TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[Kev3188]

Sure!  

 

[swamt]

I agree with your post, but the truth be told, this section of the SPD has been modified just a bit.
 
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/74663/NPP_SMM_Aug_%202014.pdf

It still does not remove the restrictions of working after retirement.  Obviously the membership never did any homework prior to bringing in IAM and this pension.  This is the dumbest restrictive pension I have ever seen.  It is beyond pathetic that a pension would have a clause restricting the members only to one union representation or they lose their pension, this speaks volumes of why they are the only airline mechanics group still left.  

 

[TRAVIS]

It still does not remove the restrictions of working after retirement.  Obviously the membership never did any homework prior to bringing in IAM and this pension.  This is the dumbest restrictive pension I have ever seen.  It is beyond pathetic that a pension would have a clause restricting the members only to one union representation or they lose their pension, this speaks volumes of why they are the only airline mechanics group still left.  

The IAM put the IAM pension in a 3 or 4 year TA at the time of AWA and US AIR Merger no vote was given to have it or not so now add 3 years of negotiations and you get this BS bridge contract so they can sell this turd to you guys at AA.
So we were not the ones who put the rope on our necks it came with a raise that put the US AIR guys up to AWA (IBT) PAY but the AWA guys lost full sick pay and paid holidays and 401k match to pay for this BS.
 
What will they take from you?  

 

[dogfishhead]

WeirdAAsses red posts were mighty annoying one reason I started to not want the alliance

 

[TRAVIS]

Good Morning BOB where did every body go?

 

[Bob Owens]

What this comes down to is if we end up in the IAMNPF we basically have to surrender our A&P License to the IAMNPF in order to collect a pension that on average currently pays each retiree and beneficiary of the plan around five thousand dollars a year. And we will have to give up the 5.5% match as well which in effect lowers our total compensation from the company.  Even our employer that pays us more than ten times that amount doesn't try and take our ability to use our tickets away. Some have rules on the books saying we can't work for a direct competitor but none have rules as restrictive as the IAMNPF. Sad when a Union sponsored plan takes such an aggressive action against workers and institutes a policy that only benefits the employer. 
 
They can try and spin the motive for this policy to be that they want retirees out of the market so that can negotiate higher wages, however since the IAM has negotiated the lowest wages in the Industry anyone that retired and gained employment at a competitor would likely end up earning higher wages, so their claim falls flat. What this policy does do , and their really can't be any debate, is deny workers the ability to leave early than they normally would and supplement their income with what they earned. This restriction of mobility, denied portability, only serves to benefit the employer-because if discourages employees from leaving no matter how bad they make things, and the IAMNPF because it forces members to stay working under miserable conditions which also makes it more likely that stress related illnesses will kill the member before they ever collect a pension check. 
 
On a personal level my father worked for one employer most of his life. He started working for Union Carbide at the age of 16 after his mother died and his father became disabled. At the age of 57 Union Carbide decided to eliminate the job my father did and outsource it. So they forced him into retirement, but the pension was not enough to live off of so my father had to find another job. However the pension did provide a consistent reliable source of income which provided my father something he never had before. He could go to work and have ZERO stress. If the job became annoying he could simply quit and try something else without any financial concern because he knew that the pension check was coming. 
 
The average mechanic at AA is in his 50s, much like my father was when his job was eliminated. Even if we decided to stay with AA till we truly do retire we should never surrender the option to leave and collect what we earned without having to surrender our A&P License, the IAM didn't pay for me to get that license, and it was issued for life by the FAA, no expiration date, we should not have to surrender our ability to use our A&P in order to collect a pension that we earned with it. 
 
Whats really sad is they want to lay claim to ability to earn money with our A&Ps in order to collect a pension that was funded by diverting $2/hr of our compensation (which would actually be a pay cut) but in 75 years they have not done a thing to enhance the value of our licenses. While pilots have to be licensed to operate an Aircraft mechanics do not have to be licensed to work on then. The IAM has done nothing about that disparity. 

 

[TRAVIS]

It's what the IAM has in plan for you guys.... sorry to say.

 

[TRAVIS]

Bob if you guys want a good look at what the IAM has done for the AMT's go back and lookup from the AWA merger till today it's a eye opener.

 

[Bob Owens]

We don't want to end up in the IAMNPF. Basically what this comes down to is we have to surrender our A&P license to the IAMNPF if we want to collect a Pension that on average currently pays retirees and beneficiaries around $5000 per year. 
 
Sorry by No Thanks.
 
Several years ago there was an FAA proposal where the FAA would allow carriers to issue non-portable certificates that would be the equal of an A&P license.  That plan was shelved. This policy essentially acts the same way. While our Licenses remain portable it imposes a financial penalty if we decide we have had enough of bottom of the industry pay, benefits and work rules and decide to take what we have earned and go elsewhere with our licenses. It removes bargaining leverage as far as ever making things better. I doubt it would be legal for an employer to implement such a restriction so now we have a Union sponsored plan doing their dirty work for them. 
 
 
The IAM did not get me my tickets and I do not plan on surrendering my ability to use them to their plan either, you shouldn't either. 
 
I think I know their BS explanation for having this policy, they want people who are retired out of the industry to shrink the labor pool available which in theory would help them negotiate better contracts. However the effect of this policy has negligible effect as far as driving the market rate up, in fact it has done the opposite, just looking at the last IAM mechanics agreement proves that.. The real reasons are that they want workers to pay into the plan as long as possible and collect from the plan as few years as possible, this is great for the plan, not so good for members, because that effect also produces a huge benefit for the company. It creates a captive work force that they can abuse the crap out of, and they have, thats why we see US with the oldest mechanics group in the industry. One would expect, since they claim they did such a good job at saving jobs that they would have one of the youngest, but they don't, their mechanic group is older than the AA group. This policy of creating a captive elderly group of mechanics is probably the greatest contributing factor in the passing of the recent concessionary agreement the IAM signed with the very profitable AA. A younger group of mechanics, or mechanics who possessed a great measure of portability and mobility would never have ratified such a poor agreement. Now they want us all to end up in the same place as a group of people who ratified a concessionary deal with a very profitable carrier. 
 
Now I have no doubt that the IAM will contest my claim that the deal they signed was concessionary, but even though there were gains the fact is the deal, which was the second deal they negotiated, eight years after exiting Bankruptcy, was inferior to what Delta, and United have, and nowhere near what SWA , Fed-Ex or UPS. The deal is still concessionary compared to what they had in 2002 while the profits of the company have soared. The profits are so high that it would take less than one quarters profits to fully restore the compensation of every worker on the property. In other words our concessions did not make them profitable, they didn't need them, our concessions made them extremely profitable. 
 
 
Sorry guys I thought I lost the other one, says the same thing but a few different points. 

 

[chellow]

Can someone please send this appeal to the NMB, I recently sent one that is somewhat different? I don’t wish the NMB to discount my appeal due to multiple requests. Note that National Mediation Board Representation Manual states it has to be submitted electronically at [email protected]. If you get a response let me know, I may have a lawyer that may work pro bono.
 
8.2
Challenges and Objections
All challenges or objections should be filed electronically at [email protected]. All challenges or objections should be summated in a clear and concise manner. Similar groups of individuals, i.e., part-time employees, employees on leaves of absence, management officials, or employees with the same job titles, etc., should be listed together. All challenges or objections must be supported by substantive evidence. Unsupported allegations will not be considered. Questions or issues concerning craft or class objections must be supported by NMB case citation. Agreement by the participants regarding employee eligibility is not determinative.
 

 
[SIZE=9pt]Your Name[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]American Airlines, AMT[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Your Address[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Your Address[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Your Email Address[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Mary L. Johnson, General Counsel [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Maria-Kate Dowling, Investigator [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]National Mediation Board [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]1301 K Street, NW [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Suite 250 East [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Washington, DC 20005 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt][email protected][/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Re: NMB File No. CR-7131[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]       American Airlines/US Airways. lnc./TWU/IAM Associations [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Dear Ms. Johnson: [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Participant:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]On August 6, 2014, the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (lAM) jointly filed an application as the Airline Mechanic and Related Employees Association TWU/IAM (TWU/IAM Mechanics Association) requesting that the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) investigate whether American Airlines, Inc. (American) and US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) (collectively the Carriers or the New American) are operating as a single transportation system for the crafts or classes of Mechanics and Related Employees.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]I wish to appeal the addition of Aircraft  Mechanics into the Airline Mechanic and Related Employees Association.  This association will include the Mechanic and Related craft or class which is a grouping of crafts in violation of section 152.4 of the Railway Labor Act which defines craft or class in a singular manner And the decision in the “Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, Docket No 8346 Citations 135 F.2d 785. This decision forbids the NMB grouping employees into a industrial craft or class unit. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]I hold that Aircraft Mechanics constitute a craft or class and should be afforded a unique craft or class apart from the Mechanic and Related craft or class due to the specific terms of section 152.4 of the Railway [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Labor Act, which proscribe the determination of the representative desires of such employees by craft or class which does not define occupational grouping among ground employees readily to inclusion in an industrial representation unit.  In the decision written by Justice Vinson of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in case docket No  8346, the Justice discussed at considerable length the meaning of the words “craft or class” as written in the Railway Labor Act. He noted that in the hearings before the Congressional Committee prior to the passage of the amended Act in 1934, Mr. Joseph B Eastman, member of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and a co-author of the amended Act, defined the term as --   "all of the employees of the carrier, no matter in what shop they were located, who did that particular kind of work.  Following this reasoning Justice Vinson concluded that” ---  under these circumstances, it necessarily follows that all of the employees of the Railroad company engaged in the same character of work are members of the same craft or class.   [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]   [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt] As to the power of the National Labor Relations Board, Justice Vinson said[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]      [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]--- We think it manifest, from a comparison of the related clauses of the two Acts, that the National Mediation Board does not enjoy that wide latitude of discretion which Congress has granted to the National Labor Relations Board. The Railway Labor Act deals only in terms of "craft or class"; no other unit for collective bargaining is considered. There is no authorization to the Board to subdivide or sectionalize, or to designate a representative upon any other basis than the craft or class unit.”   ---    [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt] Justice Vinson also concluded that "Neither may a craft or class be considered as non-existent or artificially dissected because its members were originally organized for a limited purpose"[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]We note that the National Mediation Board Representation Manual Section 9.0 list many factors in the determination of a craft or class. Again section 152.4 of the Railway Labor Act lists only one factor that the NMB may use, not many, only craft or class. We also have found that the  "community of interest" phase has been use in many determination decision, and that the phrase is alien to craft or class determination in that it was first derived from a decision involving an industrial union under the NLRB which does group along crafts or class, Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of Am. Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass, Co., et al. National Labor Relations Board, 404 U.S. 157 (1971).[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]I hold the Mechanic and Related craft or class is a violation of the authors of section 152.4 of the Railway Labor Act and goes against 8346, 135 F.2d 785  U.S. Federal Courts of Appeals decision and that Aircraft Mechanics should be considered a separate and unique craft or class apart from the new Airline Mechanic and related Employees Association.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Sincerely, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Your Name[/SIZE]

 

[chellow]

edited second paragraph spacing
 

 
 
 

[SIZE=9pt]Your Name[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]American Airlines, AMT[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Your Address[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Your Address[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Your Email Address[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Mary L. Johnson, General Counsel[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Maria-Kate Dowling, Investigator[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]National Mediation Board[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]1301 K Street, NW[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Suite 250 East[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Washington, DC 20005[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt][email protected][/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Re: NMB File No. CR-7131[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]       American Airlines/US Airways. lnc./TWU/IAM Associations[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Dear Ms. Johnson:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Participant:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]On August 6, 2014, the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (lAM) jointly filed an application as the Airline Mechanic and Related Employees Association TWU/IAM (TWU/IAM Mechanics Association) requesting that the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) investigate whether American Airlines, Inc. (American) and US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) (collectively the Carriers or the New American) are operating as a single transportation system for the crafts or classes of Mechanics and Related Employees.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]I wish to appeal the addition of Aircraft  Mechanics into the Airline Mechanic and Related Employees Association.  This association will include the Mechanic and Related craft or class which is a grouping of crafts in violation of section 152.4 of the Railway Labor Act which defines craft or class in a singular manner And the decision in the “Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, Docket No 8346 Citations 135 F.2d 785. This decision forbids the NMB grouping employees into a industrial craft or class unit.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]I hold that Aircraft Mechanics constitute a craft or class and should be afforded a unique craft or class apart from the Mechanic and Related craft or class due to the specific terms of section 152.4 of the Railway[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Labor Act, which proscribe the determination of the representative desires of such employees by craft or class which does not define occupational grouping among ground employees readily to inclusion in an industrial representation unit.  In the decision written by Justice Vinson of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in case docket No  8346, the Justice discussed at considerable length the meaning of the words “craft or class” as written in the Railway Labor Act. He noted that in the hearings before the Congressional Committee prior to the passage of the amended Act in 1934, Mr. Joseph B Eastman, member of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and a co-author of the amended Act, defined the term as --   "all of the employees of the carrier, no matter in what shop they were located, who did that particular kind of work.  Following this reasoning Justice Vinson concluded that” ---  under these circumstances, it necessarily follows that all of the employees of the Railroad company engaged in the same character of work are members of the same craft or class.   [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]   [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt] As to the power of the National Labor Relations Board, Justice Vinson said[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]     [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]--- We think it manifest, from a comparison of the related clauses of the two Acts, that the National Mediation Board does not enjoy that wide latitude of discretion which Congress has granted to the National Labor Relations Board. The Railway Labor Act deals only in terms of "craft or class"; no other unit for collective bargaining is considered. There is no authorization to the Board to subdivide or sectionalize, or to designate a representative upon any other basis than the craft or class unit.”   ---   [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt] Justice Vinson also concluded that "Neither may a craft or class be considered as non-existent or artificially dissected because its members were originally organized for a limited purpose"[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]We note that the National Mediation Board Representation Manual Section 9.0 list many factors in the determination of a craft or class. Again section 152.4 of the Railway Labor Act lists only one factor that the NMB may use, not many, only craft or class. We also have found that the  "community of interest" phase has been use in many determination decision, and that the phrase is alien to craft or class determination in that it was first derived from a decision involving an industrial union under the NLRB which does group along crafts or class, Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of Am. Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass, Co., et al. National Labor Relations Board, 404 U.S. 157 (1971).[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]I hold the Mechanic and Related craft or class is a violation of the authors of section 152.4 of the Railway Labor Act and goes against 8346, 135 F.2d 785  U.S. Federal Courts of Appeals decision and that Aircraft Mechanics should be considered a separate and unique craft or class apart from the new Airline Mechanic and related Employees Association.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=9pt]Sincerely,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]Your Name[/SIZE]

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

November 3, 2014
 
TO: TWU Locals 501 - 591
 
RE: Disputed Claims Reserve Distribution
 
On November 4th, 2014 American will make another distribution of shares from it's Disputed Claims Reserve.
 
This is a comparatively small distribution and standing alone would result in all Members receiving NO Shares, However, TWU Held on to the initial distribution from the DCR precisely because of this eventuality. TWU intends to combine the number of shares from the two DCR distributions to maximize the number of members who would at least receive one share from the DCR. It is anticipated that the Distribution will occur in the second week of November.
 
As a reminder, as disputed unsecured claims are resolved, additional equity will be distributed to Creditors ( The Creditor Body ), and there will be additional distribution of shares to employees when distributions are made to the creditor body. The final reconciliation of the disputed claims is likely to take years to Complete.
 
Fraternally,
 
Sean Doyle
International Vice President 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This Letter was sent to the Locals and forwarded by Local Officers.  The TWU took 14% stock equity from us, and this is what we are supposed to buy as an answer from them.
 
They are going to insure we the members get 1 share, How generous of them, and the rest of what they don't spend on their legal fees and admin cost will take yrs to complete.
 
I ask you is this what you think you want for the rest of your careers from the TWU Union/Association TWU/IAM.
 
You better think long and hard about that since your Money and future depend on it.
 
Oh and lets NOT forget they have not been badgering the company or put out anything as to what is going on with our PRE Funding Money either.
 
So if the NMB gives us a VOTE, I hope that you will take the Time to VOTE.
 
I for one will be Voting "NO" on this association......

 

[MetalMover]

 

Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

 ​

November 3, 2014
 
TO: TWU Locals 501 - 591
 
RE: Disputed Claims Reserve Distribution
 
On November 4th, 2014 American will make another distribution of shares from it's Disputed Claims Reserve.
 
This is a comparatively small distribution and standing alone would result in all Members receiving NO Shares, However, TWU Held on to the initial distribution from the DCR precisely because of this eventuality. TWU intends to combine the number of shares from the two DCR distributions to maximize the number of members who would at least receive one share from the DCR. It is anticipated that the Distribution will occur in the second week of November.
 
As a reminder, as disputed unsecured claims are resolved, additional equity will be distributed to Creditors ( The Creditor Body ), and there will be additional distribution of shares to employees when distributions are made to the creditor body. The final reconciliation of the disputed claims is likely to take years to Complete.
 
Fraternally,
 
Sean Doyle
International Vice President 
 
---

By the way...Did anyone have a say in this guy's appointment? I didn't!  Anyone??????

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

We don't want to end up in the IAMNPF. Basically what this comes down to is we have to surrender our A&P license to the IAMNPF if we want to collect a Pension that on average currently pays retirees and beneficiaries around $5000 per year. 
 
Sorry by No Thanks.
 
Several years ago there was an FAA proposal where the FAA would allow carriers to issue non-portable certificates that would be the equal of an A&P license.  That plan was shelved. This policy essentially acts the same way. While our Licenses remain portable it imposes a financial penalty if we decide we have had enough of bottom of the industry pay, benefits and work rules and decide to take what we have earned and go elsewhere with our licenses. It removes bargaining leverage as far as ever making things better. I doubt it would be legal for an employer to implement such a restriction so now we have a Union sponsored plan doing their dirty work for them. 
 
 
The IAM did not get me my tickets and I do not plan on surrendering my ability to use them to their plan either, you shouldn't either. 
 
I think I know their BS explanation for having this policy, they want people who are retired out of the industry to shrink the labor pool available which in theory would help them negotiate better contracts. However the effect of this policy has negligible effect as far as driving the market rate up, in fact it has done the opposite, just looking at the last IAM mechanics agreement proves that.. The real reasons are that they want workers to pay into the plan as long as possible and collect from the plan as few years as possible, this is great for the plan, not so good for members, because that effect also produces a huge benefit for the company. It creates a captive work force that they can abuse the crap out of, and they have, thats why we see US with the oldest mechanics group in the industry. One would expect, since they claim they did such a good job at saving jobs that they would have one of the youngest, but they don't, their mechanic group is older than the AA group. This policy of creating a captive elderly group of mechanics is probably the greatest contributing factor in the passing of the recent concessionary agreement the IAM signed with the very profitable AA. A younger group of mechanics, or mechanics who possessed a great measure of portability and mobility would never have ratified such a poor agreement. Now they want us all to end up in the same place as a group of people who ratified a concessionary deal with a very profitable carrier. 
 
Now I have no doubt that the IAM will contest my claim that the deal they signed was concessionary, but even though there were gains the fact is the deal, which was the second deal they negotiated, eight years after exiting Bankruptcy, was inferior to what Delta, and United have, and nowhere near what SWA , Fed-Ex or UPS. The deal is still concessionary compared to what they had in 2002 while the profits of the company have soared. The profits are so high that it would take less than one quarters profits to fully restore the compensation of every worker on the property. In other words our concessions did not make them profitable, they didn't need them, our concessions made them extremely profitable. 
 
 
Sorry guys I thought I lost the other one, says the same thing but a few different points. 

Way to recycle what I said a long time ago.
 
You coined the phrase "Golden Handcuffs" (following my post) but when we bring up seniority entrapment we are treated very differently.
 
I said that to say this. 
 
We pretty much suggested the same things but I got tons of -1 and negative posts and you are at +4. I have to wonder if these people are interested in the truth or only the source from which the "truth" comes.
 
Another possibility is that they have gotten a bit smarter. I knew people would come around to my way of thinking sooner or later, it was an inevitability. Simply because it is insane to let your employer hold you hostage (Golden Handcuffs).
 
As I recall I am the person that originally brought up seniority portability. I got flamed for that as well, yet here we are.

 

[blue collar]

Way to recycle what I said a long time ago.
 
You coined the phrase "Golden Handcuffs" (following my post) but when we bring up seniority entrapment we are treated very differently.
 
I said that to say this. 
 
We pretty much suggested the same things but I got tons of -1 and negative posts and you are at +4. I have to wonder if these people are interested in the truth or only the source from which the "truth" comes.
 
Another possibility is that they have gotten a bit smarter. I knew people would come around to my way of thinking sooner or later, it was an inevitability. Simply because it is insane to let your employer hold you hostage (Golden Handcuffs).
 
As I recall I am the person that originally brought up seniority portability. I got flamed for that as well, yet here we are.

You're far from the first to come up with seniority portability.
As far as golden handcuffs, I don't think that applies to AA. The most appropriate use I've ever heard it referenced to is UPS, the working conditions are in the toilet but the pay is so good that you can't leave and put up with the BS. I see people leaving AA all the time for better opportunities, not exactly handcuffs.