OldGuy@AA said:
Hopefully Bob reads this stuff and gives us his take.
My take is that there is a document out there signed by the TWU and IAM thats forcing us to go into this Association, an Association the TWU side does not want but our leaders claim we cant get out of, likewise there is a Letter out there signed by the TWU and IAM where they agree that in Negotiations the objective will be to put us all in the IAMNPF, obviously if they could not get out of the Association they cant unilaterally get out of the Pension Agreement either. If they cant get us out of one they wont be able to get us out of the other.
I see the IAM sitting back and covering everything else first, leaving the pension for last. Then after those other issues such as Vacation, Holidays, Sick time, OT have been settled, where the TWU side sees more of a dollar value added than the IAM side, the IAM will try and jam this IAMNPF down our throats. The TWU side will of course object but the IAM will cite the money on the table, the fact that the changes to Vacation, Holidays, Sick etc add far more value to the AA side than the IAM side compared to the current agreements, then they will then pull out THE SIGNED LETTER and ask if the TWU side really wants to keep all that money out of their members pockets while they fight it out in Arbitration or the Courts and "let the members decide". Choice? I believe your choice will be ratify the deal which includes us going into the IAMNPF or voting down the contract. Between now and the counting of the ballots we will not get full clarity or disclosure over exactly what we are agreeing to because it will be very "Rush, rush, rush and lets get this money in our members pockets". Perhaps it will be just going forward, or perhaps it will mean converting our frozen AA pension into the IAMNPF. So far all I've heard is there has not been discussion, not that there wont be and the signed letter pretty much makes it certain there will be.
I also believe there will be not be a vote conducted by the NMB as there is no basis from what I read so far. Two Unions decided to form an Association and the NMB has approved it. Effectively we are remaining with our chosen representatives, they are outsourcing Authority of our CBA to this Association they formed. Representation remains with the two Unions sharing the membership, like a girl being passed back and forth between two buddies. Then again if there is a vote from the NMB it would not surprise me but it would just be another example of how far the NMB has strayed away from making sure the members have representation of their choosing. By not conducting any vote the NMB can "claim" that they have acted in accordance with the expressed will of the chosen representation of membership, and if they didn't like it they had 30 days to solicit or form a new Union.
From what I heard there could be a ballot which would read "Association", which the members never voted for but which was approved by the NMB or "No Union". This is what the IBT did prior to their deal with the CWA, however even if the membership had voted "No Union" it would not have been enough to decertify the two Unions unless those Unions presented the results to the NMB and the NMB was willing to accept those results. Nothing would force them to do so. Such a Ballot coming from the NMB would be ludicrous. This would give the "No Union" threat two bites at the apple, but membership choice of representation only the very challenging standard of collecting enough cards within 30 day window, if the majority of members didn't want any Union they had that opportunity to express that by filing during the 30 day window, like any other Intervenor such as AMFA or the IBT. This would give the No-Union folks two bites at the Apple but the pro-union-anti-Association people only one bite. The IBT/CWA vote was in reality a Survey, not a valid representation vote.
A vote conducted by the NMB along the lines of the survey conducted by the IBT/CWA would really be coercion not Democracy. Its one thing for a Union to conduct a coercive survey, they do that all the time, it should be another thing for the NMB to add legitimacy to that by taking a survey and making it a vote for Representation set with the very limited parameters of "take something you never solicited for or have no union at all" . A ballot such as this from the NMB would be extremely sketchy and highly indicative of collusion between the NMB, the two unions and perhaps AA, in an effort to force workers into an organization NOT of their choosing. They would be straying very far from their own guidelines, which when there is a vote allow supporters of intervenors who have not met the minimum card requirement the opportunity to get written in by the members under the "other" option. Anything that doesn't include that would have them straying from their own guidelines even further than they already have. So either they recognize the Association as is and without any intervenors in the 30 days, no vote, or they put out a Vote according to their guidelines, which would have to read Association, TWU, No Union, Other or Association, No Association, No Union, Other. This would follow more with the spirit of the RLA and their own guidelines but I believe would also be unprecedented because there really was never a challenge to representation initiated by the membership.
If a "Association" or "No Union" ballot should come out I believe the Ballot will come from the Association itself in a weak attempt at proving legitimacy for the Association to the public and eventually to the members they strong-armed. After all we know the IAM is no stranger to thuggery. They may claim that an internal No-Union vote would mean that we would lose our Unions but under what basis? It would not be an NMB vote, we would no be able to have an NMB vote for a year due to the failure of an intervenor filing during the window (that we never solicited for).