TWU-IAM Association thread

[MetalMover]

I believe you. I just don't think everyone felt/feels the same way.

Of course everyone does not share the same feelings. Otherwise the TWU would be long gone.

 

[700UW]

There is a one year bar

 

[Kev3188]

Of course everyone does not share the same feelings. Otherwise the TWU would be long gone.

Right.

And I get that what I posted early is a bit of a "water is wet" type of thing, but before any real change can occur, you have to figure out how to reach those who either don't think things are all that bad, or that have lost all hope, and are just hanging on for the ride...

 

[skydrol]

Sad, but true. Nothing was more evident than the TWU agreeing to toss in the 5 and 5 early out package as part of that industry leading 6.5% over six year 1995 contract. As it turned out the 5 and 5 was offered to ALL AA employees at that time, both union and non union. But by allowing it to be included in the contract helped sell out the less senior people for six more years. Typical TWU negotiating tactics, if it is not pitting the base against the line, it is pitting the senior vs the junior.
The only problem this time is that there is no 5 and 5 out offer thanks to frozen pensions. And they can't afford to have another mass exodus of senior mechanics with so many new, less experienced mechanics coming in. 
So I really don't see what offer there possible could be to entice senior people to sell out junior people.

This time it will be the opposite.

 

[1AA]

There is a one year bar

And you can confirm this how? Forget about the NMB representational manual because the NMB had been known to not follow their own rules.

 

[WeAAsles]

Of course everyone does not share the same feelings. Otherwise the TWU would be long gone.

Metal the fact of the matter is simple. It's all about Geography. Most of the people who come on here and complain are based out of NYC and high COL areas. But JFK seems to be the root. That CNN COL calculator I've posted shows that a guy in TUL making that same $75,000 in JFK would have the equivalent of making $144,000 in TUL. And the guy in CLT makes the equivalent of $134,000, DFW $132,000. Even MIA hits $114,000.

But the gripe I hear the most is about TUL on here. Why really would a guy in TUL want to rock that boat? If you were in JFK and making $144,000 per year would you?

That's your problem why so many people don't hate the TWU as much as you think they do.

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/

 

[Realityck]

Sad, but true. Nothing was more evident than the TWU agreeing to toss in the 5 and 5 early out package as part of that industry leading 6.5% over six year 1995 contract. As it turned out the 5 and 5 was offered to ALL AA employees at that time, both union and non union. But by allowing it to be included in the contract helped sell out the less senior people for six more years. Typical TWU negotiating tactics, if it is not pitting the base against the line, it is pitting the senior vs the junior.
The only problem this time is that there is no 5 and 5 out offer thanks to frozen pensions. And they can't afford to have another mass exodus of senior mechanics with so many new, less experienced mechanics coming in. 
So I really don't see what offer there possible could be to entice senior people to sell out junior people.

 
 
The 5+5 early-out proposal in the 1995 Negotiations was not put forward by Union Negotiators. You should read Case No. [SIZE=11pt]M-1513-96 (your Local President should be able to provide you with a copy). The Company proposed the early-out so they could create Tulsa vacancies to be back-filled by their laid off AMT’s:[/SIZE]
 
As stated by Arbitrator Eaton: “The 1995 Contract negotiations took place in an environment in the aviation industry that was one of the most difficult in years, and in which employees of other airlines had taken pay cuts, or exchanged contractual benefits for stock in the Company. To complicate matters, there were some 1,000 Mechanics on layoff at the Tulsa base, and the Company was discussing the outsourcing of some functions. The Union therefore agreed that accommodations would have to be made to reduce costs. The Shop Repairperson (SRP) provision was inserted into the agreement with this intention”.
 
Tulsa & AFW Ovhl shops were at risk for outsourcing and as it was described to me, this was done because even at then healthy carriers like NWA and Delta this type work was being outsourced.
 
Overhaul members on the committee supported the SRP as an alternative with the following restrictions: no SRP could be hired until all Tulsa & AFW AMTs, were recalled from layoff. Once recalled they were job protected, as well as every AMT replacement at a line station due to the application of this provision. Also, if an AMT subsequently displaced into an SRP position due to a RIF at either base, they would continue to receive their AMT pay and License Premium

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Correction:
There is NO 2 year bar on representational elections.
There is NO bar at all.
Cards can be turned in at any point because there was no election for certification.
Don't think that point is lost on the Association, they know they are on notice, and they should be.

Look, they got the gig, crooked as it was, but now it's incumbent on them to comeuppance with a contract that's worthy, and in a timely manner.

If they trip, they should be held responsible.
I'm not a fan of how they got the gig, but now that they have it , do something to warrant the position.

 
 

There is a one year bar

 
 
The Ban is for 2 years.
 
See section:18 of the NMB representational Manual - As others have pointed out already while the NMB does seem to be playing fast & loose with their own rules the Manual actually refers to the CFRs - Federal Regulations, and those clearly state that the Ban is 2 years. (NOTE: the ban is based on the fact there was a certification, even though that happened minus an election)

 

[WeAAsles]

§ 1206.4 Time limits on applications.
Except in unusual or extraordinary circumstances, the National Mediation Board will not accept an application for investigation of a representation dispute among employees of a carrier:
(a) For a period of two (2) years from the date of a certification covering the same craft or class of employees on the same carrier, and
( For a period of one (1) year from the date on which:
(1) The Board dismissed a docketed application after having conducted an election among the same craft or class of employees on the same carrier and less than a majority of valid ballots cast were for representation; or
(2) The Board dismissed a docketed application covering the same craft or class of employees on the same carrier because no dispute existed as defined in § 1206.2 of these rules; or
(3) The Board dismissed a docketed application after the applicant withdrew an application covering the same craft or class of employees on the same carrier after the application was docketed by the Board.
[44 FR 10602, Feb. 22, 1979, as amended at 75 FR 26088, May 11, 2010]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1206.4

http://twu514.org/files/2014/08/NMB-representation_manual_0909.pdf

The board did not dismiss the application so as I read it it is a 2 year bar.
 

 

[Realityck]

 
LMFAO
 
You really think going from a clearly biased post to a wikipedia post means anything?
 
You know for a group that doesn't have to worry about a representational election for about another 2 years, you guys are sounding awfully desperate.

 
 
 
How about this historical document regarding AMFA’s complaint to the APA. Note the B scale Plan negotiated by Seham, and forced on TWU members in 1983 and whose negotiators refused the non-merging pay scales & reduced Pension Plan forced on the Pilots.
 
[SIZE=20pt]        ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION[/SIZE]
 
                                December 14,1992
 
Mr. O. V. Delle-Femine
National Director
Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Assoc.
P. O. Box 39
Fayetteville, GA 30214
 
Mr. Delle-Femine:
 
            As the senior member of the Allied Pilots Association (APA) Board of Directors, I consider your November 17, 1992 letter to APA President LaVoy nothing more than a personal, political attack on behalf of Messrs. Martin Seham and David W. Gould, APA’S VicePresident.  It is unthinkable that you have the audacity to question the prerogative and right of the President of APA to change General Counsel. Your intrusive meddling into APA's affairs, business, and policy is a most appallingly deceitful and cowardly act. When did our President or Association ever question or meddle in your association's affairs?
 
            Since you have decided to interfere by making erroneous and disparaging political statements against our President and Association, allow me to respond. Mr. Delle-Femine, there are six billion people in this world. It is an amazing coincidence to me that you courtesy-copied your letter only to David W. Gould, the only person who has stated his intentions to lead the recall of President LaVoy. The Vice President has neither a legal say in, nor a vote in the selection of APA's General Counsel. This being the case, the sole purpose for copying Mr. Gould is obvious to even the most naive political observer: to help him undermine President LaVoy.
 
            This is not the first time Mr. Gould has been the ringleader of a political circus. Duringa Department of Labor-supervised election, Mr. Gould tried to seat himself prior to the election certification, even though the premature-seating was ruled out of order by the parliamentarian and the chair. That fiasco cost the membership approximately $50,000 for the special Board Meeting Mr. Gould's adherents called.
 
            Currently, the smoke screen for Mr. Gould's divisive political agenda is the General Counsel issue. Once again, the membership will foot the bill for Vice President Gould's politica1 activities. Confrontational behavior and zealous, self-righteous ranting seems to have become Mr. Gould's trademark. Let's examine Mr. Seham's record a little more closely; unlike you, I was there.
 
                                                                        1983 CONTRACT
 
After deregulation, the APA leadership had it's first chance to show their negotiating skills and determination.  With Mr. Seham's counsel and help, they created the most anti-union “B Scale” ever devised. The A-Scale pilots' pay would be subsidized by the B-Scale pilots, or, as Mr. Seham said, the A-Scale pilots kept their present level of-pay and benefits "all at the cost of reduced salaries for newly-hired pilots." Essentially, the negotiators and Mr. Seham agreed that professional pilots at American Airlines were worth less than half of their current wages. Next came the classic management tactic of "divide and conquer” in the form of Supplement B, written by Mr. Seham. Basically, Supplement B stipulates that A-Scale and B-Scale pilots shall never be equal. Mr. Seham drafted management’s dream come true - a permanently divided union at a time the Company was under no financial difficulty.
 
                                                                        1987 CONTRACT
 
Having set the stage in 1983, the big payoff for management was the 1987 contract. With the union now divided, APA negotiators agree to gut our work rules,  granted a less than one and one-half percent pay raise per year for the A-Scale pilots, and compensation for the B-Scale pilots far below the market level. As the icing on the cake, they gave away our scope clause,
to allow management to buy and operate commuter airlines flying up to seventy-seat aircraft. The Company was in an excellent financial position after APA negotiated a contract that put our pilots behind in pay and benefits to everyone except Continental Airlines, so senior AMR management rewarded itself with a lucrative stock bonus plan. Mr. Seham called it a victory; for whom was it a victory?
 
                                                                        1990 CONTRACT
 
By this time, senior A-Scale pilots at AAL were flying "wide-body" aircraft for narrow-body pay rates, B-Scale was on the verge of being institutionalized, and management intended to "re- vamp" our medical benefits, once again at the expense of the new-hire pilot. Through a grassroots campaign, which climaxed in the firing of our negotiating committee, we turned things around. In the middle of a recession and war, we negotiated the best contract in seven years, while Mr. Seham had to be dragged along throughout the entire process.
 
            LUMP SUM ARBITRATION: Mr. Seham lost the Lump Sum Benefit arbitration award on the merits of the ease. The arbitrator awarded the benefit “only" to pilots hired prior to 1983 due to Supplement B, which was drafted by Mr. Seham. Four years after creating the B-Scale, one more wedge was driven into the membership by Mr. Seham's hand. It was President LaVoy, while a member of the new negotiating committee, who was able to secure the Lump Sum Benefit for all pilots and bring the members together, not Mr. Seham.
 
            MIA TDY: Mr. Seham lost the MIA TDY arbitration case that was initiated by the former president.
 
            APA EAGLE STRUCTURE: Under Mr. Seham's counsel in 1986, the former negotiating committee gutted our scope clause to allow the Company to buy Eagle commuter airlines. Later in 1987, the former APA president appointed an Ad Hoc committee (two of the members were also negotiators), to determine if Eagle pilots should be APA members and sit on the APA Board of Directors. With the advice and counsel of Mr. Seham, they took in the Eagle pilots and created the structure currently in place.
 
            APA DRUG TESTING AGREEMENT: With Mr. Seham's counsel, his son helped negotiate our drug testing agreement. Mr. Seham boasted how his son did a “bang up job". The Sehams did a bang up job all right, but tor management, not the pilots. The agreement must be an historic first. The union actually negotiated to fire it's own pilots. The more restrictive than the government regulation itself.  Management loved it so much, they gave this agreement, paid for by our members, to all other employee groups.
 
Do you think Mr. Crandall is relieved because he does not have to face "the man who beat him at every turn"?    Sir, all I can say is, you don't know Mr. Crandall. It is my opinion that he would love to keep Mr. Seham for the next round of negotiations.
 
            After twenty-five years of Mr. Seham's counsel, the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association actively represents no one. Essentially, your union is "on paper" only. Such a record speaks volumes about your choice of counsel.
 
                                                                                                                        Sincerely,
 
                                                                                                                        Captain Dennis Petretti
                                                                                                                                    Chairman, LGA
 
 
cc:  APA National  Officers
APA Board of Directors

 

[Real tired]

Sad, but true. Nothing was more evident than the TWU agreeing to toss in the 5 and 5 early out package as part of that industry leading 6.5% over six year 1995 contract. As it turned out the 5 and 5 was offered to ALL AA employees at that time, both union and non union. But by allowing it to be included in the contract helped sell out the less senior people for six more years. Typical TWU negotiating tactics, if it is not pitting the base against the line, it is pitting the senior vs the junior.
The only problem this time is that there is no 5 and 5 out offer thanks to frozen pensions. And they can't afford to have another mass exodus of senior mechanics with so many new, less experienced mechanics coming in. 
So I really don't see what offer there possible could be to entice senior people to sell out junior people.

Could you please tell me what a "5 and 5 early out package" is, or was?

 

[Vortilon]

Could you please tell me what a "5 and 5 early out package" is, or was?

Adding 5 years to your age, and 5 years to your time worked with the company for your retirement formula.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

How about this historical document regarding AMFA’s complaint to the APA. Note the B scale Plan negotiated by Seham, and forced on TWU members in 1983 and whose negotiators refused the non-merging pay scales & reduced Pension Plan forced on the Pilots.
[SIZE=20pt]        [/SIZE]

 
OMFG! ROTFLMAO!
 
Your laughable attempts to try and continue peddling this B-scale crap, are taking your normal absurdity to epic levels.
 
Lets review some FACTS shall we ....
 
Seham was part of APAs founding in 1963
 
Seham was part of the B-scale negotiations in 1983
 
Seham was released as APA general counsel in 1992
 
In short, Seham worked for APA for nearly 30 YEARS in total - After the 1983 B-scale contract he worked for APA for almost 10 YEARS - Seham did not negotiate APA contracts by himself - he did not vote in ANY contract referendum, therefore he DID NOT FORCE ANYTHING on APA Pilots. 
 
Its obvious from the letter the APA president was under mounting political pressure from internal adversaries and obviously had a issues with Seham. As he states in his letter, it is his right and prerogative as APA president to change general counsel.  Anyone without an obvious anti-AMFA/Seham bias might wonder after almost 30 YEARS with APA, and almost 10 YEARS after the 1983 B-scale contract if Sehams release had more to do with personal issues with the President than any actual fault in his counsel.

 

[MetalMover]

 
 
The 5+5 early-out proposal in the 1995 Negotiations was not put forward by Union Negotiators. You should read Case No. [SIZE=11pt]M-1513-96 (your Local President should be able to provide you with a copy). The Company proposed the early-out so they could create Tulsa vacancies to be back-filled by their laid off AMT’s:[/SIZE]
 
As stated by Arbitrator Eaton: “The 1995 Contract negotiations took place in an environment in the aviation industry that was one of the most difficult in years, and in which employees of other airlines had taken pay cuts, or exchanged contractual benefits for stock in the Company. To complicate matters, there were some 1,000 Mechanics on layoff at the Tulsa base, and the Company was discussing the outsourcing of some functions. The Union therefore agreed that accommodations would have to be made to reduce costs. The Shop Repairperson (SRP) provision was inserted into the agreement with this intention”.
 
Tulsa & AFW Ovhl shops were at risk for outsourcing and as it was described to me, this was done because even at then healthy carriers like NWA and Delta this type work was being outsourced.
 
Overhaul members on the committee supported the SRP as an alternative with the following restrictions: no SRP could be hired until all Tulsa & AFW AMTs, were recalled from layoff. Once recalled they were job protected, as well as every AMT replacement at a line station due to the application of this provision. Also, if an AMT subsequently displaced into an SRP position due to a RIF at either base, they would continue to receive their AMT pay and License Premium

First of all I didn't say the TWU put the 5 and 5 in. I said they agreed to include in our contract. Management and non union people alike got the 5 and 5. 
But thanks for showing everyone WHY it was put in the contract....Once again to save TULSA and the bases. 
Tell me....WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL OUR PROTECTIONS?

 

[MetalMover]

This time it will be the opposite.

You are probably right.....From what I can gage on the floor, everyone is going gaga over the Delta + 7% and will probably give a rat's arse about language.