TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[NYer]

were do you come up with this nonsense when have I said one negative thing about someone that wants the alliance I stated there needs to be a vote and then we will live with the outcome. YOUR the one that has said you don't want a vote because you Fear the outcome

You probably need to go back and re-read your post. You're willing to have a vote regardless of the outcome regardless of how negative it could be. I'd rather avoid a vote that has little to gain, but carries a substantial downsize.

 

[WeAAsles]

There's fear and misinformation spread on both sides. Doesn't make it right, but please don't patronize us and make it seem that your 'side' (pro alliance) doesn't do the same.

Can you show me a post where I'm laying down fear? Fear is telling people that the big bad boogy man is going to steal there pension, go bankrupt and leave them nothing. Can't get more fearful than going after someone's retirement with a load of BS.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
The NMB has NO problem with it. This is nothing new and as matter of fact, there are other unions with similar agreement currently representing at US Airways.
 
The reality is that we can gain more and sacrifice less with the Association. The few that against it are those that rather have another 10 years to try and get AMFA in here. As a matter if fact. if AMFA was a possiblity, they would be gathering cards in order to make a submission once the NMB declares a Single Transportation for the Association submission. They'll get a 30 day window....are they working on it?

So is this about blocking AMFA from getting a vote or about getting good contracts and what the membership wants? You claim that this is nothing new but leave out the fact that in the other case at US the Unions asked the members before they went to the NMB. Our leadership has never put the question before the membership.      There also wasn't an arbitrary exchange of members with the other alliance, its basically and East-west Alliance whereas the structure of the Alliance they want for us has is incoherent, PHL-IAM, RDU-TWU, EWR IAM for Fleet, TWU for M&R, BOS IAM even though the TWU outnumbers the IAM its an absolute disaster because the structure was formed not to create a viable unionized union but to try and make sure that each union still gets the same amount of dues they received when it was two different airlines.
 
The leadership of the TWU has stated that they are against the Alliance but are going forward with it because they have to due to the signed agreement, this happened at JFK in front of many people. 
 
I've said from the beginning that I was against dividing up the membership. At one point I was agreeable to letting them decide if one group went with the IAM while the other went with the TWU but after their disgraceful performance in negotiating a bankruptcy contract with ZERO Profit sharing with a very profitable company I want no part of them. 
 
Right now as the law stands there is only one viable showing of interest for a Union and that is the TWU, so the IAM should simply do like they did with TWA and bow out. 

 

[737823]

Bob,
Why did Jim Little agree to this?  Back in 2001 the IAM walked away without a fight following the TWA integration.  AA is much larger, there should be no run-off election every IAM group should be TWU like the pilots and flight attendants have done with APA & APFA.  In 2001 the IAM had considerably more members and was better able to shoulder the loss of dues payers. The IAM was THE UNION at TWA as they represented everyone except pilots (agents, F/As, mechanics, ramp, etc).  Harry Lombardo should renege they should become TWU members and the IAM should leave without objection.
 
Josh

 

[NYer]

So is this about blocking AMFA from getting a vote or about getting good contracts and what the membership wants? You claim that this is nothing new but leave out the fact that in the other case at US the Unions asked the members before they went to the NMB. Our leadership has never put the question before the membership.      There also wasn't an arbitrary exchange of members with the other alliance, its basically and East-west Alliance whereas the structure of the Alliance they want for us has is incoherent, PHL-IAM, RDU-TWU, EWR IAM for Fleet, TWU for M&R, BOS IAM even though the TWU outnumbers the IAM its an absolute disaster because the structure was formed not to create a viable unionized union but to try and make sure that each union still gets the same amount of dues they received when it was two different airlines.
 
The leadership of the TWU has stated that they are against the Alliance but are going forward with it because they have to due to the signed agreement, this happened at JFK in front of many people. 
 
I've said from the beginning that I was against dividing up the membership. At one point I was agreeable to letting them decide if one group went with the IAM while the other went with the TWU but after their disgraceful performance in negotiating a bankruptcy contract with ZERO Profit sharing with a very profitable company I want no part of them. 
 
Right now as the law stands there is only one viable showing of interest for a Union and that is the TWU, so the IAM should simply do like they did with TWA and bow out. 

 
The way you give partial information is really an art form, too bad it's misleading.
 
The other unions absorbed the Members of the other union, with the consent of that other union. The submissions to the NMB were made as the APA and the APFA, not an Association that would leave the participating unions intact. That is a big difference in circumstances.
 
The current TWU leadership, except for one, was in place in some capacity and knew of the agreement as it was discussed and approved. If it wasn't then they would have a legal standard to overturn it. They may things like that now, but it most assuredly a case of politics.
 
If the IAM would bow out, there wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, they are not in a position of doing so and here we are. Luckily for the AMFA supporters, there will be another 30 day window in order for them to get the necessary cards to place themselves on the NMB ballot.
 
You want no part of the IAM or the TWU?

 

[737823]

 
The way you give partial information is really an art form, too bad it's misleading.
 
The other unions absorbed the Members of the other union, with the consent of that other union. The submissions to the NMB were made as the APA and the APFA, not an Association that would leave the participating unions intact. That is a big difference in circumstances.
 
The current TWU leadership, except for one, was in place in some capacity and knew of the agreement as it was discussed and approved. If it wasn't then they would have a legal standard to overturn it. They may things like that now, but it most assuredly a case of politics.
 
If the IAM would bow out, there wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, they are not in a position of doing so and here we are. Luckily for the AMFA supporters, there will be another 30 day window in order for them to get the necessary cards to place themselves on the NMB ballot.
 
You want no part of the IAM or the TWU?

 
 
Again why did the TWU agree to this non-sense?  The USAIR people should be their dues payers, they are the larger group and there should be no run-off election.  If Trumka was the one that arranged this BS scheme, the TWU should have gone in their own direction, and they would have prevailed.  Despite the deficiencies of the TWU at AA, the IAM agreements at USAIR suck much more.
 
Josh

 

[Bob Owens]

Can you show me a post where I'm laying down fear? Fear is telling people that the big bad boogy man is going to steal there pension, go bankrupt and leave them nothing. Can't get more fearful than going after someone's retirement with a load of BS.

Isn't that how the IAM stayed at US?  Isn't that how Little sold the 2003 concessions? 
 
Where is the BS? Didn't you make the claim that our pension could not be rolled into the IAMPF, that it wasn't allowed, well, once again, what did you base you claim on? 
 
Didn't you point out that should the IAMPF go broke that the most pensioners of the IAMPF would get is $13000? (I admit I doubt they would go broke, after all they could just cut pensions to stop that from happening.)
 
Is it not factual that multi employer plans have a history of reducing the pensions of people who are already retired?
 
Is it not factual that the IAM plan prohibits you from going back to work full time when you are retired? 
 
So after you retire they could cut your pension then cut it completely if you are forced back to work due to the cuts. 
 
Like I said I'd rather keep what I have where it is and continue to get the 401K match, figure within a few years we should be getting at least $40/hr, so that comes out to $2.20/hr vs the IAMPF at $2/hr, plus we get the match on OT and being that there aren't many people out there OT will continue to flow well beyond the 12% target the company used in BK. 12% is 250 hrs per year at 1.5x adds another $825 to the $4576, so over $5k vs the $4160 that would go into the IAMPF Ponzi Scheme.  Maybe we can fight for higher wages and more of a match instead hoping that enough of our coworkers die before they ever collect a penny so the IAMPF stays solvent and doesn't cut our pensions down the road. 

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
The union representation will not change for the majority.
 
Without even mentioning issues like being forced into the IAMPF, there are smaller issues that add up and we would be in jeopardy of being swallowed by the IAM and their CBA. For instance: OT rules, bid rules, transfers ect.
 
So, if there is a vote and the IAM wins that vote what do you believe happens with your CBA and your current local rules that govern the Company from abusing their position. Do you believe that we vote for a new union and everything stays the same. Do you believe we get to keep the things we're used to? Is that your position? You're supposed to be smarter than that, although I also understand it doesn't play well with the current agenda of the AMFA movement.

 
 
While I've read about 3 pages now of you attempting to lecture on the consequences of conducting an IAM/TWU vote, after reading this post I really question if you yourself know what you're talking about.
 
If you elected the IAM today NOTHING in your TWU CBA changes. Or to answer the questions as you ominously tried to phrase them ...
 

 
Do you believe that we vote for a new union and everything stays the same.

 
Answer: YES - everything stays the same until you negotiate a JCBA
 

 
Do you believe we get to keep the things we're used to? Is that your position?

 
Answer: YES - you keep EVERYTHING you're used to ... and thats not a position its a fact. Again - everything stays the same until you negotiate a JCBA
 
 
And since sAA mechanics would still hold superior numbers in a new "IAM" union, they would control the CBA negotiating/vote.
 
Its called Democracy

 

[Bob Owens]

 
The way you give partial information is really an art form, too bad it's misleading.
 
The current TWU leadership, except for one, was in place in some capacity and knew of the agreement as it was discussed and approved. If it wasn't then they would have a legal standard to overturn it. They may things like that now, but it most assuredly a case of politics.
 
If the IAM would bow out, there wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, they are not in a position of doing so and here we are. Luckily for the AMFA supporters, there will be another 30 day window in order for them to get the necessary cards to place themselves on the NMB ballot.
 
You want no part of the IAM or the TWU?

So you leave out that the other Alliance was put before the members before they went to the NMB  then say I leave out info?  You keep leaving out that the members gave their consent first, no such question has been put before either membership. 
 
I think I was pretty clear, the TWU is the only Union that has a legitimate showing of interest, the TWU should stay, the IAM should walk away. 
 
You also leave out that every elected TWU President from AA voted against the Alliance, and they were told that the TWU can't get out of it even if they wanted to. So as you try and paint resistance to the Alliance as some sort of AMFA conspiracy then explain why Presidents from Fleet Service would vote against it? Are they closet AMFA supporters as well in your book? 
 
They don't want it because they know its a bad deal, a deal that was made to benefit the two unions and not the members who work at AA. 

 

[WeAAsles]

Isn't that how the IAM stayed at US?  Isn't that how Little sold the 2003 concessions? 
 
Where is the BS? Didn't you make the claim that our pension could not be rolled into the IAMPF, that it wasn't allowed, well, once again, what did you base you claim on? 
 
Didn't you point out that should the IAMPF go broke that the most pensioners of the IAMPF would get is $13000? (I admit I doubt they would go broke, after all they could just cut pensions to stop that from happening.)
 
Is it not factual that multi employer plans have a history of reducing the pensions of people who are already retired?
 
Is it not factual that the IAM plan prohibits you from going back to work full time when you are retired? 
 
So after you retire they could cut your pension then cut it completely if you are forced back to work due to the cuts. 
 
Like I said I'd rather keep what I have where it is and continue to get the 401K match, figure within a few years we should be getting at least $40/hr, so that comes out to $2.20/hr vs the IAMPF at $2/hr, plus we get the match on OT and being that there aren't many people out there OT will continue to flow well beyond the 12% target the company used in BK. 12% is 250 hrs per year at 1.5x adds another $825 to the $4576, so over $5k vs the $4160 that would go into the IAMPF Ponzi Scheme.  Maybe we can fight for higher wages and more of a match instead hoping that enough of our coworkers die before they ever collect a penny so the IAMPF stays solvent and doesn't cut our pensions down the road.
[/quh

Pointing out the difference between becoming "enrolled" or "entering" the IAMNPF against what I also believe are better advantages for us remaining with the 401k match and maybe even seeing improvements to it I'm ok with. The problem I have is in trying to sell the lie that the IAMNPF is out to or are going to take over our frozen pension. Which you know as well as I do IS NOT going to happen. The IAM can sell their pension as much as they want but it doesn't mean that I'm necessarily going to buy it. If it's ever even offered?

Bob you're the elected representative, so act like one. You seek out the information in writing that supports your claim? Otherwise what are your members actually paying you for? If YOU can't find out the truth "in writing" as a member I might be asking you for a refund because I'm paying for nothing apparently.

 

[700UW]

You can make things up, but that doesn't mean they're factual. The bolded portion is false. The "market" did not "tank for everyone from 01 to 05." Perhaps the IAM pension fund values tanked, but that would point toward mismanagement, not general equity market decline.

Not true my US Airways Defined Benefit plan was terminated in 2005 due to underfunding and the losses in the stock  market, as was every other pension plan for employees terminated except for the pilots as theirs was terminated in 2003.

 

[NYer]

Again why did the TWU agree to this non-sense?  The USAIR people should be their dues payers, they are the larger group and there should be no run-off election.  If Trumka was the one that arranged this BS scheme, the TWU should have gone in their own direction, and they would have prevailed.  Despite the deficiencies of the TWU at AA, the IAM agreements at USAIR suck much more.
 
Josh

The TWU has more Members, but if the IAM were able to get a couple of thousand cards from current TWU, they could apply for a vote with the NMB, it wouldn't be an automatic takeover.

The process of getting those cards and preparing for a vote would have both unions and Memberships going at each others throats. Let's say the TWU prevails after that (which would push negotiations further down the road), how long would it take before the former IAM Members begin another campaign to unseat the TWU in order to regain their Pension accruals and medical plans? We would be fighting each other for years.... just like the AMFA fiasco, but including ALL groups.

With the Association can avoid all that and have a better chance to maintain what we value and gain what we crave.

 

[NYer]

While I've read about 3 pages now of you attempting to lecture on the consequences of conducting an IAM/TWU vote, after reading this post I really question if you yourself know what you're talking about.
 
If you elected the IAM today NOTHING in your TWU CBA changes. Or to answer the questions as you ominously tried to phrase them ...
 
 
Answer: YES - everything stays the same until you negotiate a JCBA
 
 
Answer: YES - you keep EVERYTHING you're used to ... and thats not a position its a fact. Again - everything stays the same until you negotiate a JCBA
 
 
And since sAA mechanics would still hold superior numbers in a new "IAM" union, they would control the CBA negotiating/vote.
 
Its called Democracy

 
OK, I don't agree, but let's say your correct. . And as the IAM as your negotiating agent how much of the current TWU CBA do you believe would survive in the JCBA. Do you contend it will stay the same? Do you believe the TWU language would survive when there is no one advocating on our behalf. Surely, you don't expect benevolence on the past of the conquering union.... and even if you do, what is the upside of taking that chance.

 

[NYer]

So you leave out that the other Alliance was put before the members before they went to the NMB  then say I leave out info?  You keep leaving out that the members gave their consent first, no such question has been put before either membership.
--What other Alliance do you speak of? The APA? The APFA?
 
I think I was pretty clear, the TWU is the only Union that has a legitimate showing of interest, the TWU should stay, the IAM should walk away. 
--I would bet the IAM and their Members would have a different take. So would the NMB if the IAM were forced to get the necessary to force a vote before the two unions. That, not your opinion, makes it a legitimate showing.
 
You also leave out that every elected TWU President from AA voted against the Alliance, and they were told that the TWU can't get out of it even if they wanted to. So as you try and paint resistance to the Alliance as some sort of AMFA conspiracy then explain why Presidents from Fleet Service would vote against it? Are they closet AMFA supporters as well in your book? 
--Who are these Presidents and when did this vote take place? Or do we take your word for it?
 
They don't want it because they know its a bad deal, a deal that was made to benefit the two unions and not the members who work at AA. 
--There dozens of Members that would disagree as they have taken advantage of the Preferential Hiring, which is made possible because of the Association.

 

[comatose]

 
The NMB has NO problem with it. This is nothing new and as matter of fact, there are other unions with similar agreement currently representing at US Airways.
 
The reality is that we can gain more and sacrifice less with the Association. The few that against it are those that rather have another 10 years to try and get AMFA in here. As a matter if fact. if AMFA was a possiblity, they would be gathering cards in order to make a submission once the NMB declares a Single Transportation for the Association submission. They'll get a 30 day window....are they working on it?
 
 
 
 

 
Really? Just exactly what is left to sacrifice?
 
Sacrifice less.....Is this how you sell YOUR Association?
 
The word sacrifice is used far too often with the TWU and the IAMPF.
 
My pension need not be a sacrificial lamb for the IAM.