TWU-IAM Finally Getting Ready for JCBA Negotiations

[NYer]

 
That is plenty of education and experience to see that organized labor is failing miserably and has since the merge of the AFL and the CIO, and the "political" reliance and agenda.
 
If you really care, then stop towing the status quo line and advocate change. Read some history with an open mind and stop swimming in the kool-aid cult juice served at modern day leadership training.

 
That's funny, you're asking other to read history with an open mind...

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Time to let it go NYer they will not listen to the truth. Their agenda is set and only the NMB will prove you are right but they will continue to spin and whine.

 

[WeAAsles]

Well, let's see, does the TWU have any lawyers that could have looked into see if filing jointly in the UA Dispatchers deal was legal?

From the things I have read here on the net it looks like the TWU and PAFCA were working closely together to achieve gains for their members after the merger. After that was accomplished is when they filed and it seems that they filed on the same day but did not decide on having an association. Maybe that was extended as a courtesy by PAFCA to let people possibly be able to have the choice if the NMB had allowed it? It seems like and I'd have to inquire but that the TWU didn't fight to have the combined members write them in as an option after the NMB decision? Why the NMB had PAFCA/TWU in one line may have been nothing more than a mere formality in not having two separate lines?

PAFCA/TWU did not file as an Association to represent together.

The TWU/IAM Association did file to represent together.

 

[NYer]

Time to let it go NYer they will not listen to the truth. Their agenda is set and only the NMB will prove you are right but they will continue to spin and whine.

 
I completely agree, but my focus is all those that read the information and are truly wanting the truth. I do not pretend to reason with those whose minds are made up before the first words are even spoken.

 

[toroshark]

That is plenty of education and experience to see that organized labor is failing miserably and has since the merge of the AFL and the CIO, and the "political" reliance and agenda.
 
If you really care, then stop towing the status quo line and advocate change. Read some history with an open mind and stop swimming in the kool-aid cult juice served at modern day leadership training.

Being objective about the issues does not pad his wallet. Acting as if he is Joan of Arc to justify being a IAM sycophant is clearly obvious.

 

[700UW]

Glad to see you are name calling.
 
I am not getting paid by the IAM, is that too hard for you to understand?
 
My post was 100% the truth.
 
Think what you want, says it all about you, attack the posted when you cant refute the facts.

 

[CMH_GSE]

From the things I have read here on the net it looks like the TWU and PAFCA were working closely together to achieve gains for their members after the merger. After that was accomplished is when they filed and it seems that they filed on the same day but did not decide on having an association. Maybe that was extended as a courtesy by PATCA to let people possibly be able to have the choice if the NMB had allowed it? It seems like and I'd have to inquire but that the TWU didn't fight to have the combined members write them in as an option after the NMB decision? Why the NMB had PAFCA/TWU in one line may have been nothing more than a mere formality in not having two separate lines?
PAFCA/TWU did not file as an Association to represent together.
The TWU/IAM Association did file to represent together.

You know what , you and NYer are probly right , after all, I'm just a dumb mechanic who's had zero dealings with the NMB.

So just to review, you say PAFCA and TWU filed the same day. It says they filed "jointly" on the decision.
So does it just mean they filed the same day? Or does it mean they filed together, you know , in this cool new thing , Cumbria sing songs around the campfire and swap spit in the shower "association"?

The question begs:
If the TWU is so well versed in NMB doings, certainly more so than myself, a dumb ass mechanic, why did they file AT ALL?
After the NMB first made a determination on single transportation system, you know, to see what exactly was going to be represented, they then grabbed the nearest 5th grader to do the math on the membership to see who qualified to be a representative body, according to the current rules in place, which is 50%+1.

I still haven't found ANYTHING in NMB rules Manuel that gives a few guys the right to say, it's cool because our cool little circle jerk of friends here say it's cool because we call it an "association".

Basically, it's an association of a handful of guys , and if the NMB lets this go through, it will be the first time.

Show me ONE example that this has been run through the NMB and been accepted as writ.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

They will spin and spin. They won't seek truth regarding the PAFCA/TWU filing. Specifically.
 
1. A joint contract between PAFCA and the TWU and United was ratified.
 
2. That the contract required the PAFCA and TWU to file for single carrier jointly.
 
3. That PAFCA and TWU never formed an association to jointly represent the dispatchers..
 
4. That PAFCA wanted to represent the dispatchers
 
5. That the TWU wanted to represent the dispatchers.
 
6. The PAFCA had the numbers and the TWU did not show the required 50% showing of interest yet the NMB authorized an election.
 
Now this is where it gets funny and spinning. The guys here screaming and preaching that the NMB can't violate their own published rules are holding that this NMB authorization of election is an example of their "See this is how it is supposed to work, we win we win"

 

[WeAAsles]

You know what , you and NYer are probly right , after all, I'm just a dumb mechanic who's had zero dealings with the NMB.

So just to review, you say PAFCA and TWU filed the same day. It says they filed "jointly" on the decision.
So does it just mean they filed the same day? Or does it mean they filed together, you know , in this cool new thing , Cumbria sing songs around the campfire and swap spit in the shower "association"?
 
Adv. 1. jointly - in collaboration or cooperation; "this paper was written jointly"

I don't know. But apparently they did not file as an Association in a decision to jointly represent the combined group? The definition says collaboration or cooperation. Maybe someone would like to call either of the two sides to get the story if they're that interested?

The question begs:
If the TWU is so well versed in NMB doings, certainly more so than myself, a dumb ass mechanic, why did they file AT ALL?
After the NMB first made a determination on single transportation system, you know, to see what exactly was going to be represented, they then grabbed the nearest 5th grader to do the math on the membership to see who qualified to be a representative body, according to the current rules in place, which is 50%+1.

If they filed together in a simple form of camaraderie it could merely imply that there is no animosity between the two and that filing was meant to show that? I would give them a call and ask.

I still haven't found ANYTHING in NMB rules Manuel that gives a few guys the right to say, it's cool because our cool little circle jerk of friends here say it's cool because we call it an "association".

Basically, it's an association of a handful of guys , and if the NMB lets this go through, it will be the first time.

Will it be? Are you absolutely sure?

Show me ONE example that this has been run through the NMB and been accepted as writ.

Show me an opposite example where it was ruled against? Unlike some of you guys I'm not saying how the NMB will rule. I have no clue. But what I do know is that there are a lot of examples of Union partnerships out there. The full details of how all those partnerships came together would be far too much research for me to want to try and do. But I am sure if it's accepted by the NMB they will make it's reasoning for it very clear and concise as to avoid that litigation that I'm sure some people out there are already planning. Why else do YOU think it's taking so long?

 

[CMH_GSE]

You know what , you and NYer are probly right , after all, I'm just a dumb mechanic who's had zero dealings with the NMB.
So just to review, you say PAFCA and TWU filed the same day. It says they filed "jointly" on the decision.
So does it just mean they filed the same day? Or does it mean they filed together, you know , in this cool new thing , Cumbria sing songs around the campfire and swap spit in the shower "association"?
 
Adv. 1. jointly - in collaboration or cooperation; "this paper was written jointly"I don't know. But apparently they did not file as an Association in a decision to jointly represent the combined group? The definition says collaboration or cooperation. Maybe someone would like to call either of the two sides to get the story if they're that interested?
The question begs:
If the TWU is so well versed in NMB doings, certainly more so than myself, a dumb ass mechanic, why did they file AT ALL?
After the NMB first made a determination on single transportation system, you know, to see what exactly was going to be represented, they then grabbed the nearest 5th grader to do the math on the membership to see who qualified to be a representative body, according to the current rules in place, which is 50%+1.If they filed together in a simple form of camaraderie it could merely imply that there is no animosity between the two and that filing was meant to show that? I would give them a call and ask.
I still haven't found ANYTHING in NMB rules Manuel that gives a few guys the right to say, it's cool because our cool little circle jerk of friends here say it's cool because we call it an "association".
Basically, it's an association of a handful of guys , and if the NMB lets this go through, it will be the first time.Will it be? Are you absolutely sure?
Show me ONE example that this has been run through the NMB and been accepted as writ.Show me an opposite example where it was ruled against? Unlike some of you guys I'm not saying how the NMB will rule. I have no clue. But what I do know is that there are a lot of examples of Union partnerships out there. The full details of how all those partnerships came together would be far too much research for me to want to try and do. But I am sure if it's accepted by the NMB they will make it's reasoning for it very clear and concise as to avoid that litigation that I'm sure some people out there are already planning. Why else do YOU think it's taking so long?

I thought I just gave you a pretty good example of the NMB ruling against a dual representation.

Just my opinion, but I believe it's taking long because they trying to determine between the differences of craft and class of the two airlines.
The representation issue shouldn't take much more longer than it took in the UA Dispatchers case.

I'll admit, I had a different view of how this might come down before I started reading about some NMB decisions.
Could they go in a different direction and rule for the Ass, I guess so.
The explanation of that will be one hell of a read.
I've tried to find something resembling a decision for the Ass , have yet to find it.

To me, to hear NYer try and spin "association" as something different than "jointly" kind of smacks of Clinton trying to sell, " it depends on the what the definition of "is" is."
Nobody bought that one either.

 

[NYer]

I thought I just gave you a pretty good example of the NMB ruling against a dual representation.

Just my opinion, but I believe it's taking long because they trying to determine between the differences of craft and class of the two airlines.
The representation issue shouldn't take much more longer than it took in the UA Dispatchers case.

I'll admit, I had a different view of how this might come down before I started reading about some NMB decisions.
Could they go in a different direction and rule for the Ass, I guess so.
The explanation of that will be one hell of a read.
I've tried to find something resembling a decision for the Ass , have yet to find it.

To me, to hear NYer try and spin "association" as something different than "jointly" kind of smacks of Clinton trying to sell, " it depends on the what the definition of "is" is."
Nobody bought that one either.

 
Let's try this.
 
1--PAFCA and the TWU filed jointly (together) to represent the Dispatchers. Right?
 
2--They filed as two separate organizations, PAFCA and the TWU. Right?
 
2--The NMB decided, they would give the representation to PAFCA because they had 50%, of the total membership between themselves and the TWU. Right?
 
3--The NMB also didn't allow the TWU to be on the ballot because they didn't have the necessary numbers to qualify. Right?
 
4--Therefore, the election ballot was to contain PAFCA, but not the TWU. Right?
 
OK.....now......
 
5--The TWU and the IAM filed jointly AS the "TWU/IAM Association." (so, as far as the NMB is concerned the difference between this application and the PAFCA application is that ours comprises of THREE entities...the TWU, the IAM and the Association) 
 
6--Under NMB Rule 19.601, if you already represent the members in question all that is needed to fulfill the 50% requirement is "a seniority list, dues check-off list, a current collective bargaining agreement or other indicia of current representation."
 
7--Since the TWU and IAM filed as a third organization known as the "Association" (unlike PAFCA and TWU, which filed under their own organizations), they have met the criteria set by the NMB themselves for showing of the 50%.
 
8--If the TWU and IAM would have filed as themselves and not involved the Association, then your premise would be correct. The difference is they filed jointly as the "Association," a third party.
 
 
 

 

[WeAAsles]

I thought I just gave you a pretty good example of the NMB ruling against a dual representation.


Again they didn't file for dual representation. They just filed together on the same day and the NMB on the line item put it down as PAFCA/TWU. It may have been easier for some to understand had the NMB put it into separate lines rather than using / but they were separate filings. 

Just my opinion, but I believe it's taking long because they trying to determine between the differences of craft and class of the two airlines.
The representation issue shouldn't take much more longer than it took in the UA Dispatchers case.

Agreed. That and because I'm sure we're not the only cases that the NMB needs to decide on and we didn't just jump ahead of the line.

I'll admit, I had a different view of how this might come down before I started reading about some NMB decisions.
Could they go in a different direction and rule for the Ass, I guess so.
The explanation of that will be one hell of a read.
I've tried to find something resembling a decision for the Ass , have yet to find it.

There are plenty of Union Associations out there. How they ALL came into being is the question.

To me, to hear NYer try and spin "association" as something different than "jointly" kind of smacks of Clinton trying to sell, " it depends on the what the definition of "is" is."
Nobody bought that one either.

I posted the definition of jointly. And not to make it any type of twist but we both jointly deciding to walk in the bar together doesn't mean we're going to put 2 straws in the same beer bottle. Or even hit on the same girl.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

 
Let's try this.
 
1--PAFCA and the TWU filed jointly (together) to represent the Dispatchers. Right?
 
2--They filed as two separate organizations, PAFCA and the TWU. Right?
 
2--The NMB decided, they would give the representation to PAFCA because they had 50%, of the total membership between themselves and the TWU. Right?
 
3--The NMB also didn't allow the TWU to be on the ballot because they didn't have the necessary numbers to qualify. Right?
 
4--Therefore, the election ballot was to contain PAFCA, but not the TWU. Right?
 
OK.....now......
 
5--The TWU and the IAM filed jointly AS the "TWU/IAM Association." (so, as far as the NMB is concerned the difference between this application and the PAFCA application is that ours comprises of THREE entities...the TWU, the IAM and the Association) 
 
6--Under NMB Rule 19.601, if you already represent the members in question all that is needed to fulfill the 50% requirement is "a seniority list, dues check-off list, a current collective bargaining agreement or other indicia of current representation."
 
7--Since the TWU and IAM filed as a third organization known as the "Association" (unlike PAFCA and TWU, which filed under their own organizations), they have met the criteria set by the NMB themselves for showing of the 50%.
 
8--If the TWU and IAM would have filed as themselves and not involved the Association, then your premise would be correct. The difference is they filed jointly as the "Association," a third party.
 
 
 

9. The board found a single transportation (carrier.lol) system existed
 
10. The board did not give outright representation to PAFCA even though they had the required showing of interest and nobody else did.
 
11. The board authorized an election because even though PAFCA had plus 50% showing and the TWU didn't they determined ( the board has exclusive jurisdiction) that the PAFCA and TWU members numbers are comparable.
 
I am sorry I can't find "comparable" published anywhere in the NMB representation manual. OMG how could they do this???? LAWSUIT LAWSUIT.
 
Wait I wonder if it falls under what I pointed out before in the manual that evidence of representation or showing of interest "is not limited" .The NMB can use whatever they want.
 
It is  funny they didn't link to the statement of facts and single transportation determination for this specific  case
 
https://storage.googleapis.com/dakota-dev-content/41-NMB-No.-53.pdf
 
Hmm what does this mean and it is a direct quote
“The Board’s Authority
45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, authorizes the Board to investigate disputes arising among a carrier’s employees over representation and to certify the duly authorized representative of such employees. The Board has exclusive jurisdiction over representation questions under the RLA. General Comm. of Adjustment v. M.K.T. R.R., 320 U.S. 323 (1943); Switchmen's Union of N. Am. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 320 U.S. 297 (1943). In Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Texas Int’l Airlines, 656 F.2d 16, 22 (2d Cir. 1981), the court stated, “the NMB is empowered to . . . decide representation disputes arising out of corporate restructurings.””
 
Boy oh boy how they going to spin this one?

 

[WeAAsles]

“The Board’s Authority
45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, authorizes the Board to investigate disputes arising among a carrier’s employees over representation and to certify the duly authorized representative of such employees. The Board has exclusive jurisdiction over representation questions under the RLA. General Comm. of Adjustment v. M.K.T. R.R., 320 U.S. 323 (1943); Switchmen's Union of N. Am. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 320 U.S. 297 (1943). In Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Texas Int’l Airlines, 656 F.2d 16, 22 (2d Cir. 1981), the court stated, “the NMB is empowered to . . . decide representation disputes arising out of corporate restructurings.””
 
Boy oh boy how they going to spin this one?

 
Exclusive jurisdiction refers to power of a court to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other courts. It is the sole forum for determination of a particular type of case. Exclusive jurisdiction is decided on the basis of the subject matter dealt with by a particular court. For example, the U.S. district courts have exclusive jurisdiction on bankruptcy matters [28 USCS § 1334]. Exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on courts by the U.S. Constitution, various statutes or contract between the parties.
The jurisdiction is said to be concurrent when two or more different courts possess the authority to hear and decide on the same matter within the same territory.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exclusive-jurisdiction/

Probably pretty hard to file a Lawsuit if there isn't anyone you can file it with?

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Yep except in this case the NMB has exclusive jurisdiction. 
 
When challenged the courts have consistently ruled, just as the NMB has consistently stated,  the NMB has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes of representation.
 
Yes very hard to file and exactly what I been saying all along but you consistently dispute by saying if the NMB doesn't follow their blah blah blah "file a lawsuit, file a lawsuit"