TWU and Teamsters are mirror images of each other.

[whatajoke]

And no Union reduces by much more.

 

[Anomaly]

Dodging? I believe I responded to this post, after which you countered with more nonsensical ibt spin.

Its your obviously ibt biased opinion, nothing more.

True, and I appreciate the banter TSH, but written through your our original exchange, the note was addressed to many more who simply commented I lie without any point to the contrary. At least when you call me a liar, you try to back it up. Although still, your opinion vs my opinion does not make me a liar. Just on opposite thought waves.

 

[Anomaly]

Ken-you are wrong about accomplishing nothing. Changing to the Teamsters increases your union $400 a year with no chance of opening up the contract.

pssst.......hey tex.......we changed to Teamsters, and I made over $400 more in one paycheck with the new contract. It was worth it. Get over it.

 

[Anomaly]

Yes, Teamster OFFICERS are elected. Within our system, these officers then hire or appoint officials like David Bourne. If he or any other proves to be ineffective, he is simply fired and replaced with some other QUALIIED person. This position, like the Business Agents, should not be assigned by who is the most popular. The person in this position should be selected from a group of the most qualified candidates.

Do you really believe that all elections produce the most qualified person for which they were elected??

Of course not. Popularity and politics play huge in an election process. For so many of you who are afraid you are lied to, you sure open yourselves up for the possibilities of more lies.

David Bourne is NOT a politician. I have had a couple of conversations with him that support that statement. He was hired, and never had to offer lies or promises to get his job. That works out just perfect for me.

At the same time, if he fails to advance us, we will not have to endure a lengthy campaign in order for him to keep his job. Fired happens a lot faster and simpler than recall. If he is not dealt with, his Boss, then looses his election. Checks and balances works for me too.

Okay then. Thanks for verifying in your own words that the twu and teamsters are mirror images of each other.

gary drummond head of the twu's atd is APPOINTED and NOT ELECTED by the membership.

David Bourne head of the teamsters' Airline Division is APPOINTED and NOT ELECTED by the membership.

bobby gless, don videtich, rick mullings, etc. twu international officers for the twu's atd are APPOINTED and NOT elected by the membership.

teamsters' business agents in the Airline Division are APPOINTED and NOT ELECTED by the membership.

Mirror images. Changing from the twu to the teamsters accomplishes nothing. Neither are democratic.

GO AMFA!

Great Ken, I'm proud of you for using a little thought.

So now address the issue of elections vs qualifications. You stepped right over that one.......

 

[TWU informer]

Yes, Teamster OFFICERS are elected. Within our system, these officers then hire or appoint officials like David Bourne. If he or any other proves to be ineffective, he is simply fired and replaced with some other QUALIIED person. This position, like the Business Agents, should not be assigned by who is the most popular. The person in this position should be selected from a group of the most qualified candidates.

Do you really believe that all elections produce the most qualified person for which they were elected??

Of course not. Popularity and politics play huge in an election process. For so many of you who are afraid you are lied to, you sure open yourselves up for the possibilities of more lies.

David Bourne is NOT a politician. I have had a couple of conversations with him that support that statement. He was hired, and never had to offer lies or promises to get his job. That works out just perfect for me.

At the same time, if he fails to advance us, we will not have to endure a lengthy campaign in order for him to keep his job. Fired happens a lot faster and simpler than recall. If he is not dealt with, his Boss, then looses his election. Checks and balances works for me too.

This post is 100% fantasy and zero% fact

 

[Tex-Mech]

pssst.......hey tex.......we changed to Teamsters, and I made over $400 more in one paycheck with the new contract. It was worth it. Get over it.

And the ability for the Teamsters to negotiate for us to make more money is now postponed by 6 years. So at $400 more a year in dues for the next 6 years, I'll pass.

 

[Anomaly]

And the ability for the Teamsters to negotiate for us to make more money is now postponed by 6 years. So at $400 more a year in dues for the next 6 years, I'll pass.

Here we go again. You don't know that....do you?

 

[TWU informer]

Here we go again. You don't know that....do you?

What is the difference?

You keep repeating the Lie and Tex-Mech keeps pointing out the TROUBLE WITH TEAMSTERS

This you organizing claim, you should have to prove it.

 

[Anomaly]

What is the difference?

You keep repeating the Lie and Tex-Mech keeps pointing out the TROUBLE WITH TEAMSTERS

This you organizing claim, you should have to prove it.

The Teamsters did. In my mind at least. Your replies are all the same. If you don't like what is said, then it was a lie.

You will make a VERY TYPICAL amfa leader.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I am of the opinion that the IBT CAN AND WILL reopen the AA contract if chosen to be the representational bargaining agent. This is my educated guess based on information I have been able to find on the web.

Why didn't you just say that then. I am sure everyone will follow you over the cliff based on that (your opinion). And pay $400 more per year to find out. It is chump change for someone like you who is not subject to the paycuts they would negotiate for your members.

 

[Anomaly]

Why didn't you just say that then. I am sure everyone will follow you over the cliff based on that (your opinion). And pay $400 more per year to find out. It is chump change for someone like you who is not subject to the paycuts they would negotiate for your members.

I did. Go back and read it. I said that the Teamsters have an opposite point of view and posted that. I said it was my opinion that they are more correct then the amfa/twu spinsters.

$400, is not chump change, but it does represent the minimum bump in pay we receive each pay check with our new Teamster agreement. Not bad at all.

I am a member. Subjectable to pay cuts, and raises. I bet we see more raises than amfa?

 

[Bob Owens]

The Teamsters did. In my mind at least. Your replies are all the same. If you don't like what is said, then it was a lie.

Is the ability to open a contract early something that only the IBT has, or couldn't any union, including the one we have now do exactly what you say the Teamsters can do?

I'm not saying you are lying,and I've avoided commenting but to say that the IBT and only the IBT can do that would simply be false. Any union can ask the company to reopen a contract, and the company can tell any union to come back at the amendable date.

 

[swamt]

Anomaly, on 17 August 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

I am of the opinion that the IBT CAN AND WILL reopen the AA contract if chosen to be the representational bargaining agent. This is my educated guess based on information I have been able to find on the web.


This is the first time I have seen or read it posted this way. I have always read "will be" or that the teamsters garrenteed it. Not saying it came from you anomaly, just saying that is what I've read. Sorry to tell you Anomaly, it is not automatic "BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED HAVE TO AGREE TO THE RE-OPENER". It's the exact same if the company wants to re-open in the middle of a contract, both sides have to agree, and either side can say, "no, we will open upon the ending date of current contract". Beware my friend, find the correct answers prior to your voting for any union no matter who it is.

 

[4A Mechanic]

Anomaly, you reference letters from attorneys and then claim that this is your "educated guess". While this maybe your opinion on this topic, many have a different view as to what would take place during a transfer of representation. I have viewed some of your info as informative, but as you know, everything is subjective.

 

[Anomaly]

Is the ability to open a contract early something that only the IBT has, or couldn't any union, including the one we have now do exactly what you say the Teamsters can do?

I'm not saying you are lying,and I've avoided commenting but to say that the IBT and only the IBT can do that would simply be false. Any union can ask the company to reopen a contract, and the company can tell any union to come back at the amendable date.

Apparently not amfa. They have already given up, and I never claimed only the IBT can do this. The Teamsters, so far, are the only ones who have decided to take on the issue.

Until I am proven otherwise, I am going to go with the IBT attorney that a reasonable argument to challenge the NMB ruling can be successfully made. The argument looks convincing enough to me that a new representing group can make a demand on the company to force them in to section 6 negotiations based upon the fact alone that the representational body has changed. I base my opinion solely on the lack of court proceedings and the opinions of the IBT attorney (copied below).

In this, he makes some strong claims in a merger situation, but the same argument can be successful for a basic change in unions.

I'll give it a week before the amfa circus clown Seeham catches on and starts singing a different tune.

Then the new campaign will be "join amfa and open section 6."

Wanna make a wager on that?

Bob, I am not advocating that the AA mechanics should change away from the TWU. But to turn to amfa, is truly jumping in to the fire. We made that mistake once before too.



This letter is in response to your request for our legal opinion concerning the right of a newly-certified representative under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA&rdquo to bargain over the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of employees already covered by an existing collective bargaining agreement negotiated by their prior representative. The law on this issue is clear. A newly-certified representative can serve a Section 6 opener and the Carrier is obligated to negotiate over the terms of a new agreement. The starting point for such negotiations is the existing the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of employees established by their existing agreement. Further, a carrier may not refuse to negotiate with a newly-certified representative on the basis that the employees it represents are already covered by a collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated by a previous representative regardless of when the existing agreement becomes amendable.

The duty of a carrier to treat – i.e., to negotiate – with the certified representative of its employees over rates of pay, rules, and working conditions arises when the National Mediation Board (“NMB&rdquo certifies a representative for its employees pursuant to Section 2, Ninth of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth. Section 2, Ninth provides, in relevant part, that “pon receipt of such certification the carrier shall treat with the representative so certified as the representative of the craft or class.” Id. That duty to treat with the certified representative is not nullified simply because the employees are already covered by an existing agreement that has not otherwise become amendable.

In Ass’n of Flight Attendants (AFA) v. USAir, Inc., 24 F.3d 1432 (D.C. Cir. 1995), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit described a carrier’s duty to bargain after a change in representative. It did so in addressing AFA’s effort to apply its collective bargaining agreement with USAir to the much smaller flight attendant work group employed by Trump Shuttle and previously represented by the Transportation Workers Union (“TWU&rdquo following USAir’s assumption of managerial control of the Shuttle. The Court of Appeals held that the status quo applicable to the Shuttle employees (i.e., their existing rates of pay, rules and working conditions) was set by their existing collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the TWU and that the status quo prevailed until modified by an agreement between AFA and the carrier. Id. at 1439-40.

The status quo is significant for two important reasons. It contains the starting point for the parties’ negotiations and the parties are forbidden from unilaterally altering the status quo except in the manner prescribed in Section 6 of the RLA. 45 U.S.C. §§ 152, Seventh; Id. at 1440. Indeed, as noted by the Court of Appeals in AFA, 24 F.3d at 1438, this has been the policy of the NMB since its inception in 1934:

When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one


set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreements made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD 23-24 (1935). Moreover, the NMB has explained that “the purpose of such policy is to emphasize a principle of the Railway Labor Act that agreements are between the employees and the carrier and that the change of an employee representative does not automatically change the contents of an agreement.” FORTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD 39 (1976).

But, this does not mean that the newly-certified representative is prevented form pursuing new terms of employment or that it is locked into the status quo for any prescribed period of time. AFA, 24 F.3d at 1440. As the Court of Appeals explained, a carrier “cannot refuse to bargain over new terms based on a claim that bargaining has been settled under the pre-existing contract.” Id. “Instead, we hold that a newly certified union in situation such as this one has full bargaining rights with respect to covered employees without regard to whether the employees previously have been covered by a collective bargaining agreement.” Id.; accord, Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass’n 387 F.3d 298, 316-17 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing AFA, 24 F.3d 1432).

The decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was bolstered by its rejection of the notion that USAir or AFA were bund by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the TWU for the flight attendants employed by the Trump Shuttle. The Court rejected that notion out of hand, reasoning, “it is also clear that neither USAir nor AFA is contractually bound by the Eastern-TWU agreement, for these parties have not assented to any of the terms of that agreement.” Id. “The application of one union’s collective bargaining agreement to another union’s members would create a situation where those members would have, in effect, two representatives. But, one could no more have two exclusive representatives than, to use the old baseball expression, ‘two men on second base.’” AFA v. United Airlines, 71 F.3d 915, 918 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Therefore, while a successor representative inherits the contract agreed to by its predecessor as the status quo, the carrier is obliged to agree to commence negotiations over intended changes in the agreement within thirty days of receiving notice of such changes pursuant to Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156, even though a later amendable date appears in the existing agreement.

Very truly yours, ​

Joshua D. McInerney