TWU-IAM Finally Getting Ready for JCBA Negotiations

[1AA]

So if the nmb posted this notice in the work place and it clearly states it's intentions of proper representation through a vote if eligible, then there will be a vote if the filing met all requirements. If no vote is allowed then why would the nmb entertain the associations request? They say everyone is entitled to representation or even have the right to vote out any representation and go no union. Any takers?

 

[scorpion 2]

So if the nmb posted this notice in the work place and it clearly states it's intentions of proper representation through a vote if eligible, then there will be a vote if the filing met all requirements. If no vote is allowed then why would the nmb entertain the associations request? They say everyone is entitled to representation or even have the right to vote out any representation and go no union. Any takers?

The sad part is that the NMB is the one interfering with the election process.

 

[NYer]

So you list a slew of posters who made the same mistake as you? So what?
 
Here is a link to the NMB representational manual
 
http://www.nmb.gov/services/representation/
 
Just show me where it lists SCS

The point is that the two descriptions are interchangeable, regardless of which set of words used they both point towards the same thing. What the NMB calls their "Single Transportation System" others refer to it as a "Single Carrier Status."

 

[NYer]

And if the b
igger group is successful in booting their present agent and want no part of the ass then what? Do they just absorb the smaller group and make it go away? This isnt making any sense.

Any other group would need to show interest of 50%, plus one on the entire group. So if an outfit like AMFA, AMP or the IBT want to take over they need to get a majority of the AA and US combined numbers.

 

[scorpion 2]

Any other group would need to show interest of 50%, plus one on the entire group. So if an outfit like AMFA, AMP or the IBT want to take over they need to get a majority of the AA and US combined numbers.

OK''' Back to the beginning of the circle. How can a smaller group coattail onto a larger incumbent? The twu is the only group with a 50 plus  one seniority list.large enough to qualify for showing of interest without cards.  Where does it say that all incumbents are exempt from showing of interest regardless of size? What if there were 3 incumbent unions involved,  all three stay?  First you say the unions stay separate from each other but then are considered one group after the alliance for card drive purposes. You cant have both.   

 

[CMH_GSE]

Any other group would need to show interest of 50%, plus one on the entire group. So if an outfit like AMFA, AMP or the IBT want to take over they need to get a majority of the AA and US combined numbers.

OK''' Back to the beginning of the circle. How can a smaller group coattail onto a larger incumbent? The twu is the only group with a 50 plus  one seniority list.large enough to qualify for showing of interest without cards.  Where does it say that all incumbents are exempt from showing of interest regardless of size? What if there were 3 incumbent unions involved,  all three stay?  First you say the unions stay separate from each other but then are considered one group after the alliance for card drive purposes. You cant have both.

I have to say, the relentless machinations that NYer keeps trotting out to spin this abortion, just keeps getting more and more twisted.

What the TWU and IAM are attempting to do with the concoction of the association , for nothing more than to keep lining as many pockets as possible with our money, is an embarrassment, and it smells really bad.

 

[1AA]

I have to say, the relentless machinations that NYer keeps trotting out to spin this abortion, just keeps getting more and more twisted.
What the TWU and IAM are attempting to do with the concoction of the association , for nothing more than to keep lining as many pockets as possible with our money, is an embarrassment, and it smells really bad.

And do not forget the IAM sees $$$$$$$$$$ in our frozen company pension that American is still pumping millions into it. The IAM pension fund can not keep up so what do you think will happen when time comes to collect?

 

[700UW]

The IAMNPF is funded to 105% per the last review.

It wouldn't be fiduciary responsible to take on your underfunded and frozen pension.

 

[NYer]

OK''' Back to the beginning of the circle. How can a smaller group coattail onto a larger incumbent? The twu is the only group with a 50 plus  one seniority list.large enough to qualify for showing of interest without cards.  Where does it say that all incumbents are exempt from showing of interest regardless of size? What if there were 3 incumbent unions involved,  all three stay?  First you say the unions stay separate from each other but then are considered one group after the alliance for card drive purposes. You cant have both.

They're both incumbent because they're current representatives, their size doesn't matter.

The IAM by itself couldn't submit without more of a "showing of interest" but since they're filing jointly they have the necessary qualifier according to NMB rules. Since they filed jointly they can use check-off cards, a CBA or a seniority list instead of actual signed cards.

And yes, if three unions agreed to an Association and the represent the affected members then they'd all be considered incumbents.

 

[TWU informer]

They're both incumbent because they're current representatives, their size doesn't matter.

The IAM by itself couldn't submit without more of a "showing of interest" but since they're filing jointly they have the necessary qualifier according to NMB rules. Since they filed jointly they can use check-off cards, a CBA or a seniority list instead of actual signed cards.

And yes, if three unions agreed to an Association and the represent the affected members then they'd all be considered incumbents.

 
Maybe you are correct. But this is exaclty why "unions" are getting such a bad name and negative opinions amongst younger workers.
 
My check-off authorization is not showing my interest in this association. It only authorizes deduction of my union dues.
 
When we voted on the CBA, it doesn't give the representative the right to use the CBA as showing my interest in anything other than the language contained in the CBA.
 
And my name on the senoirity list? Neither the CBA or anything else ever claimed that my name on this lsit would be used for anything other than promotions/demotions/transfers ect. Not some claim that I am interested in something I never signed up for or voted on. 
 
Even if this is the NMB stance, it is about and Anti-American as it gets. No wonder organized labor is going down the tubes so fast. Dictators propogating anti democracy using under handed political influence against my freedom to choose and even paid for out of my paycheck.

 

[scorpion 2]

The IAMNPF is funded to 105% per the last review.
It wouldn't be fiduciary responsible to take on your underfunded and frozen pension.

Our pension trust would be fully funded plus some under the stricter rules of the iamnp. Our AA trust would be a major windfall for tha iamnp and ripe for miss management by those that have no skin in the game. Also when the rules can be changed when the money gets short under funding is a non issue.

 

[scorpion 2]

They're both incumbent because they're current representatives, their size doesn't matter.
The IAM by itself couldn't submit without more of a "showing of interest" but since they're filing jointly they have the necessary qualifier according to NMB rules. Since they filed jointly they can use check-off cards, a CBA or a seniority list instead of actual signed cards.
And yes, if three unions agreed to an Association and the represent the affected members then they'd all be considered incumbents.

What if 2 wanted an ass but the 3rd didnt? What if the 3rd guy was the biggest but was outnumbered by the other 2. Or any other scenario combo? This smells ripe for discrimination and exploitation of workers rights.

 

[700UW]

Our pension trust would be fully funded plus some under the stricter rules of the iamnp. Our AA trust would be a major windfall for tha iamnp and ripe for miss management by those that have no skin in the game. Also when the rules can be changed when the money gets short under funding is a non issue.

What you don understand your pension isn't fully funded and its future obligations aren't funded yet either.

 

[scorpion 2]

What you don understand your pension isn't fully funded and its future obligations aren't funded yet either.

What you are refusing to acknowledge is that if your iam pension were subject to the same guidlines as our AA pension it would be more under funded than ours. Our trust would be a windfall to the managers of the iamnp because your guidlines would be inforced on our trust making it fully funded. No ones future obligations are fully funded. Thats not even possible. How would you even know what they are?

 

[700UW]

The IAMNPF is funded to 105% and AA has already had pension relief from the reform act that was passed.
 
Your frozen pension isnt 100% funded nor has enough money to generate its liabilities without AA funding it, it was frozen for a reason, if it was fully funded and could generate enough money to pay the future liabilities it would have never been frozen.
 
I believe AA paid $781 million into last year.