TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[1airborne]

I'm excited to see another AMFA representation failed attempt at AA!!!

 
That is just mean! I just don't understand why you would not want an election by the members. If IAM,TWU,or AMFA wins then that is that. But when unions use legal tricks and shady maneuverings to keep the members from voting, that is just wrong.
 
1airborne

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I'm excited to see another AMFA representation failed attempt at AA!!!

 
Failed?  How so? Has the alliance been certified yet?

 

[chellow]

I have an interesting spin, the alliance is a new organization, don't they have to collect cards to request to be certified by the NMB to represent us?

 

[swamt]

I will still VOTE NO. TELL THE IAM/TWU TO PACK SAND.

I may be jumping the gun here as I have not read any post after yours.  But, the membership may not even get a vote, re-read very carefully the red highlights...

 

[swamt]

Funny how if we want to change union representation we have to follow the NMB rules and if there are any error the unions will be the first to complain. The situation here is no different. At some stations AA members under the TWU will no longer be represented by the TWU and the IAM will be representing them at that location. The same goes for USAir stations being represented by the IAM will have the TWU represent them. That is a change of representation and all will be done by just handing over documentation to the NMB to recognize these changes without a vote of showing interest from the members. If the NMB allows this then it would be a game changer. The NMB would have to review their rules and make changes. The real winners here are the unions that do not want to lose money and the AFL-CIO. So if a company buys another company and two unions are on the floor all they have to do is submit documents to keep both unions and form an alliance. Change of representation can occur for certain work groups under the new alliance without a vote by the members, If we on the other hand want to change union representation we have to go through the card signing process to change that same representation. I just can not see this happening without some kind of deal being made between the unions and the NMB.
People need to understand that this is being thrown at us without any input from the dues paying members. It is obvious most of the members want no part of this alliance. Totally unbelievable. Think what precedence this will set for future mergers if the NMB allows it. It takes away the democratic process of voting. The TWU /IAM have become a Communistic,Fascist and Dictatorship union. We really have no say anymore.
 
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

I am hoping this is not going to happen.  The response I received was in fact a set back from what I was told before.  If this alliance ends up going thru with out a membership vote, then you guys are toast.  IF there is a vote, hoping for the write in option.  I re-wrote the NMB about the options, although I had a very quick response from first time, it is Friday, and still no response, maybe Mon.

 

[swamt]

Maybe it is time for a massive letter writing campaign to let the NMB know that the TWU money being used for influence is coming from our paychecks and should not be used against us in such an Anti-American way!

A-Freakin-Men brother.  Please by all means get this done.  I have been suggesting, encouraging and down right demanding that anyone and all involved in this should do so.  MAYBE now everyone will get a clue just how important this really is.  Koodoes and kick it off...

 

[xUT]

Unions are quick to complain to the government when companies interfere with a union vote or try to deny a vote. I guess it's ok for unions to deny its members a vote. 

Now you get it.
B) xUT

 

[WeAAsles]

 
That is just mean! I just don't understand why you would not want an election by the members. If IAM,TWU,or AMFA wins then that is that. But when unions use legal tricks and shady maneuverings to keep the members from voting, that is just wrong.
 
1airborne

The comment is a little mean and possibly uncalled for. But I have witnessed Overspeed constantly be demeaned and belittled for months now so I can absolutely understand him wanting to give some of those people a strong middle finger.

As for the second part airborne, let's take AMFA out of the equation. It doesn't exist and it was never formed in the first place. Thinking in that vein why would any union want to risk the possibility of the "No Union" option being chosen? We all saw what happened over at Delta and of course in their minds they understand the possibility could exist at the new AA as well.

Now the first person who responds that they would rather vote "No Union" over the Alliance, well I rest my case. 

 

 

[xUT]

Funny how if we want to change union representation we have to follow the NMB rules and if there are any error the unions will be the first to complain. The situation here is no different. At some stations AA members under the TWU will no longer be represented by the TWU and the IAM will be representing them at that location. The same goes for USAir stations being represented by the IAM will have the TWU represent them. That is a change of representation and all will be done by just handing over documentation to the NMB to recognize these changes without a vote of showing interest from the members. If the NMB allows this then it would be a game changer. The NMB would have to review their rules and make changes. The real winners here are the unions that do not want to lose money and the AFL-CIO. So if a company buys another company and two unions are on the floor all they have to do is submit documents to keep both unions and form an alliance. Change of representation can occur for certain work groups under the new alliance without a vote by the members, If we on the other hand want to change union representation we have to go through the card signing process to change that same representation. I just can not see this happening without some kind of deal being made between the unions and the NMB.
People need to understand that this is being thrown at us without any input from the dues paying members. It is obvious most of the members want no part of this alliance. Totally unbelievable. Think what precedence this will set for future mergers if the NMB allows it. It takes away the democratic process of voting. The TWU /IAM have become a Communistic,Fascist and Dictatorship union. We really have no say anymore.
 
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

 
Sadly, this is nothing new.
The twu/iam/ibt has been running rough shod over their members for years.
If they can not intimidate management, they have no compulsion to intimidate the membership.
Seen it many times with the iam.
Good Luck Guys n'Gals.
You have the unions and the company out to screw you.
B) xUT

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

The comment is a little mean and possibly uncalled for. But I have witnessed Overspeed constantly be demeaned and belittled for months now so I can absolutely understand him wanting to give some of those people a strong middle finger.

As for the second part airborne, let's take AMFA out of the equation. It doesn't exist and it was never formed in the first place. Thinking in that vein why would any union want to risk the possibility of the "No Union" option being chosen? We all saw what happened over at Delta and of course in their minds they understand the possibility could exist at the new AA as well.

Now the first person who responds that they would rather vote "No Union" over the Alliance, well I rest my case. 

 

 
Why would any union risk it???
 
NEWSFLASH!  ITS NOT THEIR PLACE TO DENY IT!
 
The members choose their course - Yes, even if thats a non-union one - the union has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny them that choice, E-V-E-R!

 

[1airborne]

The comment is a little mean and possibly uncalled for. But I have witnessed Overspeed constantly be demeaned and belittled for months now so I can absolutely understand him wanting to give some of those people a strong middle finger.

As for the second part airborne, let's take AMFA out of the equation. It doesn't exist and it was never formed in the first place. Thinking in that vein why would any union want to risk the possibility of the "No Union" option being chosen? We all saw what happened over at Delta and of course in their minds they understand the possibility could exist at the new AA as well.

Now the first person who responds that they would rather vote "No Union" over the Alliance, well I rest my case. 

 

 
I get what you say is true, I just don't wish that any democratic process be circumvented through rule manipulations legal or not.  As far as the no union option, I would still have to vote union, but B#$%h and complain and work towards  getting a vote going for the union I want.
 
1airborne

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Why would any union risk it???
 
NEWSFLASH!  ITS NOT THEIR PLACE TO DENY IT!
 
The members choose their course - Yes, even if thats a non-union one - the union has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny them that choice, E-V-E-R!

When I hired on there was already a Union on premises. When YOU hired on there was already a Union on premises. When ALL of us hired on there was already a Union on premises. Yet we ALL still hired on knowing that.

NEWSFLASH! I do not want to risk losing being a part of a Union because of some law that I also had nothing to do with! And one that was written by ANTI UNION Politicians to boot!

You want to change out your Union FINE! Then go get those cards signed to make it happen. But don't put ME at the mercy of what YOU want by putting us ALL at the risk of having nothing in the end.

I'll wait for the decision from the NMB on whether we have an election or not?




 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
I get what you say is true, I just don't wish that any democratic process be circumvented through rule manipulations legal or not.  As far as the no union option, I would still have to vote union, but B#$%h and complain and work towards  getting a vote going for the union I want.
 
1airborne

Exactly what I meant by the comment posted above this. There was a time when LAWS didn't govern the rules of Unions. Men governed Unions. Plenty of laws written over the years that we abide by that have nothing to do with assisting us in remaining a part of a Union.

Do some reading and look back on who wrote and advocated for passing those laws.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

When I hired on there was already a Union on premises. When YOU hired on there was already a Union on premises. When ALL of us hired on there was already a Union on premises. Yet we ALL still hired on knowing that.

NEWSFLASH! I do not want to risk losing being a part of a Union because of some law that I also had nothing to do with! And one that was written by ANTI UNION Politicians to boot!

You want to change out your Union FINE! Then go get those cards signed to make it happen. But don't put ME at the mercy of what YOU want by putting us ALL at the risk of having nothing in the end.

I'll wait for the decision from the NMB on whether we have an election or not?




 

 
There is no law in existence, nor any ANTI UNION Politician so powerful that a person can be forced to vote NO UNION.
 
You want to lay blame then lay it where its due ... on the unions that would drive their members to make such a choice.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Talk about the Jim Jones guyana tradgedy syndrome...you are just a little bit personal destructive cult driven I'm afraid.

I wonder if the TWU will use Sqwincher?