TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[Bob Owens]

Bob Owens
 
With all the Information available to you at the Local level, wouldn't it be a good idea for You since You post here to put information that the local has about what is/isn't about the Association. What your opinion is Pro/Con of how things will be if this Association gets put in place either by a VOTE or just put here.
 
You have access to much more than any of us and if you work for the membership as you say you do, then putting out anything that will help them decide which way to Vote
is important don't you think?
 
The local puts out stuff on the Local's site but how many really go there. 
 
This assoc. is going to effect your career as well, as your union position don't you think?
 
You travel around the system to meetings, you hear what is being asked of the Local leaders and what concerns are in the forefront of the members on the floor.
 
putting out information of what is being asked and how this Vote for/against this assoc. will effect each local and its members.
 
this association is going to set in motion things that will effect our class and craft.
What those will be is a starting point for you.

If info is available to me then for the most part its available to you. I don't pretend to be all knowing and would rather have thousands of people decipher the info so that nothing gets missed. 
 
I cant say what the NMB will determine any more than you can. Until they determine whats going to happen we cant say what we feel the membership should do and why, but I think I've been pretty clear as to why I do not support the idea of splitting up our work-group between two unions. I do not support the Association, I want us to be under one union. Prior to the IAM rolling over and granting a company that just showed a $1.5 billion profit for just one quarter an extension of Bankruptcy won concessions with ZERO profit sharing I was willing to leave it up to the leaders of the TWU and IAM  which Union we went with to avoid a representation battle, now I want no part of the IAM either. So for me those two options, Association or IAM, are unacceptable. 
 
The local website is pretty busy, as was our website at 562. More of our members go there than here. 
 
Of course the association will affect my career, and IMO it will not be good.
 
Under the plan they put forward the TWU's structure as far as Locals would not be impacted by the Alliance, stations would be swapped but headcount would remain the same, so my "union position" as an officer of 591 would not be directly immediately impacted, however if it goes through I will have to seriously reconsider if I still want to do this anymore. 591 as a Local, and its members would surrender all authority over contracts and grievances to the Association. Mass brings leverage, 591 brought us mass that we were never able to coalesce into as individual Line Locals. As a result we were given custody over the grievance process for Line issues, and have much better success than we did when they appointed people to the board who were hostile to the Locals bringing the grievances forward. Instead of looking into further consolidation, and increased Mass under an elected structure this Alliance does the opposite. It splits us up even more than we are now. The alliance leaves us without clear, elected, accountable leaders and now more than ever before that's a situation that is utterly unacceptable. It basically says that you can elect people but they can not represent you as a group, or even as a local, that the un-elected, appointed unaccountable Association will tell you and the world what you think and want. 
 
What the International did to the dispatchers and Sim tech they would never attempt to do to local 100, even though all are under the same Constitution. All three of those groups have clear, elected, accountable leaders. That's important for a Local Union to function effectively and all of those groups have done fairly well in the TWU.  There is no confusion over who speaks for Dispatch, or the Mass transit workers of NYC, but who speaks for the mechanics at AA? Gary Peterson, Larry Pike or Dale Danker (plus the four? Title III presidents that still have T-II)? Answer-none of the above, instead its whomever the International appoints, and right now all of the input into that comes from Fleet. The rationale is that the members elect people who go to the Convention that elect the people at the International. Well the Association makes this sketchy interpretation of democracy even worse, for the first two years the Association is run by the IAM, and we don't even elect people who elect the people who appointed them!!!  On top of that the Associations rebuttal to the NMB clearly states that your elected representatives at the Local level does not even speak for the members that elected him!!!!
 
 
When the members of of Dispatch and Sim tech were told that the leaders they elected had no voice and that the International ran the whole show, they left. It was a bad move on the part of the international, they mis-judged the membership of those locals, maybe they didn't care because they got the FAs at Virgin a few weeks later, but the comments from the Virgin organizer as to why they chose the TWU ran in direct conflict with what had just occurred at AA. The Virgin Flight attendants, much like SWA, and Local 100 will not be split up between  multiple voiceless locals like we are at AA, and, even worse, under the Alliance, split up between multiple Unions, with no clear elected leader.  If the International did what they did to Dispatch and Sim tech to local 100, Local 100 would likely do the same, or, because they have the Mass, remove those International officials ASAP. That's why we need mass. Mass brings leverage. Local 100 goes about their business unencumbered by the International, they even went on strike despite the International refusing to authorize it! Local 555 and 556 also go about their business with minimal interference from the International, as does pretty much every Local outside of the AA system. Right now the only work group that has a voice in the International is Fleet. Three groups left, and M&R and stores are excluded from the decision making process
 
The Associations structure makes our locals that much weaker and we already see what the Associations position is as far as Locals, and their elected representatives. The Association (which is under the direction of the IAM for the first two years) claims that Local leaders do not represent the membership, they have no voice but their own and that the appointed Allaince speaks for the members, they tell us what we want, not the other way around.  
 
I dont believe that any of us finds this acceptable, but the Association (along with Gary Yingst) will try and get us to accept this lousy deal using the same methods they have used to get us to accept lousy contracts, misinformation, omission and fear.

 

[WeAAsles]

If info is available to me then for the most part its available to you. I don't pretend to be all knowing and would rather have thousands of people decipher the info so that nothing gets missed. 
 
I cant say what the NMB will determine any more than you can. Until they determine whats going to happen we cant say what we feel the membership should do and why, but I think I've been pretty clear as to why I do not support the idea of splitting up our work-group between two unions. I do not support the Association, I want us to be under one union. Prior to the IAM rolling over and granting a company that just showed a $1.5 billion profit for just one quarter an extension of Bankruptcy won concessions with ZERO profit sharing I was willing to leave it up to the leaders of the TWU and IAM  which Union we went with to avoid a representation battle, now I want no part of the IAM either. So for me those two options, Association or IAM, are unacceptable. 
 
The local website is pretty busy, as was our website at 562. More of our members go there than here. 
 
Of course the association will affect my career, and IMO it will not be good.
 
Under the plan they put forward the TWU's structure as far as Locals would not be impacted by the Alliance, stations would be swapped but headcount would remain the same, so my "union position" as an officer of 591 would not be directly immediately impacted, however if it goes through I will have to seriously reconsider if I still want to do this anymore. 591 as a Local, and its members would surrender all authority over contracts and grievances to the Association. Mass brings leverage, 591 brought us mass that we were never able to coalesce into as individual Line Locals. As a result we were given custody over the grievance process for Line issues, and have much better success than we did when they appointed people to the board who were hostile to the Locals bringing the grievances forward. Instead of looking into further consolidation, and increased Mass under an elected structure this Alliance does the opposite. It splits us up even more than we are now. The alliance leaves us without clear, elected, accountable leaders and now more than ever before that's a situation that is utterly unacceptable. It basically says that you can elect people but they can not represent you as a group, or even as a local, that the un-elected, appointed unaccountable Association will tell you and the world what you think and want. 
 
What the International did to the dispatchers and Sim tech they would never attempt to do to local 100, even though all are under the same Constitution. All three of those groups have clear, elected, accountable leaders. That's important for a Local Union to function effectively and all of those groups have done fairly well in the TWU.  There is no confusion over who speaks for Dispatch, or the Mass transit workers of NYC, but who speaks for the mechanics at AA? Gary Peterson, Larry Pike or Dale Danker (plus the four? Title III presidents that still have T-II)? Answer-none of the above, instead its whomever the International appoints, and right now all of the input into that comes from Fleet. The rationale is that the members elect people who go to the Convention that elect the people at the International. Well the Association makes this sketchy interpretation of democracy even worse, for the first two years the Association is run by the IAM, and we don't even elect people who elect the people who appointed them!!!  On top of that the Associations rebuttal to the NMB clearly states that your elected representatives at the Local level does not even speak for the members that elected him!!!!
 
 
When the members of of Dispatch and Sim tech were told that the leaders they elected had no voice and that the International ran the whole show, they left. It was a bad move on the part of the international, they mis-judged the membership of those locals, maybe they didn't care because they got the FAs at Virgin a few weeks later, but the comments from the Virgin organizer as to why they chose the TWU ran in direct conflict with what had just occurred at AA. The Virgin Flight attendants, much like SWA, and Local 100 will not be split up between  multiple voiceless locals like we are at AA, and, even worse, under the Alliance, split up between multiple Unions, with no clear elected leader.  If the International did what they did to Dispatch and Sim tech to local 100, Local 100 would likely do the same, or, because they have the Mass, remove those International officials ASAP. That's why we need mass. Mass brings leverage. Local 100 goes about their business unencumbered by the International, they even went on strike despite the International refusing to authorize it! Local 555 and 556 also go about their business with minimal interference from the International, as does pretty much every Local outside of the AA system. Right now the only work group that has a voice in the International is Fleet. Three groups left, and M&R and stores are excluded from the decision making process
 
The Associations structure makes our locals that much weaker and we already see what the Associations position is as far as Locals, and their elected representatives. The Association (which is under the direction of the IAM for the first two years) claims that Local leaders do not represent the membership, they have no voice but their own and that the appointed Allaince speaks for the members, they tell us what we want, not the other way around.  
 
I dont believe that any of us finds this acceptable, but the Association (along with Gary Yingst) will try and get us to accept this lousy deal using the same methods they have used to get us to accept lousy contracts, misinformation, omission and fear.

Ok Bob I get and understand your point of view but what about the one big 800lb Gorilla in the room? Gary Peterson filed his objection with the NMB stating that the IAM should not even be on the ballot and they should need to conduct a card drive if they want to be considered. Essentially we should have a vote between the TWU or No Union according to him.

So my question is what about those current IAM members who may not want to be in their minds FORCED into the TWU? The animosity from the former TWA members is now 13 years old. Some of them are still angry about what happened and nothing is ever going to change their minds.

Even if there were a representational election that had IAM on the ballot, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. How do you suppose to build unity among those that are now bitter and angry as the losers? If the IAM losses no matter what we feel about it people are going to say and think WE took away their IAMPF from them. How will you feel if the IAM wins? Not impossible.

What's your solution to this dilemma? Or should we say who cares what other people want as long as we get what we want?
 

 

[Bob Owens]

Ok Bob I get and understand your point of view but what about the one big 800lb Gorilla in the room? Gary Peterson filed his objection with the NMB stating that the IAM should not even be on the ballot and they should need to conduct a card drive if they want to be considered. Essentially we should have a vote between the TWU or No Union according to him.

So my question is what about those current IAM members who may not want to be in their minds FORCED into the TWU? The animosity from the former TWA members is now 13 years old. Some of them are still angry about what happened and nothing is ever going to change their minds.
Even if there were a representational election that had IAM on the ballot, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. How do you suppose to build unity among those that are now bitter and angry as the losers? If the IAM losses no matter what we feel about it people are going to say and think WE took away their IAMPF from them. How will you feel if the IAM wins? Not impossible.

What's your solution to this dilemma? Or should we say who cares what other people want as long as we get what we want?
 

See my answer on the thread "NMB vote".  Your interpretation (spin) of the appeal is wrong.
 
 
My observations have been that  the animosity primarily has been directed at the TWA guys, not from them.   
 
I say lets make sure that accurate information and real choices are made available and let the members decide. 
 
How do you suppose to build unity when we are permanently divided into two separate unions with no clear elected leaders? ? 
 
My solution? 
 
1, The simplest, the IAM backs out, if theIAM wants to modify their IAMPF plan to allow former members to continue to contribute in lieu of the 401K match fine, I'm sure the company would jump on it as it would save them millions. So to be clear, the fact is it would be the IAM throwing them out of the IAMPF, not us taking them out if the IAM did back out, just like with TWA. Your story is backwards, we do not want to end up forced into their plan. You are saying that we should all be influenced by rules that the IAM opted to put in place, they have full control over that, and those rules were put in place for one singular purpose, to discourage members from leaving the IAM and for the benefit of the IAM only, and for no other reason. They could change it. 
 
2. If they must go forward with this vote then do it the way its supposed to be done, not by engineering a campaign of fear and disinformation like 700 has been for months now. Not by limiting our choices to take it or lose your contract. Put the options all out there, along with factual information and let the chips fall where they may. 
 
 
The Association is an extreme leap backwards, away from Democracy and accountability.  I can not support it. 

 

[WeAAsles]

See my answer on the thread "NMB vote".  Your interpretation (spin) of the appeal is wrong.
 
 
My observations have been that  the animosity primarily has been directed at the TWA guys, not from them.   
 
I say lets make sure that accurate information and real choices are made available and let the members decide. 
 
How do you suppose to build unity when we are permanently divided into two separate unions with no clear elected leaders? ? 

No Bob, I read your post on the other thread and what you advocate is because in your mind the "Rules" are clearly spelled out the IAM should have little to no options other than trying to have a card drive in 30 days or if people don't like it they can write that in as there choice.

I guess that you're an advocate of following the "Rules"? Who made up those "Rules"? Maybe if we weren't a part of the RLA we could also be under the "Right to Work" rules as well depending on the State you live in? 

It seems to me that most times people only want to follow the "Rules" when they're the one's who stand to benefit from them? 

My opinion stands. If you and Peterson get your way the animosity that's going to come from it is going to keep us far more divided then this association may be able to prevent?

That's ok I guess since I'll still be TWU and you'll be either TWU or AMFA? Sounds great, Kum Bay Ya!

 

[FWAAA]

So my question is what about those current IAM members who may not want to be in their minds FORCED into the TWU? The animosity from the former TWA members is now 13 years old. Some of them are still angry about what happened and nothing is ever going to change their minds.
Even if there were a representational election that had IAM on the ballot, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. How do you suppose to build unity among those that are now bitter and angry as the losers? If the IAM losses no matter what we feel about it people are going to say and think WE took away their IAMPF from them. How will you feel if the IAM wins? Not impossible.

Under long-standing law, the IAM-represented M&R at US get a new bargaining agent (TWU) unless they can collect enough cards to force a vote.   According to Parker,  AA has 11.300 M&R employees while US has just 3,100.   So yes, they're "forced" into the TWU unless they can collect sufficient cards to place their incumbent union on the ballot.   With more than 75% of the M&R employees,  the AA bargaining agent carries the day.   If you're a mechanic in the IAM and you like the IAM, then that sucks for you, but the NMB protocol isn't something new.  
 
But instead of taking the victory, the idiots at the TWU international cooked up a scheme to keep themselves and the IAM in control with this half-assed Alliance/Association.   

 

[Bob Owens]

Alright then Bob what's your plan? In your own words forming an alliance with those who are in the same boat as we are is a bad idea. Better to continue to stand alone and fight is what you advocate? Let everyone try to get there own piece of the pie I guess?

You have a huge audience and you know it Bob. So I'm putting the emphasis on you now. How do all of us start to win if you want us to keep standing apart?

Total BS and you know it. This is a divisive plan and you know it. We need one union, one voice, preferably elected by us as a whole, not appointed people  who were appointed by people who were not elected by us, people who can not be removed by the people who have to live under the deals they make, that's how we ended up at the bottom of the industry, this Association would keep us there.  

 

[WeAAsles]

Total BS and you know it. This is a divisive plan and you know it. We need one union, one voice, preferably elected by us as a whole, not appointed people  who were appointed by people who were not elected by us, people who can not be removed by the people who have to live under the deals they make, that's how we ended up at the bottom of the industry, this Association would keep us there.  

 

Despite labor's mobilization - a mobilization Trumka took pride in - the corporate interests won, and will use their new power, in Washington and the statehouses not just to defeat the union movement, but to destroy it, he said. So labor must look at itself in considering how to combat the corporate aggression.
We're not as big as we used to be; our corporate opponents are bigger and we've become too insular - too inward-looking," Trumka said.
 
"So we've got to look honestly at ourselves, at the roles we play in our communities, at what's happening to all working people, and we have to ask ourselves: What more can we do to build the America we want to be? We have to reach out and solidify new strength in numbers.
 
"We have to build alliances and real partnerships with brothers and sisters in other unions, with members of our communities, with small businesses, with the faith community, with anyone else who shares our collective values and is willing to work for them," he declared.
 
Delegates, by and large agreed with Trumka.

http://peoplesworld.org/afl-cio-prez-labor-must-reach-out-to-survive/

 

[Bob Owens]

No Bob, I read your post on the other thread and what you advocate is because in your mind the "Rules" are clearly spelled out the IAM should have little to no options other than trying to have a card drive in 30 days or if people don't like it they can write that in as there choice.

I guess that you're an advocate of following the "Rules"? Who made up those "Rules"? Maybe if we weren't a part of the RLA we could also be under the "Right to Work" rules as well depending on the State you live in? 

It seems to me that most times people only want to follow the "Rules" when they're the one's who stand to benefit from them? 

My opinion stands. If you and Peterson get your way the animosity that's going to come from it is going to keep us far more divided then this association may be able to prevent?

That's ok I guess since I'll still be TWU and you'll be either TWU or AMFA? Sounds great, Kum Bay Ya!

The only thing the Association does is keep us apart, we will never be unified under a two year appointed stand in. We can overcome any animosity that results if we are together in one Union. 
 
You have obviously been promised something that will take you out from having to live under the fall out of this deal as long as you support it. You are giving Overspin a run for his title as spin master. You obviously do not believe the members, or their elected representatives, should have a say in anything other than yes or no to take it or leave it proposals. I really don't care if the IAM is on the ballot but under what I've seen they should not be, they have not met the criteria, good or bad.  If the IAM cant get cards in 30 days, when they are already a third of the way there, with a friendly Union on the other side then no they should not be on the ballot unless they are willing to let others on the ballot that meet the same criteria for a showing of interest that the IAM met.  Do you want that? The rules have to be applied equally whether I like them or not. 
 
 I see how you come here and spin on how Fleet accepted the 95 deal, but omit the fact that they first rejected it and only voted it in under pressure from the International who made it clear they did not support the rejection, and how they were on their own should they reject it again.  Then you spin it how its their fault they accepted it. So they are damned if they follow their un-elected leaders and they are damned if they don't, either way they are damned and no matter how many times they vote in new locals leaders they end up in the same place. I expect more from having membership in a Union, if we choose people who filter information to meet only their own objectives then we should be able to hold them accountable and remove those people. We should not have people appointed over those we elect. The only people who feel otherwise are people who hope to get one of those unaccountable positions for themselves, or really want to go into management. Is that you?  Sure you say all the politically correct things on minimum wage etc but here you are blasting your peers who were misled into accepting bad deals by people they cant remove.
 
The Association offers us nothing but less Accountability and less Democracy. We will be limited to choosing only local leaders and the Association has already declared that Local leaders have no voice, other than their own,  that they do not even speak for the members that elected them!!!  So every two years the TWU President and IAM President get to sit down and pick who will be our voice for the next two years, and you as a member do not get to vote for either of them, if anything IAM members have more of a say than you do, because they do elect Buffy every four years as long as they are prepared to run the gauntlet and cast a vote in whatever dark alley the IAM chooses as a voting area.  And you are in favor of such a scheme? 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Despite labor's mobilization - a mobilization Trumka took pride in - the corporate interests won, and will use their new power, in Washington and the statehouses not just to defeat the union movement, but to destroy it, he said. So labor must look at itself in considering how to combat the corporate aggression.
We're not as big as we used to be; our corporate opponents are bigger and we've become too insular - too inward-looking," Trumka said.
 
"So we've got to look honestly at ourselves, at the roles we play in our communities, at what's happening to all working people, and we have to ask ourselves: What more can we do to build the America we want to be? We have to reach out and solidify new strength in numbers.
 
"We have to build alliances and real partnerships with brothers and sisters in other unions, with members of our communities, with small businesses, with the faith community, with anyone else who shares our collective values and is willing to work for them," he declared.
 
Delegates, by and large agreed with Trumka.

http://peoplesworld.org/afl-cio-prez-labor-must-reach-out-to-survive/

That's not the same as saying lets split up the members at individual companies and you know it. Sure, I'm in favor of formaing an alliance with the APA and APFA, but I dont expect to be telling them what to put in their contracts.   More spin. 

 

[700UW]

 
 
 Prior to the IAM rolling over and granting a company that just showed a $1.5 billion profit for just one quarter an extension of Bankruptcy won concessions with ZERO profit sharing I was willing to leave it up to the leaders of the TWU and IAM  which Union we went with to avoid a representation battle, now I want no part of the IAM either. So for me those two options, Association or IAM, are unacceptable. 
 

What is up with the misinformation?
 
The IAM was not negotiating with AA, they were negotiating with US Airways the 5th largest carrier in the US.  The companies are not merged and the IAM was in negotiations for almost three years with US, not AA.
 
US did not make $1.5 Billion in profits, that would be AAG which owns both AA and US.
 
Bob you know better.
 
And the IAM took the path the members wanted, they wanted a bridge agreement then a JCBA.

Dont let the facts get in you way.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Ok Bob I get and understand your point of view but what about the one big 800lb Gorilla in the room? Gary Peterson filed his objection with the NMB stating that the IAM should not even be on the ballot and they should need to conduct a card drive if they want to be considered. Essentially we should have a vote between the TWU or No Union according to him.

So my question is what about those current IAM members who may not want to be in their minds FORCED into the TWU? The animosity from the former TWA members is now 13 years old. Some of them are still angry about what happened and nothing is ever going to change their minds.
Even if there were a representational election that had IAM on the ballot, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. How do you suppose to build unity among those that are now bitter and angry as the losers? If the IAM losses no matter what we feel about it people are going to say and think WE took away their IAMPF from them. How will you feel if the IAM wins? Not impossible.

What's your solution to this dilemma? Or should we say who cares what other people want as long as we get what we want?
 

 
WeAAsles
 
The company stopped all the pensions here so no matter people think unless you are the company, none of the members will have stopped further payments into the IAMPF.
 
If there is a Vote, then the membership made a choice, what maintenance chooses is for us, just as what fleet/ramp and stores ends up with will be the members choice.
 
Sour grapes over what happened with the TWA people is just a failure of the IAM at the time of the buyout of TWA. C. Ichan pushed the IAM around for yrs there and the
TWA employees took it. They went many yrs without pay raises. It was a shame that we union employees of the airline who took them were not sympathetic to them giving them the time they should of gotten. The IGM attitude of the AA TWU workers prevailed.
 
The IAM and its leadership is a Scab union anyway, they crossed a picket line at NWA. They have failed at USAir since they just got a contract and still make less than we do here at AA.
 
The mechanics here want the TWU gone and we are hoping that the mechanics at USAir want the IAM gone as well, that will stop this association for the mechanics class and craft.
 
alliances with other unions is a good thing in theory but when that alliance is going to effect one group that does not want to have anything to do with it just because the Intl. wants it
bottom line its wrong.

 

[blue collar]

What is up with the misinformation?
 
The IAM was not negotiating with AA, they were negotiating with US Airways the 5th largest carrier in the US.  The companies are not merged and the IAM was in negotiations for almost three years with US, not AA.
 
US did not make $1.5 Billion in profits, that would be AAG which owns both AA and US.
 
Bob you know better.
 
And the IAM took the path the members wanted, they wanted a bridge agreement then a JCBA.
Dont let the facts get in you way.

That's what the members 'wanted', because that what the IAM told them they wanted. The members I know wanted a real contract, not a bridge agreement.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

What is up with the misinformation?
 
The IAM was not negotiating with AA, they were negotiating with US Airways the 5th largest carrier in the US.  The companies are not merged and the IAM was in negotiations for almost three years with US, not AA.
 
US did not make $1.5 Billion in profits, that would be AAG which owns both AA and US.
 
Bob you know better.
 
And the IAM took the path the members wanted, they wanted a bridge agreement then a JCBA.
Dont let the facts get in you way.

 
700UW
 
How would you know what the employees wanted you don't work for US or the IAM from what you have told everyone. (HERE)
So the only way you would be able to say the employees wanted just a bridge contract would be if you talked to them and attended
meetings about the negotiations.
 
I doubt you went to each station and asked the IAM employees if that is what they wanted?
 
So don't let the facts get in your WAY.
 
YOU are NOT an IAM represented employee or an Airline worker at US any longer.

 

[700UW]

I was on the raid last summer, I know what happened, and talked to hundreds of members.  I was out there, didnt see you.  Where were you?  Begging for AMFA cards, lol.
 
So what are you gonna say next?
 
And the US is not stopping pension payments, and you do realize the 401k match costs AA more than the IAMNPF would.
 
Stop spreading the lies.
 
The IAMNPF is contractual and US or the new AA is legally obligated to pay into the pension.
Dont let the facts get in your way.

 

[FWAAA]

700UW
 
How would you know what the employees wanted you don't work for US or the IAM from what you have told everyone. (HERE)
So the only way you would be able to say the employees wanted just a bridge contract would be if you talked to them and attended
meetings about the negotiations.
 
I doubt you went to each station and asked the IAM employees if that is what they wanted?
 
So don't let the facts get in your WAY.
 
YOU are NOT an IAM represented employee or an Airline worker at US any longer.

And yet he and WeAAsles, neither of whom hold A&P tickets, are the top two posters to this thread (and most other threads dealing with issues germane to AA's mechanics).   Go figure.  They seem awfully interested in promoting the IAM/TWU Alliance.