TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
 
 
 
--There are Members, Bob, from PHL, DCA, BWI, RDU and other stations that have voluntarily gone to IAM stations with the Preferential Hiring. It seems the set up has been beneficial to those that had that option.
 
 
 
How many? ZERO from M&R Just the stations I mentioned involve at least 400 people who would be forced into a Union that you are so afraid of being stuck in that yu would rather see us split between two unions than risk that we could all end up in that union. 
 
I'd rather stay TWU and with the Association I know I will be.
 
Guess you never read the agreement, it gives them the right to swap any members they feel like swapping, there is nothing stopping them from forcing you into the IAM.  Those that don't agree have all the right to feel that way. Those that don't want neither will have the cIt's simple really.
 
 
--Silly games? You guys have been complaining for years that Fleet sabotaged M&R and that's why you can't get a decent CBA.
 
 
You guys?  Show where I said fleet sabotaged M&R. 
 
When the Locals were separated, the argument was that Tulsa sabotaged M&R and that's why you can't get a decent CBA. Then it was that Tulsa had the roll call votes and that's why you can't get a decent CBA. (even though a roll call represents each Member at that Local and you seem to be an advocate for each Member being able to have voice)
 
Roll call doesn't give each member a voice, it gives the elected rep the voice of all the members. Big difference. Keep on spinning.
 

 

[Bob Owens]

 

 


--After the PEB gives their recommendations neither side is obligated to accept them. If the union decides not to accept the recommendations a 30 day clock begins which leads to the availability to seek Self Help (strike) unless Congress steps it and imposes a CBA. 
 
Ok, I'll answer that with ones with one of your responses, "show me an example" in the airline industry where a PEB was refused by the parties (either can refuse)and they ended up going on strike.  Normally if it was enough to warrant a PEB it warrants Congressional imposition and they normally impose the PEB. 
 
 --Well that being the case, then the Association would seem to be the way to get something as you state done. The TWU/IAM Association is getting the two unions of the biggest carrier together which makes consolidating with United that much easier. When the big two are together then we can try to organize Delta and the big three will be under the same fold. 
 
More spin, your argument is baseless and contrived, if thats the case then why not simply merge them into one union? 
 
 --The choices put forth to Fleet and all the other groups and unions were the same. Accept 17% or be in danger of having the Ask imposed. The APA took the change to not accept the changes, their CBA was abrogated and they ended up accepting the same 17% total they originally turned down.
 
Are you saying there were no changes? 17% is a number that AA came up with and its subject to manipulation. All they had to do was agree that other changes were "undervalued" or throw something else on there and give it a made up value, who would be there to argue it? The Union will always argue that concessions are undervalued, when the company agrees its a win for the union, in this case its a win for the company because they got to claim they still got 17% when in fact they got less than what they were really seeking. 
 
 
 --PEB's in the railroads are a dime a dozen. When was the last major airline that received a PEB.
 
 
When was 80% of the market controlled by just three carriers? The airline industry, like the Rails 80 years earlier has matured and consolidated. 
 
 
  --You needed to take that out of your hat to make a point? Unless there is a concerted effort to overturn or modify the laws on the books a simple act of defiance will not do it in itself. It takes changes within the legal system that binds out hands in order to make the changes possible. Segregation didn't end with Rosa Parks sitting on that bus, it wasn't even when her case, taken to court and fought by the NAACP, that challenged the segregation laws of Alabama...That was Browder v Gayle that in 1956 made the Alabama bus segregation laws unconstitutional.
 
No Mark but Rosa Parks was a pivotal event. 
 
 --You can't be referring to their 2 year strike in the mid 80's where Continental took back 600 ALPA Members and hired another 1000 pilots while the strike dragged for two years. The outcome being that ALPA had to give up and remaining striking pilots may be called by seniority as new hires. You surely can't be using that as an example. Surely you must have more positive examples since the Pinnacle and Continental models aren't very pleasant.
 
 
No it wasn't pleasant, but that wasn't the question, the question was when did it ever happen, I proved that this was a right airline workers had. The pilots went on strike when their wage was around double what it is now in real terms and thanks to Reagan there were thousands of Pilots who were laid off. Strikes under normal conditions can also be unpleasant but it should always be a weapon available to workers or are you saying that not only in BK but at all times workers should not be allowed to strike and that companies should be allowed to impose whatever they like? That would follow your sentiments expressed about CS's on the other thread where you said we are better off having it remain a company privilege than a contractual right. 

 

 

 

[NYer]

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
--There are Members, Bob, from PHL, DCA, BWI, RDU and other stations that have voluntarily gone to IAM stations with the Preferential Hiring. It seems the set up has been beneficial to those that had that option.
 
How many? ZERO from M&R Just the stations I mentioned involve at least 400 people who would be forced into a Union that you are so afraid of being stuck in that yu would rather see us split between two unions than risk that we could all end up in that union. 
 
I'd rather stay TWU and with the Association I know I will be.
 
Guess you never read the agreement, it gives them the right to swap any members they feel like swapping, there is nothing stopping them from forcing you into the IAM.  Those that don't agree have all the right to feel that way. Those that don't want neither will have the cIt's simple really.
 
 
--Silly games? You guys have been complaining for years that Fleet sabotaged M&R and that's why you can't get a decent CBA.
 
 
You guys?  Show where I said fleet sabotaged M&R.
 
When the Locals were separated, the argument was that Tulsa sabotaged M&R and that's why you can't get a decent CBA. Then it was that Tulsa had the roll call votes and that's why you can't get a decent CBA. (even though a roll call represents each Member at that Local and you seem to be an advocate for each Member being able to have voice)
 
Roll call doesn't give each member a voice, it gives the elected rep the voice of all the members. Big difference. Keep on spinning.
 

 

 
Really. Is there a difference. The Members voted for you to be their voice and as such you should be able to have that representative voice for each one of your Members. Unless, of course, that particular form of a vote isn't in your best interest since you may not have the numbers you'd need to instill your way.
 
Zero in M&R? Maybe...but social media is abuzz with others that have taken advantage of that option available to them. That's a good thing for our Brothers and Sisters that have taken advantage, thankfully they've been able to get back to work.
 
I have read the agreement and it doesn't say they can swap whatever Members they want. There is a process in which each side participates in. I realize you'd rather over simplify the matters, but it really does yourself an injustice.
 
Anyway, just like in so many other matters..time will prove your oversimplified opinions to be off track....as usual.

 

[NYer]

 

 


 


--After the PEB gives their recommendations neither side is obligated to accept them. If the union decides not to accept the recommendations a 30 day clock begins which leads to the availability to seek Self Help (strike) unless Congress steps it and imposes a CBA. 
 
Ok, I'll answer that with ones with one of your responses, "show me an example" in the airline industry where a PEB was refused by the parties (either can refuse)and they ended up going on strike.  Normally if it was enough to warrant a PEB it warrants Congressional imposition and they normally impose the PEB. 
 
 --Well that being the case, then the Association would seem to be the way to get something as you state done. The TWU/IAM Association is getting the two unions of the biggest carrier together which makes consolidating with United that much easier. When the big two are together then we can try to organize Delta and the big three will be under the same fold. 
 
More spin, your argument is baseless and contrived, if thats the case then why not simply merge them into one union? 
 
 --The choices put forth to Fleet and all the other groups and unions were the same. Accept 17% or be in danger of having the Ask imposed. The APA took the change to not accept the changes, their CBA was abrogated and they ended up accepting the same 17% total they originally turned down.
 
Are you saying there were no changes? 17% is a number that AA came up with and its subject to manipulation. All they had to do was agree that other changes were "undervalued" or throw something else on there and give it a made up value, who would be there to argue it? The Union will always argue that concessions are undervalued, when the company agrees its a win for the union, in this case its a win for the company because they got to claim they still got 17% when in fact they got less than what they were really seeking. 
 
 
 --PEB's in the railroads are a dime a dozen. When was the last major airline that received a PEB.
 
 
When was 80% of the market controlled by just three carriers? The airline industry, like the Rails 80 years earlier has matured and consolidated. 
 
 
  --You needed to take that out of your hat to make a point? Unless there is a concerted effort to overturn or modify the laws on the books a simple act of defiance will not do it in itself. It takes changes within the legal system that binds out hands in order to make the changes possible. Segregation didn't end with Rosa Parks sitting on that bus, it wasn't even when her case, taken to court and fought by the NAACP, that challenged the segregation laws of Alabama...That was Browder v Gayle that in 1956 made the Alabama bus segregation laws unconstitutional.
 
No Mark but Rosa Parks was a pivotal event. 
 
 --You can't be referring to their 2 year strike in the mid 80's where Continental took back 600 ALPA Members and hired another 1000 pilots while the strike dragged for two years. The outcome being that ALPA had to give up and remaining striking pilots may be called by seniority as new hires. You surely can't be using that as an example. Surely you must have more positive examples since the Pinnacle and Continental models aren't very pleasant.
 
 
No it wasn't pleasant, but that wasn't the question, the question was when did it ever happen, I proved that this was a right airline workers had. The pilots went on strike when their wage was around double what it is now in real terms and thanks to Reagan there were thousands of Pilots who were laid off. Strikes under normal conditions can also be unpleasant but it should always be a weapon available to workers or are you saying that not only in BK but at all times workers should not be allowed to strike and that companies should be allowed to impose whatever they like? That would follow your sentiments expressed about CS's on the other thread where you said we are better off having it remain a company privilege than a contractual right. 

 

 


 


 
--A PEB isn't imposed by Congress. A CBA is imposed by Congress. A PEB is a suggested settlement by which either party can either accept of decline. In the case of a union in the airline industry, that refusal can lead to a 30 day countdown which could leave the party open to a strike, unless Congress intercedes and imposes their will. You seemed to like the word "normally" as is a PEB in the airline industry is something that is very common and having Congress impose a CBA as another common occurrence. Which quite simply, it is not. You like to convey this as a winning strategy to achieve an industry leading contract, yet there are not airline examples as to how this is true...quite the contrary.
 
--You bring up the idea that "consolidation of the unions" is a strategy that needs to be implemented to stop the downward spiral of airline contracts. Then you want ME to explain how to do it. It's your idea, I just thought that having an Association and bringing UA into an agreement with the TWU and IAM to move together towards future contracts is a better way to create an upswing than starting all over with the smallest union available in AMFA. I mean, it's your idea so you're the one that has to make it work.
 
--So your contention is that the Company and the APA duped everyone in the BK process with their 17% cuts, which in your opinion wasn't really 17%. They faked out the Judge, the financial people at the TWU and the APFA. They duped the lawyers and financial experts representing ALL the other Secured and Unsecured Creditors...Everyone was duped just so they could give an extra screw to the M&R group in order to keep us at the bottom of the wages in the entire planet. Wowsy. That's a heck of a conspiracy theory.
 
--You proved that airline workers can strike because it happened in 1983, while at the same time ignoring the 2005 NWA flight attendants that were stopped from doing so and that decision was upheld by two superior courts on appeal. That 2005 case and the language that came out of it makes going on strike during a bankruptcy in the airline industry an illegal act. If you want to fight it do you know where you have to go? The Supreme Court of the United States. They will have to overturn the current precedent to allow a strike in the airline industry while in bankruptcy.

 

[TRAVIS]

DELL ARE YOU USING A NEW PROFILE SHAME ON YOU.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
--A PEB isn't imposed by Congress. A CBA is imposed by Congress. A PEB is a suggested settlement by which either party can either accept of decline. In the case of a union in the airline industry, that refusal can lead to a 30 day countdown which could leave the party open to a strike, unless Congress intercedes and imposes their will. You seemed to like the word "normally" as is a PEB in the airline industry is something that is very common and having Congress impose a CBA as another common occurrence. Which quite simply, it is not. You like to convey this as a winning strategy to achieve an industry leading contract, yet there are not airline examples as to how this is true...quite the contrary.
 
You seem to not want to admit that the industry has changed and that consolidation has lead to conditions similar to what happened in the rail industry several decades ago, or you are desperately trying to steer debate into the weeds.   As you admit PEBs are very common in the rails. PEBs are initiated when the President feels that a strike would lead to a Transportation Emergency, a disruption to commerce. PEBs are common in the rails due to consolidation of the Industry where if any of the major rail lines were to shut down it would have a big impact on commerce. Are you claiming that with 80% industry wide load factors allowing a carrier that has over 25% of the market to to strike would not be considered a transportation emergency? In 1997 when AA controlled a much much smaller share of the market and there was much much more excess capacity in the system the President issued a PEB in the APA-AA pilot dispute. Thats one example, and as I said the industry is much more consolidated and integral to commerce now than it was in the past. So clearly there are examples, contrary to what you spew out. 
 
 
--You bring up the idea that "consolidation of the unions" is a strategy that needs to be implemented to stop the downward spiral of airline contracts. Then you want ME to explain how to do it. It's your idea, I just thought that having an Association and bringing UA into an agreement with the TWU and IAM to move together towards future contracts is a better way to create an upswing than starting all over with the smallest union available in AMFA. I mean, it's your idea so you're the one that has to make it work.
 
No I want you to explain how dividing up the membership and a single contract between two unions will be good for the members vs being in one union. Your claim is that by allowing most of the members to remain in the Union they are in now they will be happier than if there is a vote and who they voted for does not win. To me, and probably 99% of the members  the Union is the means to an end, and that end is a good contract, its whats in the contract that counts not the name of the Union that got it but the best way to get to that end is to be United in one Union , not divided between two. 
 
--So your contention is that the Company and the APA duped everyone in the BK process with their 17% cuts, which in your opinion wasn't really 17%. They faked out the Judge, the financial people at the TWU and the APFA. They duped the lawyers and financial experts representing ALL the other Secured and Unsecured Creditors...Everyone was duped just so they could give an extra screw to the M&R group in order to keep us at the bottom of the wages in the entire planet. Wowsy. That's a heck of a conspiracy theory.
 
Not a conspiracy, every group negotiated to try and have the value given for their concessions increased, its a basic part of collective bargaining, you know that. With us they were more resistant to adjust those values, with the pilots when push came to shove they exercised more flexibility. 
 
--You proved that airline workers can strike because it happened in 1983, while at the same time ignoring the 2005 NWA flight attendants that were stopped from doing so and that decision was upheld by two superior courts on appeal. That 2005 case and the language that came out of it makes going on strike during a bankruptcy in the airline industry an illegal act. If you want to fight it do you know where you have to go? The Supreme Court of the United States. They will have to overturn the current precedent to allow a strike in the airline industry while in bankruptcy.
 
More spin, you asked for an example, I gave one, I proved that we had the right, it was legally taken away and except for a few independent pilots Unions the labor movement has not done a damn thing about it. The argument is simple, Airline workers must have the same rights as every other worker, every other creditor in BK. You tell me, under what basis in law could the Court uphold such a ruling? The fact is that it does not have to go to the Supreme Court, the opinion of the court was they were following the intent of Congress, so all that needs to be done is to have Congress clarify their intent (which was pretty clear in the RLA) and say that Airline workers, like workers in every other industry, including the rails, can strike if their agreement is abrogated. Isn't that why members are encouraged to contribute to COPE? I don't know why you are arguing this since the TWU's own law firm put out an article saying that this was a flawed decision that would eventually be overturned, my question is why is labor sitting on their hands? 

So, now back on topic. How does being split between two Unions under one contract benefit the members? It doesn't.
 
NYer claims that this is better because members get to stay in the Union they prefer, but he ignores the fact that many members will be forced to change Unions simply because of where they are. 
 
NYer claims that he wants the Association because with it he gets to keep everything he has with the TWU structure. This is false, under this structure negotiations are changed completely, instead of every Local and every title group in every local being entitled to participate the International will select just three people for each contract group, where stores is lumped into Maintenance (-the IAM way). Under the Association they can transfer members back and forth between unions at will. Under the association tie breakers will no longer be done by date of birth but by SSN (again the IAM way). The Association has stated that it is their intent to put us all in the UAMNPF (again the IAM way) so clearly every change that the Association has agreed to so far changes the way the TWU does business to the way the IAM does business and the TWU already agreed to let the IAM control the Association for the first two year. NYer seems to feel that members place greater value in being associated with the TWU name than whats in a contract, he seems to feel that Union membership is not a professional business relationship but rather a cult. 
 
I say lets have a vote, I prefer to stay with the TWU after seeing what type of contract the IAM can get from a very profitable company, but if the majority choose to go IAM that would be better than being split up between the two. I became a TWU member because AA hired me, if I was hired at US I would be an IAM member, the letters on the door are not whats most important, its the language of and numbers in the contract that matter. 
 
The Association is a structure designed for the benefit of the people running the two unions, not for the benefit of the members of it. read the language, every item is geared towards removing any voice of the members and placing total authority in the hands of the two Internationals. members can be shuffled from one union to the other without their consent, members do not pick who represents them in negotiations, locals have no say in anything, and everything they have already agreed to is us changing our ways to the way the IAM does things and all of these decisions were made without any input from the membership or the people elected by the membership to represent them. This gives a very clear indication of what we can expect from the Association. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Surely if the majority wants the TWU out and if AMFA is breathing down everyone's throat there would be no way for the "Yes" votes to win anything. After a 10 year education campaign where the AMFA supporters consistently say "no one wants the TWU," yet the leaders voted on for by the majority are unable to out maneuver a couple of people at the International.
 
C'mon people. You have to do better than that. Of course, name calling is very effective. 😉

Oldguy said nothing about AMFA yet out of clear desperation you try and spin it into that. Truly pathetic.
 
Only mistake old guy made is saying that you were loyal to the International, I don't think thats the case, as your screw up on the CS thread shows you are at a core level anti-union, you support the International only as long as it gets AA management everything they want.
 
In the CS thread you said we are better off not to have contract language securing a right to CS and should let it remain a company privilege. No Union man would agree with that, only a pro-management stooge masquerading under an alias as a Unionist would. Your position on contract language vs company policy and the very weak points you bring up in this subject show your true anti-union bias.  Saying that the members would be better off being divided into two Unions by an Association that strips the members of their rights would be better than having the members choose one Union to unite them as one is something I'm sure AA management would agree with as well.  

 

[700UW]

There was no Section 1113 when CO IAM went on strike. Section 1113 was enacted by Congress because before then there were no negotiations when a company wanted to abrogate a CBA, it was treated like every other type of contract and they were abrogated.

Tell the whole truth Bob, not bits and pieces. You truly lose credibility with your half truth posts.

 

[comatose]

There was no Section 1113 when CO IAM went on strike. Section 1113 was enacted by Congress because before then there were no negotiations when a company wanted to abrogate a CBA, it was treated like every other type of contract and they were abrogated.

Tell the whole truth Bob, not bits and pieces. You truly lose credibility with your half truth posts.

 
 
Do you really have the gall to post this?
 
You would need credibility first to lose it.

 

[700UW]

Keep avoiding the facts and attack the poster as you know what I posted are the facts.

 

[NYer]

One example of a seniority tie breaking headache is for anyone hired on 12/26/95. Close to 150 title 1 employees were hired with the exact same occupational date and doh. It was the first wave of srp's. So because the union that represents a majority of people that will be represented by this proposed association ceded the right to represent its members seniority to the union that represents the minority these 150 persons will have the seniority they have had for almost 20 years changed. There are numerous other examples such as this one. To think that some people actually want to prevent their union brothers and sisters the right to at least vote on this proposed alliance is insane. And I don't consider the alliance or no representation a legitimate voting option. That is blackmail plain and simple.

 
Their seniority will not change.
 
As an example, if there are two IAM Members with the same exact 12/26/95 seniority and they're placed 1 and 2 based on their SSN then they also remain in those positions relative to each. Where the tie breaker comes in, is when the IAM Members are placed in the AA seniority list where their SSN will used to place them among the 150.
 
The seniority placement of those 150 will NOT all of a sudden change to be jumble in a different order.

 

[NYer]

So, now back on topic. How does being split between two Unions under one contract benefit the members? It doesn't. --I disagree. It help each side keep the process their familiar with, as an example the Grievance process will still be argued by those directly elected by the TWU...and the same time when it comes to collective barganing is also helps to have a united front going for an industry leading contract. We won't have factions from either side trying to dominate the process. The IAM can keep their IAMNPF and the TWU can keep their 401K, if that's what they choose. 
 
What doesn't help the Membership is to have TWU, IAM and AMFA supporters sabotaging each aspect of unionism moving forward.
 
NYer claims that this is better because members get to stay in the Union they prefer, but he ignores the fact that many members will be forced to change Unions simply because of where they are. --Some will have to change over, correct, but the majority will be able to stay with what they're familiar with. It also helps those that go to either TWU or IAM cities to stay with the retirement plan they currently prefer. And in a vote, the side that loses is also forced to change Unions, but at a much higher rate.
 
NYer claims that he wants the Association because with it he gets to keep everything he has with the TWU structure. This is false, under this structure negotiations are changed completely, instead of every Local and every title group in every local being entitled to participate the International will select just three people for each contract group, where stores is lumped into Maintenance (-the IAM way). --Funny, you've been arguing against the current process of negotiations and have blamed other Presidents, other Title groups and International Reps for the perceived interference in negotiations. Are you now saying you'd prefer the current system and process. If the TWU and/or the IAM process is not to your liking there is sufficient time to get enough cards to bring in a more palpable option of your choice.
 
 
Under the Association they can transfer members back and forth between unions at will. Wow. It's not "at will" there is a process and there is participation from both sides in that process.
 
Under the association tie breakers will no longer be done by date of birth but by SSN (again the IAM way). --The tie-breaker will not re-shuffle everyone as all the TWU Members will remain in their current positions relative to each other. The tie-breaker comes in when an IAM Member has the same Classification and Date of Hire as the TWU Member, in which case the SSN will used in to keep the IAM Members in their current positions are related to each other. The alternative is to not have an agreement and take out chances with an Arbitrator. How's that worked in recent times?
 
The Association has stated that it is their intent to put us all in the UAMNPF (again the IAM way) so clearly every change that the Association has agreed to so far changes the way the TWU does business to the way the IAM does business and the TWU already agreed to let the IAM control the Association for the first two year. --The Association has stated the intent to be to give priority to the participation of the IAMNPF, should we not try to protect the retirement vehicle of a fellow unionist, and it also states that if the IAMNPF is not extended to the TWU we would not stand in the way of their continued participation. It does not make it mandatory for the TWU to adopt the IAMNPF...no matter how many times Bob says it does.
 
NYer seems to feel that members place greater value in being associated with the TWU name than whats in a contract, he seems to feel that Union membership is not a professional business relationship but rather a cult. --The TWU and the CBA it holds are synonymous.
 
I say lets have a vote, I prefer to stay with the TWU after seeing what type of contract the IAM can get from a very profitable company, but if the majority choose to go IAM that would be better than being split up between the two. I became a TWU member because AA hired me, if I was hired at US I would be an IAM member, the letters on the door are not whats most important, its the language of and numbers in the contract that matter. Then getting to a JCBA should be the priority and not having union Members fighting each other. When the TWU was first formed and was part of the CIO, they partnered with the IAM and were included into the AFL. That partnership in the past was positive, there is no reason this partnership can't also be positive. Bob may want to bring the negative of everything done by the TWU, but he also cherishes the ability to represent his Members. With the Association he and his Members are guaranteed to be able to continue that partnership. Is it really favorable to take a change a lose that while at the same time letting the IAM take over. It doesn't seem logical, especially if you love Bob so much.
 
The Association is a structure designed for the benefit of the people running the two unions, not for the benefit of the members of it. read the language, every item is geared towards removing any voice of the members and placing total authority in the hands of the two Internationals. members can be shuffled from one union to the other without their consent, members do not pick who represents them in negotiations, locals have no say in anything, and everything they have already agreed to is us changing our ways to the way the IAM does things and all of these decisions were made without any input from the membership or the people elected by the membership to represent them. This gives a very clear indication of what we can expect from the Association. --And if the Association gives all Mechanics Industry Leading Wages, something that been sought after for so long, will you agree you were wrong. (of course, knowing your history there will certainly be something to rile against even if the number one issue is addressed)

 

[NYer]

Oldguy said nothing about AMFA yet out of clear desperation you try and spin it into that. Truly pathetic.
 
Only mistake old guy made is saying that you were loyal to the International, I don't think thats the case, as your screw up on the CS thread shows you are at a core level anti-union, you support the International only as long as it gets AA management everything they want.
 
In the CS thread you said we are better off not to have contract language securing a right to CS and should let it remain a company privilege. No Union man would agree with that, only a pro-management stooge masquerading under an alias as a Unionist would. Your position on contract language vs company policy and the very weak points you bring up in this subject show your true anti-union bias.  Saying that the members would be better off being divided into two Unions by an Association that strips the members of their rights would be better than having the members choose one Union to unite them as one is something I'm sure AA management would agree with as well.  

 
Quite obviously you're using your own dictionary in reading certain posts. I'd rather have the current CS Policy rather than the current IAM contractual language. In the Association, there is a better change to keep the current CS Policy rather than being forced into a more restrictive process. If there are changes to come to that then it would be done in a JCBA. Either way, we have a better chance to keep the CS Policy as is, with the Association than without it.
 
And no, I didn't say we were better off not having contractual language. I said we're better off not having the IAM contractual language as opposed to the current CS Policy.
 
I know you guys salivate when you believe you found a "smoking gun" to try and discredit someone that doesn't agree with your views. (and THAT'S the definition of a cult). But you should really take the time to read the actual words instead of creating your own to fit the agenda.
 
You know when you get the feeling that the posts are making headway and are effective. When the aim of the debate turns towards the person instead of the argument. When the words are twisted to try and create a different meaning. Thank you, for showing me the information shared is effective, but attacking me doesn't do a thing to make your points. It just creates hatred towards another union member simply because he doesn't agree. That's too bad.

 

[blue collar]

What is so restrictive about it?

 

[Slopoke]

 
Their seniority will not change.
 
As an example, if there are two IAM Members with the same exact 12/26/95 seniority and they're placed 1 and 2 based on their SSN then they also remain in those positions relative to each. Where the tie breaker comes in, is when the IAM Members are placed in the AA seniority list where their SSN will used to place them among the 150.
 
The seniority placement of those 150 will NOT all of a sudden change to be jumble in a different order.

 
If they use the SSN instead of the age rule that's in place at AA, there will be some change in seniority among the AA people. The serial numbers are not issued by date of birth, so someone with a lower number could be younger and move above an older person. This will be interesting on how it plays out.