TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Get more
Teamster Organizer caught forging Authorization Cards
- Thread starter CIO
- Start date
TRAVIS
Veteran
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Flying low
Veteran
- Jul 19, 2011
- 629
- 232
I'm thinking we'll hear nothing more about this...
Yep, another one swept under the carpet and kept quiet. A specialty of the teamsters.
Teamsters drive is pretty much dead. They are waiting for AMFA to file and then they will stop at nothing to discredit AMFA along with the TWU. But they will NOT engage in a formal debate. Never did in the past and won't anytime soon.
Can not wait until June when the voting starts. This is the calm before the storm.
Can not wait until June when the voting starts. This is the calm before the storm.
chilokie1
Senior
- May 11, 2005
- 492
- 727
From day one I felt the Teamster drive was nothing but a collusion between the TWU & Teamsters to
keep AMFA out of AA and strengthen their positions in the AA-US AIR & the CAL-United dues/money grab.
But what if I'm wrong and the Teamsters do file? "SOMEHOW" their salesmen got my phone # & my home
address, and now that the home visits (late evenings & a Sunday) have stopped, I have to wonder did one of the
them fill out a card in my name?
If they do file will we have access to their lists to see if they have a card that has my name and info & a fraudulant
signature?
Now that Jim Little has said that a Teamster supporter committed fraud by filling out Teamster cards without the
permission of the member, when will see charges filed ?
I won't be holding my breath......................
keep AMFA out of AA and strengthen their positions in the AA-US AIR & the CAL-United dues/money grab.
But what if I'm wrong and the Teamsters do file? "SOMEHOW" their salesmen got my phone # & my home
address, and now that the home visits (late evenings & a Sunday) have stopped, I have to wonder did one of the
them fill out a card in my name?
If they do file will we have access to their lists to see if they have a card that has my name and info & a fraudulant
signature?
Now that Jim Little has said that a Teamster supporter committed fraud by filling out Teamster cards without the
permission of the member, when will see charges filed ?
I won't be holding my breath......................
If the teamsters think they have the card count then why don't they file? Step up to the plate teamsters. If you have the cards, then file, grow some nads and file. AMFA will be filing in May. There are certain reasons behind the May filing date. Can't wait for the July 4th this year. It will be then that we will all see AMFA in at AA.
To me the forging of cards really isnt a huge concern, while I think its wrong because it's a form of identity theft and it undermines those who are doing things legitimately the end result is all the cards do is allow the members to vote. Whats wrong with allowing the members to vote? In our case its the only opportunity for the members to really choose to either accept or reject what Bobby Gless and Don Videtich have been doing for (or to) us. I've always felt that representatives should only serve with the consent of the membership and the membership should be able to revoke that consent whenever they want, thats why I pushed to put recall into our bylaws with Local 562,even though the International at first rejected it.
To me the fix to this whole mess would be to allow anyone with a significant showing of interest to get on the ballott and have a vote, then whoever wins can work on uniting the membership and taking on AA. We could end up with four unions and one option for NO union at all on the ballott, so what, get it done so we can move on.
Personally with the new rules in place I feel that the standards to call for a representational vote are too high.
Under the old rules if less than half the eligible voters actually voted then we could end up with NO union, so back then it was a bigger deal. If someone didnt care one way or the other neither side should have had the right to claim that vote as theirs. The higher standards for an election were needed because of this. A company wishing to bust a union has access to all the information needed to falsely push for a vote and could get what they wanted by deliberately violating the contract at will, let the union file their grievances then rub it in their faces that they can continue to violate the contract at will and the union really cant do anything about it, until arbitration months or years later, where in many cases even a victory is a loss for the member because what he grieved has already been done and cant be undone and rarely are members awarded punitive damanges. Members seeing the union as inefective would probaly just not vote at all. Now the only way we would end up with "No Union" is if the "NO Union" option was actually chosen by the majority of voters.
While I'm not saying that representational elections should occur as frequently as Local Elections I do believe that with the changes we've seen as far as rules concerning elections under the NMB that making it easier for members to choose which organization represents them, or even no organization should they actively choose that, would make incumbant Unions more responsive to the needs of the members, especially in a case like ours where the parent organization really holds all the authority over the process. Where they appoint people who have authority over the people that the members elect, where they can secretly negotiate deals that benefit themsevles such as pensions based upon their Union salary, A-4 travel privileges, Admirals Club membership and even 10 hours of pay added to the weekly paychecks of people they handpick to recieve those monies (a 25% payraise if paid at straight time rates, around 40% if paid at OT rates), without the knowledge or consent of the membership or even the people the membership elects.
To me the fix to this whole mess would be to allow anyone with a significant showing of interest to get on the ballott and have a vote, then whoever wins can work on uniting the membership and taking on AA. We could end up with four unions and one option for NO union at all on the ballott, so what, get it done so we can move on.
Personally with the new rules in place I feel that the standards to call for a representational vote are too high.
Under the old rules if less than half the eligible voters actually voted then we could end up with NO union, so back then it was a bigger deal. If someone didnt care one way or the other neither side should have had the right to claim that vote as theirs. The higher standards for an election were needed because of this. A company wishing to bust a union has access to all the information needed to falsely push for a vote and could get what they wanted by deliberately violating the contract at will, let the union file their grievances then rub it in their faces that they can continue to violate the contract at will and the union really cant do anything about it, until arbitration months or years later, where in many cases even a victory is a loss for the member because what he grieved has already been done and cant be undone and rarely are members awarded punitive damanges. Members seeing the union as inefective would probaly just not vote at all. Now the only way we would end up with "No Union" is if the "NO Union" option was actually chosen by the majority of voters.
While I'm not saying that representational elections should occur as frequently as Local Elections I do believe that with the changes we've seen as far as rules concerning elections under the NMB that making it easier for members to choose which organization represents them, or even no organization should they actively choose that, would make incumbant Unions more responsive to the needs of the members, especially in a case like ours where the parent organization really holds all the authority over the process. Where they appoint people who have authority over the people that the members elect, where they can secretly negotiate deals that benefit themsevles such as pensions based upon their Union salary, A-4 travel privileges, Admirals Club membership and even 10 hours of pay added to the weekly paychecks of people they handpick to recieve those monies (a 25% payraise if paid at straight time rates, around 40% if paid at OT rates), without the knowledge or consent of the membership or even the people the membership elects.
A little late. You need to go to AMFA's web site and download an AMFA card. Or do nothing as your guys fate will be in AA's mechs hands. It will be more than likely that AMFA will prevail at AA in the upcoming election, then just by sheer numbers US will become AMFA after the merger is complete. Now, if you guys were smart you would get AMFA in before the merger like the AA mechs are. At least then the membership would have input and say so during the integration nego's. If not then you guys will have to deal with what the IAM says you guys will get.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
I don't disagree, but that's a byproduct of the "once and done" approach to voting in a union. You need a high threshold to force a decision that essentially lives in perpetuity.
How would you feel about lowering the standard for representation elections, but also making it mandatory to conduct a recertification vote every 4-5 years?
Seems to me the biggest problem with labor and labor unions is complacency. Forcing them to run for re-election might wind up creating a little more accountability. Appointment for life would no longer be guaranteed.
It would also provide an opportunity to decertify if the majority felt that the union wasn't providing any added value.
