TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[1AA]

Listen man I really could care less if you guys get your AMFA vote or not and I have said that many times. If that's what you guys want have at it. But give me a break on this stuff. You ain't going to say ANYTHING that either union does or has done TWU or IAM is any good because you got an agenda to sell.

Reading what you guys write is like watching Fox news. All BS all the time.

 

Then why do you read the posts and reply to them? Just move on. It appears you cant help but want to say your piece and on the other hand you say you don't care less what we do. :unsure:

 

[1AA]

If the alliance files for SCS and no other organizations get their names on the ballot there will be only two voting choices.

TWU/IAM Association
No Union

Period.

From the NMB Representational Manual. 
 
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/representation/representation-manual.pdf
 
14.201 states:
It is NMB practice to list the incumbent, the applicant,
the intervenor, the “write - in” option, and
the “no representative” option
in descending order on the ballot. If there is no incumbent
and more than one applicant, the Investigator will determine the
placement of the names on the ballot.
 
Looks like more than just the two you stated.
 
14.305-2 states:
 
Valid Ballots
 
Voters will have the opportunity to vote for representation
by an organization or individual or for “no representative.”
Where the voter’s intent to vote for representation is clear,
the ballot is valid and will be counted as a vote for representation. If an
organization or individual receives a majority of votes cast, it
will be certified as the representative. If the majority of votes cast are for “no
representative,” there will be no representative certified. In
the event of a tie vote between votes for representation and
votes for no representation, no representative will be
certified.
Valid ballots cast for representation include“write-in”
ballots which clearly indicate the voter’s desire for representation.
Voters must “write-in” the name of a specific organization or
individual to cast a valid vote.
 
The way I read it it sounds like a write in is another option.
 
I think this is what the Alliance is afraid might happen.
 

16.0 RUN-OFF ELECTIONS
 
 
When an election results in no option receiving a majority of the
valid ballots, or in the event of a tie, the Board shall hold a run-off
election between the two options receiving the largest number of votes.
The procedures for run-off elections are set forth in the NMB Rules § 1206.1 (29 CFR § 1206.1).
 
In a run-off election, the ballot will not include a space for “write-in” votes. The
option receiving the highest number of votes in the run-off is declared the
winner. (See 29 C.F.R. § 1206.1).
 
 
Two choices is only for a run-off.
The Alliance vote is not a run-off.
 
If not enough interest (majority vote)
it appears it is status quo or No union.
With the past history we have as union members
a considerable number of members never vote for various reasons.
For this reason the Alliance will be highly concerned of decertification.
 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

700UW what has the IAM done for you to garner such loyalty?

I am still waiting.

 

[WeAAsles]

From the NMB Representational Manual. 
 
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/representation/representation-manual.pdf
 
14.201 states:
It is NMB practice to list the incumbent, the applicant,
the intervenor, the “write - in” option, and
the “no representative” option
in descending order on the ballot. If there is no incumbent
and more than one applicant, the Investigator will determine the
placement of the names on the ballot.
 
Looks like more than just the two you stated.
 
14.305-2 states:
 
Valid Ballots
 
Voters will have the opportunity to vote for representation
by an organization or individual or for “no representative.”
Where the voter’s intent to vote for representation is clear,
the ballot is valid and will be counted as a vote for representation. If an
organization or individual receives a majority of votes cast, it
will be certified as the representative. If the majority of votes cast are for “no
representative,” there will be no representative certified. In
the event of a tie vote between votes for representation and
votes for no representation, no representative will be
certified.
Valid ballots cast for representation include“write-in”
ballots which clearly indicate the voter’s desire for representation.
Voters must “write-in” the name of a specific organization or
individual to cast a valid vote.
 
The way I read it it sounds like a write in is another option.
 
I think this is what the Alliance is afraid might happen.
 

16.0 RUN-OFF ELECTIONS
 
 
When an election results in no option receiving a majority of the
valid ballots, or in the event of a tie, the Board shall hold a run-off
election between the two options receiving the largest number of votes.
The procedures for run-off elections are set forth in the NMB Rules § 1206.1 (29 CFR § 1206.1).
 
In a run-off election, the ballot will not include a space for “write-in” votes. The
option receiving the highest number of votes in the run-off is declared the
winner. (See 29 C.F.R. § 1206.1).
 
 
Two choices is only for a run-off.
The Alliance vote is not a run-off.
 
If not enough interest (majority vote)
it appears it is status quo or No union.
With the past history we have as union members
a considerable number of members never vote for various reasons.
For this reason the Alliance will be highly concerned of decertification.

Yes you have the option for a write in as well. I was hoping to avoid speaking about that since it may be a touchy subject seeing as how AMFA only got 6 write ins over at US when the IBT made a go at it.

I really didn't think you would want to discuss the issue since it was so incredibly embarrassing.

 

[swamt]

Back to the Topic. Does anyone have any solid info on how (if one happens) a vote will play out.
My thinking, if it is a vote for/against the alliance and it gets voted down we are still represented by our respective union and labor agreement then there will need to be an election for who represents the whole.

Have heard the local 514 leaders are stating No Alliance No Contract company does what they please but their fear tactics are covered in another thread.

Again only solid info please the last couple of pages in this topic are a waste of time reading!

Then take the time yourself and write the NMB with your questions.  Stop asking people out here in the internet land.  Do your own homework.  Do not trust anyone.  Get the info on your own from the NMB.  I encourage all to do this as I have.  Stop looking to get spoon fed by a union that is desperate to maintain their representation at both carriers.  No disrespect sir, but, the members of AA and US need to get off their lazy a$$es and do their own homework.  I am so tired of people to lazy to get the info on their own and wind up later saying gee, I wish I would have known that before I voted, because the union told me something different.  It's very easy to contact the NMB, and they will in fact get right back to you with all the answers to your questions, I have done it...

 

[swamt]

Yes you have the option for a write in as well. I was hoping to avoid speaking about that since it may be a touchy subject seeing as how AMFA only got 6 write ins over at US when the IBT made a go at it.

I really didn't think you would want to discuss the issue since it was so incredibly embarrassing.

Your so full of shite.  You didn't want to say that this would be an option as you and the unions are scared to freakin death that if a write in option is offered AMFA will prevail.  I proved this for ever with 700 and he finally changed the subject and got very quiet.  It is fact that the unions do not want the members to know in advance that there could be an option to write in a union.  
The US write in for AMFA was not an embarrassment as there was no AMFA campaign what so ever at US. It was more of an eye-opener.  I still will say there will be either a write in or a speak in option (IF the NMB runs the election) as I have said from the very freakin begining, and the two unions are scared to death of these options being available...

 

[blue collar]

Yes you have the option for a write in as well. I was hoping to avoid speaking about that since it may be a touchy subject seeing as how AMFA only got 6 write ins over at US when the IBT made a go at it.

I really didn't think you would want to discuss the issue since it was so incredibly embarrassing.

What's your reason for hating AMFA- you haven't stated as much, but your writing implies it.

 

[swamt]

Hey 700, where is the answer to 1AA's question?  Who was the writer of the alliance package?  You have been silent since this question was asked, but yet you brag how you are always in talks with the writer of this said alliance.  So, who is it 700, you are now called out, give him/her up so the members can contact and ask questions before making a very, very important vote decision on this alliance.  Gee, after all, don't you want all the members informed just how important this alliance is for the future of all the members of this "possible" alliance?  C'mon 700, give it up, or shut up...

 

[scorpion 2]

Local 514 is blaming Jim Little as the architect of this fleecing of the voice of the membership but since he's gone why not rewrite it? What says you overspeed, reality check, 700, weaasles and the rest of the hee haw gang? If we are the union then why does this personify and validate what this union has regressed to over the years. We are not the union the top guy in charge is the union. Instead of mealy mouthing around about Mr. Owens decision on how he will vote on this legalized racketeering scheme why not show a little outrage towards the twu for putting us in this predicament. Pleading with the guy not to vote no while not crucifying or voicing your opinion to your local leaders shows you have completely lost your focus on what unionism truly is. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Hey 700, where is the answer to 1AA's question?  Who was the writer of the alliance package?  You have been silent since this question was asked, but yet you brag how you are always in talks with the writer of this said alliance.  So, who is it 700, you are now called out, give him/her up so the members can contact and ask questions before making a very, very important vote decision on this alliance.  Gee, after all, don't you want all the members informed just how important this alliance is for the future of all the members of this "possible" alliance?  C'mon 700, give it up, or shut up...

I am still waiting.

 
Well? Any other time you can't shut up. Are you going to answer us or not?

 

[700UW]

Its not a normal representational election, try again.  And a GLR for the IAM wrote it for the IAM part.

 

[WeAAsles]

What's your reason for hating AMFA- you haven't stated as much, but your writing implies it.

I don't hate them at all. Just read all the history and don't think they're really anyone's best option. The people they still do represent I wish them all well. If you guys go AMFA one day it won't affect me in the slightest IMO.

 

[MetalMover]

I don't hate them at all. Just read all the history and don't think they're really anyone's best option. The people they still do represent I wish them all well. If you guys go AMFA one day it won't affect me in the slightest IMO.

The guys at SWA aren't complaining...

 

[1AA]

The guys at SWA aren't complaining...

Nor are they at Alaska Airlines.

 

[MetalMover]

Nor are they at Alaska Airlines.

Them too..Thanks for the reminder.