TWU negotiations.........what?

[Hackman]

Doesn't your articles prove that Chicago citizens can own handguns?


Maybe you should layoff the caffein.

What part of handgun ban did you not understand????

Maybe you should lay off the Meth......

"After Heller, petitioners filed this federalsuit against the City, which was consolidated with two related ac-tions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several re-lated City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amend-ments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are un-constitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previouslyhad upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban"

 

[Tex-Mech]

Speaking of ORD. I see Gilboy the sellout is against a release. As the last of the IEB blessed sellouts, he is still holding the international line.

After the report to the full M&R Negotiating Committee, a motion was made “to request a formal release from the NMB dated October 7, 2011”. In addition to the motion, a roll-call vote was requested. The following are the results of that vote:

Robert Todd (Against)
Brian McMahon (For)
Mike Rubel (Against)
Don Dougherty (Against)
John Hewitt (Against)
John Carlisle (Against)
Charlie Meyer (Against)
Jorge Rojas (For)
Eddie Suarez (For)
Bob Owens (For)
Scott Reardon (For)
Steve Gilboy (Against)
John Ruiz (For)
Bill Houseman (For)
Gary Peterson (For)
Larry Pike (For)
John Compton (For)
Vinnie Argentina (not present)
John Mizwa (not present)
Glenn Jeanes (not present)
Howard Blaydes (not present)

This motion failed.

A subsequent motion was made: "that if following the M&R Negotiating Committee's next meeting, a Tentative Agreement was not reached, then the TWU M&R Negotiating Committee would formally file with the NMB to be released from negotiations no later than November 30, 2011". In addition to the motion, this motion was also requested to be a roll-call vote. The following are the results of that vote:

Robert Todd (Against)
Brian McMahon (For)
Mike Rubel (Against)
Don Dougherty (Against)
John Hewitt (For)
John Carlisle (For)
Charlie Meyer (Against)
Jorge Rojas (For)
Eddie Suarez (For)
Bob Owens (For)
Scott Reardon (For)
Steve Gilboy (Against)
John Ruiz (For)
Bill Houseman (For)
Gary Peterson (For)
Larry Pike (For)
John Compton (For)
Vinnie Argentina (not present)
John Mizwa (not present)
Glenn Jeanes (not present)
Howard Blaydes (not present)

 

[OldGuy@AA]

Speaking of ORD. I see Gilboy the sellout is against a release. As the last of the IEB blessed sellouts, he is still holding the international line.

Looks to me like the vote was 10 for the motion and 7 against with 4 not present. So if you aren't there you are against the motion? Am I missing something here? How did the motion fail when there were more for than against? Are we using Oklahoma math?

 

[odie01]

Looks to me like the vote was 10 for the motion and 7 against with 4 not present. So if you aren't there you are against the motion? Am I missing something here? How did the motion fail when there were more for than against? Are we using Oklahoma math?

Good question for Bob Owens, Bob?

Also, what's going to change from this session to the next one in Nov.? What was the reasoning for waiting till the end of Nov. to formally be denied a release?

To many monkey's Fking this football

 

[Tex-Mech]

Looks to me like the vote was 10 for the motion and 7 against with 4 not present. So if you aren't there you are against the motion? Am I missing something here? How did the motion fail when there were more for than against? Are we using Oklahoma math?

It says that the rollcall vote was pulled. That means that what Tulsa wants, Tulsa gets, since they have like half the union members.

 

[Buck]

Looks to me like the vote was 10 for the motion and 7 against with 4 not present. So if you aren't there you are against the motion? Am I missing something here? How did the motion fail when there were more for than against? Are we using Oklahoma TWU math?

 

[TWU informer]

It says that the rollcall vote was pulled. That means that what Tulsa wants, Tulsa gets, since they have like half the union members.

Really? Even though John Hewitt and John Carlise, both from Tulsa voted for release?
Yeah blame Tulsa that's it. Keeping driving that wedge and then bitching we dont have a union.
Maybe we should go sign cards and put in a union strucutre that is one man-one vote, stomp on democracy and then we can find something else to blame.



Robert Todd (Against)
Brian McMahon (For)
Mike Rubel (Against)
Don Dougherty (Against)
John Hewitt (For)
John Carlisle (For)
Charlie Meyer (Against)
Jorge Rojas (For)
Eddie Suarez (For)
Bob Owens (For)
Scott Reardon (For)
Steve Gilboy (Against)
John Ruiz (For)
Bill Houseman (For)
Gary Peterson (For)
Larry Pike (For)
John Compton (For)
Vinnie Argentina (not present)
John Mizwa (not present)
Glenn Jeanes (not present)
Howard Blaydes (not present)

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm flattered that you researched my posting, but if I remember correctly Bob was writing a lot of rhetoric that I didn't agree with. Going on strike for 20% pay cut and laying off 51% of the work force, losing health ins,OH, pensions, are all worthy strike reasons, but to go on strike because the company is offering close to a 3 dollar an hour raise and OH has to work weekends is NOT strike worthy in line mechs views.

Perhaps not, but if you were a line mechanic at a Class II station then raising the ASM cap certainly was a good reason to vote NO. That along with the fact that the System Protection date was not rolled up should have been another. What good is the increase if you wont be here to collect it?

Another thing that you obviously did not consider is the new language as far as explicitely allowing the company to spin off up to 25% of the "value" of the maintenance operation without the buyer taking care of the TWU guys affected by it, that along with the failure to roll up system protection would have allowed the company to spin off Tulsa within a few years. Interesting thing about that language was that even though we were told that it was written up by TWU lawyers the Committee never saw it until AFTER the company had accepted it!!! Kind of gives you a peek behind the curtain doesnt it? There are already enough people without system protection where the company could shut down AFW and shed 1500 TWU workers, plus anyone else working there. With ZERO growth in headcount we could expect that number to go up by at least 500 per year. When you consider bump and rolls, and that many system protected guys would choose the street because they refuse to relocate(many have spouses that have higher wages) they would not have to wait until they reached 5000 without system protection to go after Tulsa and that would have a huge impact on most guys on the line.

Not once have I heard "That's BS and we're not going to stand for OH working weekends" Regardless I don't think the NMB is going to release us, and I know a majority of the negotiating committee doesn't want to be released yet anyway, so strike talk is a moot point.

What makes you say that? The majority of the committee voted YES on both votes. Also what has you convinced that the weekends was the only issue for OH? After all the current contract has weekend coverage at the bases but its limited by the 1/7th rule. So 1/7th can work Saturday, 1/7th can work Sunday and 1/7th can work Saturday and Sunday. So for the 3/7ths that work part or all the weekend do you think that 7 day coverage was their major issue? IIRC 2/3rds of Tulsa voted NO and 80% of AFW voted NO.

 

[Bob Owens]

I shoulda been clearer; I know it only goes to 65. I personally want to get outta dodge as early as possible. I assume others do too, which is why it's important. Life's too short to be playing airport until almost 70. Didn't realize AA's bridge coverage was so poor; at NW, ours is/was actually pretty good.

Care to share the details?

 

[Bob Owens]

I'd be rather happy to take back my prefunding and work 5 more 'til 65 years of age.

Remember - the "retiree medical" only applies if one is less than 65 and not covered by Medicare - ie, retires early. It's a "bridge", so to speak, made up of "insurance" of such low quality it's really not worth having - however, if one actually needs it according to some who got caught in the company's trap, it's better than not having any.

Just another stinking pile of crap that's been held over our heads like the pension by union lies.

I want the option to keep or reject it with a refund (including interest) of all prefunding paid during the past 20+ years.

Prefunding provides coverage for your spouse, generally men marry younger women, the lucky ones much younger (just kidding) so if you retire at 65 and your wife isnt you would have to pay out of pocket for coverage for her.

I believe you may be able opt out if you like at any time and get your money back, I've never come across anybody that wanted to.

Prefunding is a good plan, not as good as a completely company plan funded like we gave up 15 years ahead of anybody else to get it, but in todays enviornment a good plan. The company has tried to sabotage it, by buying TWA. When the plan was started AA had a young workforce, our contributions more than made up for the workers who were already near retirement when the plan was started. AA saved a bundle for all those years leading up to the aquisition of TWA, however aquiring TWA changed that, TWA was in decline for many years, they had an older workforce and when those guys were added most would not be paying into the plan for at least 25 years like the majority of AA workers. So the liabilities increased dramatically. Now that some competitors have shed their retiree medical through BK AA no longer has that advantage over them, so they want to get rid of it. This isnt the TWA guys fault, they, like us, had no part in the decision making process but it is yet another example of Corporate America creating a mess and expecting its workers to accept responsibility for it.

 

[odie01]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/08/3428838/mitchell-schnurman-arpeys-tenure.html

 

[odie01]

The TWU International 10/03/11 Paid TOO MUCH
The TWU International wins all together.
If you been following the TWU epic support of the protesters occupying Wall St, you'll notice Local 100 president John Samuelson in the forefront and filing suit against NYC. Jim Little and his cronies at the International have been AWOL. Instead, the TWU International will be "occupying" the posh Gaylord Texas at $300/night. This quarterly party, masquerading under a TWU IEC meeting, will be paid by our dues. Jim, enjoy your Remy Martin Louis XIII cognac, while Bob Gless receives a massage from a pair of Scandinavian beauties, and John Conley dines management at the Paradise Springs . . . what better way to support the working-class revolt in New York City.
Click on this link to see what luxury they're wrapped in.
http://www.gaylordhotels.com/gaylord-texan/index.html
Here is the resolution passed by the TWU’s International Executive Council Oct 6, 2011:
"The International Executive Council of the Transport Workers Union of America, at our Fall Council meeting, hereby empowers our International Officers, and calls on all of our Locals in all Divisions to support Occupy Wall Street and similar activity in other states. We encourage emphasis be placed on Corporate Greed, Job Creation, and the impact on working families."
Jim Little and the International cronies, in the ultimate gesture of sacrifice, passed this resolution at the pool-side bar getting a foot massage and sipping pina coladas . . . those poor bastards. Meanwhile, TWU Local officers John Samuelson, Dave Virella, and Chuck Schalk actually occupied Wall Street with protesters.

 

[Kev3188]

Care to share the details?

Sure.

It's basically the same plan that active PMNW employees still have available under our CBA. Retirees pay 1/2 the premium, and can be covered until the month they turn 65. Same with their spouses. Annual deductible is $350 (or $700 for family). 80/20 plan, and Out of pocket max is 1k per person. We don't do any kind of pre-funding that I know of.

 

[Bob Owens]

It says that the rollcall vote was pulled.

Correct, based on 2007 Headcount numbers.

I have no problem with one man one vote but the weighted vote(roll call) is patently un-democratic, especially when the rules are Fluid. Some times only the President carries the weighted vote, sometimes who ever happens to be there carries it.

One man one vote is each man gets to cast a vote.

Less than half the people in Tulsa voted for any candidate yet in the weighted vote whoever wins gets to vote for them in a weighted vote. Its one thing to vote as the representative but another to vote for them. In past elections we have seen where despite the fact that Tulsa has around 5000 members people take office with less than 1000 total votes. There are no run-off elections per the TWU Constitution so majority doesnt rule, just simply which candidate got the most votes out of an unlimited field of candidates and not neccisarily the majority of the votes cast.

IMO the Presidents Council and Negotiating committee should be like our Senate, the Senator from Rhode Island has the same vote as the Senator from California. The membership is is like the Congress, the number of votes (congressmen) is based upon the number of citizens. As long as the vote has to go through both houses its Democratic and as fair as it can be. If Rhode Island and a few other states push through something that California doesnt like California can get their greater number of Congressmen to try and kill it, just Like Tulsa representatives could always go directly to their members and get them to vote against anything that smaller locals helped push through at the table. A proper check and balance that would be more reflective of the true feelings of the majority of the members would be for the Committee members to have the option in the event of a dissagreement to have a membership refferendum on the issue with just a Second on the motion for refferendum, like the current weighted vote. So lets say Tulsa felt that the Line stations were trying to ram something through that it did not want, they could stall the proicess and have it go to the floor, where their members could cast votes directly on the issue. Just the ability to delay an undesired outcome would provide enough incentive for compromise.

We often hear of unity, but if there is no equality then there can be no unity. If one guy sits at the table with more votes than the guy sitting next to him then they are not equal. I hear many complaints at the table about how putting stuff on the blogs and revealing what goes on hurts the process, that it lets the company know things that they should not know but the fact is this process is broken, deceitful (the real reason for the desire for secrecy) and harmful to our members. Its been that way for a long time, long before I ever showed up. Letting our members know what the company has known all along, since half the people on the company's side came from the Union side, can only help bring about the changes that are needed.

Getting rid of the Weighted Vote would be one step in the right direction. But then again is it this way by accident or by design?

 

[Birdman]

We often hear of unity, but if there is no equality then there can be no unity. If one guy sits at the table with more votes than the guy sitting next to him then they are not equal.

514's idea of democracy in the past included "a no show is a no note". We can all face the fact there will never be unity in this union.