TWU and Teamsters are mirror images of each other.

[swamt]

Funny the ibters keep neglecting this fact.

They claimed they could do the same thing at UA, UA told them nope, see you at the amendable date.

The IBT is lying.

Actually read carefully. Yes. The ibt/teamsters failed to re-open contract at UAL, as they promiced and garenteed they would if brought in at UAL. The teamsters supporters, mainly Anomaly and Rice, have now, or should I say, have been slowly and ever slightly been changing their tunes from their original positions about the re-opening of the contracts. In the beginning it was, the company "MUST" re-open. And the teamsters were promicing and garenteeing to re-open if they win the election. Now it seems they are saying, with a letter from the ibt attorney, Joshua, that they read it as they can and have enough to "challenge" the law. What law would there be to challenge if it were as they have been saying all along. So now they want to challenge the law. Occording to the teamsters and supporters there is nothing to challenge.

This part not directed to you 700UW. Read the letter carefully guys. It says "newly certified". "Newly certified" is when a union wins representation election at a "non certified" employer. When a union is voted to represent at an employer that was previously not represented, then they are "newly certified" therfore the company is forced to nego a new contract in good faith. If the union that gets voted to represent at an employer that was already represented, hence; only a change of representation, they are not forced to nego. However; Any union, after winning an election to represent, at an employer who was previously represented, again is simply a change in representation. The union could submit a sec 6 re-opener but, the company has to agree to it, other wise contract nego's will have to wait until the amendable date arrives.

Now with Anomaly's scenario. You guys vote the teamsters in, they submit for sec 6 re-opener, company declines, teamsters file suit. The one thing the teamsters are good at is wasting money (dues payers money). They will postpone, postpone, and postpone in court. They will drag this out as long as they can to keep the dues comming in. Then when they lose they will come up with all kinds of reteric excuses of why they lost.
Again guys; "Newly certified" means first time certified. Diferent union taking over from a previous union is exactly that, a change in representation not "newly certified". E-mail the NMB with your questions, be professional and to the point, they will answer your questions. Better yet have the teamster attorney's do it certified mail, where they have to answer it as this is a huge disagreement and needs clarifacation.

So funny to now see the back peddling from the teamsters attorney and supporters that now, "we believe there is enough information to challenge the law." So now they want to challenge a law that is not as they have been saying it is, which I do believe is an admittion of being wrong. How much more do you guys need??

 

[swamt]

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

Actually read carefully. Yes. The ibt/teamsters failed to re-open contract at UAL, as they promiced and garenteed they would if brought in at UAL. The teamsters supporters, mainly Anomaly and Rice, have now, or should I say, have been slowly and ever slightly been changing their tunes from their original positions about the re-opening of the contracts. In the beginning it was, the company "MUST" re-open. And the teamsters were promicing and garenteeing to re-open if they win the election. Now it seems they are saying, with a letter from the ibt attorney, Joshua, that they read it as they can and have enough to "challenge" the law. What law would there be to challenge if it were as they have been saying all along. So now they want to challenge the law. Occording to the teamsters and supporters there is nothing to challenge.

This part not directed to you 700UW. Read the letter carefully guys. It says "newly certified". "Newly certified" is when a union wins representation election at a "non certified" employer. When a union is voted to represent at an employer that was previously not represented, then they are "newly certified" therfore the company is forced to nego a new contract in good faith. If the union that gets voted to represent at an employer that was already represented, hence; only a change of representation, they are not forced to nego. However; Any union, after winning an election to represent, at an employer who was previously represented, again is simply a change in representation. The union could submit a sec 6 re-opener but, the company has to agree to it, other wise contract nego's will have to wait until the amendable date arrives.

Now with Anomaly's scenario. You guys vote the teamsters in, they submit for sec 6 re-opener, company declines, teamsters file suit. The one thing the teamsters are good at is wasting money (dues payers money). They will postpone, postpone, and postpone in court. They will drag this out as long as they can to keep the dues comming in. Then when they lose they will come up with all kinds of reteric excuses of why they lost.
Again guys; "Newly certified" means first time certified. Diferent union taking over from a previous union is exactly that, a change in representation not "newly certified". E-mail the NMB with your questions, be professional and to the point, they will answer your questions. Better yet have the teamster attorney's do it certified mail, where they have to answer it as this is a huge disagreement and needs clarifacation.

So funny to now see the back peddling from the teamsters attorney and supporters that now, "we believe there is enough information to challenge the law." So now they want to challenge a law that is not as they have been saying it is, which I do believe is an admittion of being wrong. How much more do you guys need??

BTW; Seeham already knows it can't be done unless both union and company agree to re-open. And yes I would be willing to wager on it. Not going to happen...

• 
  

 

[riceweevil]

RV4 "I read through this forum and I see union bashing union but I don't see any union being any better than the other union in any the above listed items that you folks are bashing each other over.

So if they are all failing at all of the above bashing items, and of those items there is not a difference period, then why not go with the one that stands the best chance at addressing your issues beyond those listed, and the one that the AMT would be the majority within? "



The best one to go with would be the One has deep pockets because it cost lots of money to take on a Multi-BILLION DOLLAR. Corporation.

IBT

 

[swamt]

RV4 "I read through this forum and I see union bashing union but I don't see any union being any better than the other union in any the above listed items that you folks are bashing each other over.

So if they are all failing at all of the above bashing items, and of those items there is not a difference period, then why not go with the one that stands the best chance at addressing your issues beyond those listed, and the one that the AMT would be the majority within? "



The best one to go with would be the One has deep pockets because it cost lots of money to take on a Multi-BILLION DOLLAR. Corporation.

IBT

Really?? So that's your whole reason. Wow. Good luck my friend, you will need it.

 

[RV4]

RV4 "I read through this forum and I see union bashing union but I don't see any union being any better than the other union in any the above listed items that you folks are bashing each other over.

So if they are all failing at all of the above bashing items, and of those items there is not a difference period, then why not go with the one that stands the best chance at addressing your issues beyond those listed, and the one that the AMT would be the majority within? "



The best one to go with would be the One has deep pockets because it cost lots of money to take on a Multi-BILLION DOLLAR. Corporation.

IBT

TWU Local 514 has about $10 Million in the bank. More than any other Local, yet it is the weakest. TWU International apparently did not spare any expense to provide professionals in court. In the end, you were still screwed. So money does not equate to strength and a different result.

When are you Tulsa bred Union Men going to realize that money and size doesn't matter?

The strength comes from the membership. The idea that AMT's can buy power, or that 1.4 Million Union Members equates to some power or union ability is funny stuff. That type of thinking is why this forum is booming with AMT from AA.

You don't pay a union to go fight for you in exchange for monthly dues. It comes from within. You are currently affiliated with the AFL-CIO which has more members and more money than the ibt has. Explain why that failed?

The AA AMT monthly dues base is more than 1/2 Million Dollars per month. That should be sufficient to administer and negotiate a contract. The "fight" or the "strength", that my friend comes from within you and the other members.

Can you provide me a description of what you mean by "Taking on a Multi-Billion Dollar Corporation"?
If your fantasy world, what does that actually look like? Just a brief vision will suffice"

 

[riceweevil]

TWU Local 514 has about $10 Million in the bank. More than any other Local, yet it is the weakest. TWU International apparently did not spare any expense to provide professionals in court. In the end, you were still screwed. So money does not equate to strength and a different result.

When are you Tulsa bred Union Men going to realize that money and size doesn't matter?

The strength comes from the membership. The idea that AMT's can buy power, or that 1.4 Million Union Members equates to some power or union ability is funny stuff. That type of thinking is why this forum is booming with AMT from AA.

You don't pay a union to go fight for you in exchange for monthly dues. It comes from within. You are currently affiliated with the AFL-CIO which has more members and more money than the ibt has. Explain why that failed?

The AA AMT monthly dues base is more than 1/2 Million Dollars per month. That should be sufficient to administer and negotiate a contract. The "fight" or the "strength", that my friend comes from within you and the other members.

Can you provide me a description of what you mean by "Taking on a Multi-Billion Dollar Corporation"?
If your fantasy world, what does that actually look like? Just a brief vision will suffice"

The only people I see here with a Disney World fantasy are the amfa supporters!

Is NWA an example of amfa's vision of a successful union? How can you have a union when you led the sheep to the slaughter at NWA?AMFA IS A BUNCH OF HAS BEEN LOSERS.
You are in a dream world if you think AA TULE will support amfa in the numbers needed to get an election. The 74% ers WILL NEVER SUPPORT amfa.

 

[odie01]

The only people I see here with a Disney World fantasy are the amfa supporters!

Is NWA an example of amfa's vision of a successful union? How can you have a union when you led the sheep to the slaughter at NWA?AMFA IS A BUNCH OF HAS BEEN LOSERS.
You are in a dream world if you think AA TULE will support amfa in the numbers needed to get an election. The 74% ers WILL NEVER SUPPORT amfa.

Educate your friends that the IAM opened up the door for outsourcing before AMFA was on property, also let them know about MCI, AFW, and most of TUL. Dumbass

 

[riceweevil]

Educate your friends that the IAM opened up the door for outsourcing before AMFA was on property, also let them know about MCI, AFW, and most of TUL. Dumbass

Hey, that's pretty cool to call amfa Now more than ever a dumbass!

 

[odie01]

Your waisting your time on this forum, do yourself and your family a favor and prepare your resume

 

[riceweevil]

Your waisting your time on this forum, do yourself and your family a favor and prepare your resume

Finally, we agree on something. This forum is a waste of time because of all the amfa losers on the AA threads AND ALL THE LIES THEY ARE SPREADING ABOUT THE IBT.

 

[Buck]

Rice: it would go a long way if you could list these lies made by the AMFA supporters and refute them.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

The concept of AMFA is great, but we need to compare results.

You know, contracts, wages, benefits.

 

[Anomaly]

Your waisting your time on this forum, do yourself and your family a favor and prepare your resume

Educate your friends that the IAM opened up the door for outsourcing before AMFA was on property, also let them know about MCI, AFW, and most of TUL. Dumbass

odie, why us it that when you refuted, corrected, or corrected, you reduced yourself to childish name calling and threats?

What are you so afraid or angry about?

 

[Anomaly]

Anomaly stated?

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


The problem here is with all the Teamsters supporters is that their claim on their fliers is that the company MUST open negotiations upon changing of representation. Now we go to it will be challenged by the attorneys of the Teamsters to the NMB. Well how long will that take? No guarantee it will be challenged and successfully applied as the Teamsters claim. MORE LIES!

Stop misleading us. It only makes you or your Teamsters look BAD! You have no creditability here anymore . Most of us ignore or skim through your comments.

Who is the liar? The Teamsters who say they will at least try to do SOMETHING, or AMFA supporters who throw their hands up and say "so sorry...... we lost' without trying?

 

[Anomaly]

anomaly's posts are highly amusing, are as those of his minions.

I am beginning to think that anomaly works for the twu.

It's hard to believe that the teamsters would be so stupid as to allow someone like anomaly to represent them.

Thanks. I too doubt the IBT or TWU would ever hire me