute the assertions of Bill, and I've done just that. Your feeble attempts to spin attention away from that does not constitute an obligation on my part.

 

[scorpion]

Bill is ALOT like Hammack and has been a company man, and anti-profession since the day he hired on at AA.

Likely will be in management shortly after the members vote him out of office

Thats probably why burchette ruled a motion out of order a few union meetings back. A motion was made to have these guys sign a letter of loyalty to the membership stating that they wouldnt take a position in management for 12 months after serving as a union officer or pay a 25,000 dollar fine but it never made it to a vote of the membership. He even stated that he didnt like the motion because it would shorten the pool of potential candidates that would run for union office! This guy is out there......