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

[Mr.Robot-tow]

I too agree this AFL/CIO clone will pass on a award winning mid-class lowering contract on to us, brought on by American pitch "of trouble times over water".Yes using the TWU's constitution and the NRA/NRLA act's against it's own employee show how the President of the United States needs to someday look at these law's and rewrite them,to help the working stiff on the job.Why in earth would the TWU Internal indorse a man while all along he has no plans to change such laws.My beans are ready would you like some?

 

[700UW]

700UW, I disagree,American Airline employee's are indeed covered by both the NLRA and the RLA acts.Your threat's of termination for what I believe is a fundamental flaw in both the NLRA and the RLA act's will not stop me from speaking my mind on this subject it is after all a free country to speak one's own mind ,and again you twist my words,as to try to set someone up for termination,while I just stated (as in my last posting)

Better go read labor law 101 and your CBA, airline and transportation workers that are unionized are covered under the RLA, you cant be covered under both laws.

So your whole post is wrong from the get go. Wildcatting is against the RLA and your CBA, thats the bottom line and your motion for the TWU would be ruled out of order.

And by the way the NLRB has nothing to do with airline workers and the RLA, that would be the NMB.

Go educate yourself, I have been on two different negotiating committees for the IAM, I think I know what I am talking about.

 

[Bagbelt]

The president doesn't pass laws, congress does. The president can only call on congress to pass legislation which he wil sign or veto. Wildcatting is certainly possible with leadership that is willing to go for broke. However, in this day and age it would probably never happen. And even if it did, there is no gaurauntee of a happy ending.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

The NY transit tried what you are preaching they were ordered back to work it is against the law to wildcat under the RLA

 

[700UW]

I know that, you know that but it seems he is making up his own rules, telling the board wrong information.

I have been on the Negotiating Committee for the IAM at US (where I worked) for M&R and I was assigned to IAM's CO FA NC during their negotiations.

I have been to Placid Harbor and took all the leadership classes and numerous other courses.

He might not like the reality of it all but I would not post wrong information, he needs to educate himself.

For one thing I would never ever post on a message board that you should wildcat AA sued the mechanic.com to get information and who was posting similar information to try and find out what employees were posting.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Some people must learn the hard way. I myself have said things I probably should not have said but we do it out of frustration and anger. With the laws today you have to keep yourself in check mainly because the company has an unlimited supply of money when they have to pay the lawyers to fire you. Its that simple

 

[Mr.Robot-tow]

700UW,since you seem to know the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the TWU ATD division for American Airlines that represents the AMT'S, 1)show me where it states that a motion can not be brought forward on the TWU convention floor 2)Again I did not nor do not avocate a wildcat without repeat without the support of the membership of the union,and that is under Sec 7.0 and 9a of the RLA it states that if would have to be voted on by it's membership to wildcat.I am stating a "wildcat approved by the union itself to authorize locals the power to call one if nessary",I repeat I am not avocating wildcatting without approval of the TWU and it's membership.If you can not read section 7-9a of the RLA then that's to bad.I do not care if you were a IAM local steward.3)And who made you God saying the motion who never make the floor,have you ever been to a Convention with the Transport Workers Union.Or are you talking about past experience's with USAir and the IAM which filed bankruptcy,and all it's member of the IAM lose there pension,and lose pay and closed stations and merger with AmericanWest.So why not change the rules in our favor,why do you quote all this old labor laws that do nothing for you at USAIR or United Airlines.You sound defeated and beat down.Do you what to listen to new idea's or are you willing to take more on the chin.Let me know for I find your remarks rather sad that you say the TWU will shoot down the motion when your not even a member of the TWU do you know the bylaws,and the consitition of the TWU International do you know the method of how a motion is brought forth.I do have a copy of the TWU's constitition and the by-laws for the TWU International.Would you like me to explain how a motion is brought forward for vote on the floor of a convention,or whould you rather talk about right you are and how wrong I am.Again ther is nothing wrong with advocating strengthing the TWU's Constitition or by-laws and there is a proceedure for this too.I will repeat again I am not avocating wildcatting with out the express consent ot the TWU International or the TWU ATD division.So you can stop the fear mongoring about the American Airlines kicking down my front door and arresdting me for avocating change within a union.Again changing the Union's law's to ensure a fair contract.

 

[TWU informer]

The NY transit tried what you are preaching they were ordered back to work it is against the law to wildcat under the RLA

Actually the NY Transit was in violation of the "Taylor Law" which is a NY State law not the RLA.

Info Link -The Taylor Law

700UW,since you seem to know the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the TWU ATD division for American Airlines that represents the AMT'S, 1)show me where it states that a motion can not be brought forward on the TWU convention floor 2)Again I did not nor do not avocate a wildcat without repeat without the support of the membership of the union,and that is under Sec 7.0 and 9a of the RLA it states that if would have to be voted on by it's membership to wildcat.

I also agree that a motion regarding a wildcat strike would be considered out of order and a violation of the Railway Labor Act.

Just because the RLA requires membership vote to strike does not mean the action could be legally used without first exhausting the mediation, and 30 day cooling off period.

The Railway Labor is written to maintain "Status Quo" because of ties to National Secuirty and Transport of Commerce.

The TWU Constitution and By-Laws are not superior to Federal Law. Self help under the RLA is only allowed after mediation determines impasse and 30 day cooling off period is completed.

Attacking someone because they are not a TWU member when they are discussing the Railway Labor Act is a mistake. The TWU negotiations that always conclude long before any 30 day colling off period is in place and the company gets what they have demanded.

Being a TWU member and claiming to have superior knowledge of the Railway Labor Act is an oxy-moron. The TWU members are probably the least educated in the process of the Railway Labor Act because the TWU never battles long enough for the members to learn about that Act.

TWU members are more experts in CAPITULATION than the RAILWAY LABOR ACT.

But Hey, bring your motion forward inside the TWU and prove this to be incorrect...I Dare you.

TWU Consitution/By-laws procedures regarding motions from the membership have absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong and the merits of this wildcat strike arguement.

 

[700UW]

Is it that hard to understand in your own CBA the agreement you work under wildcatting is prohibited and its against the law.

Plus I am not beaten down, if you look at the last M&R CBA the IAM successfully negotiated the IAM National Pension Plan, so they got some of the pension back.

Unfortunately the RLA is stacked against workers, only Congress can change that and the all transportation unions have tried it with no success yet.

And your motion would be ruled out of order as its against Federal Law and your negotiated CBA.

Plus I was more than just a shop steward, so try again.

Oh by the way I am still waiting for you to show me how Airline Unionized workers are covered under the NLRA and NLRB has jurisdiction over those workers.

 

[Mr.Robot-tow]

Its not hard at all,you feel a CBA overrules the TWU constitution.I feel a change is need within the TWU consitutution is needed.As before I have stated the RLA act need to be change.On the NLRA website"Congress est the National Relations Board in 1935 to adminster the NLRA the primary law that governs relations between unions and their employees,and employers in the private sector.The act guarantees the employees the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their employers or to refrain from such activities.The act which generally applies to all assuring free choice and encouraging colllective bargaining as a means of maintaining peace.1)to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices,whether committed by labor org's or employers and to establish whether or not cetain certain groups of employees desire labor org's representation for collective bargining purpose's and if so which union.So as you can see we fall under different federal guideline's as far as representation,organzing,bargining and the law's that govern the neg's process.To this point I have made my case with you quite clear.I no longer wish to discuss it since we both have very different views of the directions that orgainzed labor need to go.Thanks on the info on the TWU local strike but I already knew this.Oh 700UW my class training was at the National Labor law school,George Meany course offerings.My thesis was on "Wildcatting a legal resolve to when conventional methods breakdown".

 

[700UW]

Your CBA is a legal and binding contract under Federal Law, last time I checked Federal Law supersedes a union's bylaws.

And you still havent proven to me or the boards about your thoughts on the NLRA, apparently the Government, the unions and the airlines have been negotiating and following the wrong law since 1936?

Go educate yourself, the RLA is for airlines and railroad employees who are unionized and the NMB overseas elections and mediation. Those are facts, no please disprove them.

And airline workers only follow the RLA and the NMB and the DOL administer it. Something apparently that you have a hard time understanding. No election has ever taken place for airline workers under the NLRA and the NLRB administering it.

I have worked two of the largest organizing campaigns in the airline industry and won both them, even worked one at an MRO which was done under the NLRA and NLRB, totally different process.

The Railway Labor Act became federal law in 1926 with the active support of labor and management in the railway industry. In 1936, the Act was extended to the U.S. airline industry. Today, decades later, the Act continues to provide a practical legal framework for the resolution of labor management matters in those two industries, including employee representation issues, as well as collective bargaining and contract administration processes where employees have chosen to be represented by a labor union.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Is this the same TWU in charge of negotiations at AA




August 12, 2009 --
THE MTA just managed to give away the store in the new Transport Workers Union contract -- and they couldn't have done it without Albany and City Hall.
This, in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis in decades.
Our political leaders have wasted a historic chance to win labor flexibility that would have benefited riders and taxpayers. Back in early 2008, the stars seemed aligned for the MTA to get a good three-year deal out of its 35,000-strong city labor force.
You couldn't ask for better conditions:
* The city and the state were (and are) facing multibillion-dollar budget deficits for years on end. The MTA needed a multibillion-dollar bailout.
* New Gov. Paterson wanted to take a tough line on spending.
* The TWU was at its weakest -- financially crippled after an illegal 2005 strike, and suffering political schism.
* The MTA had competent leadership that wanted to do the right thing, including cutting costs reasonably without harming service.
But yesterday, a state Public Employment Relations Board arbitration panel handed down a new three-year contract between the MTA's subsidiaries and the TWU that would be generous in boom times.
The union got nearly 11.3 percent in raises over the next three years. Yet inflation over the last decade has averaged just three-fourths of that. And recently, inflation and income growth have flirted with negative territory.
In this economy, with the average TWU member earning more than $64,000 (plus great benefits), the MTA could've maintained workforce quality even with no pay hike at all.
This giveaway eventually will cost the MTA $600 million a year.
Plus, the arbitrators ordered an MTA giveback on health benefits. Since 2005, union members have had to contribute 1.5 percent of their wages, including overtime, to health-care costs -- an average of nearly $900 a year. Now, the levy won't apply to overtime, saving each worker nearly $300 a year and costing the MTA at least $10 million.
How did we get here?
Start with political cravenness. Private-sector employers have slashed wages and jobs -- but Gov. Paterson last year refused to back up the MTA in its inconsistent attempt to hold the line on wages at best.
At the same time, Mayor Bloomberg -- though he later complained about the MTA's move, under pressure from Paterson, toward more generosity -- handed out 4 percent raises to the city workforce last fall. Paterson could plausibly claim he was just following the same (reckless) pattern.
The MTA is also at fault. First, the agency unilaterally let the TWU off the hook for its illegal 2005 strike: In late 2007, it encouraged a judge's decision to let the union once again begin automatically collecting dues from its members, replenishing its financial coffers.
Then it proved eager to please the pols in Albany and City Hall. It started abandoning its initial, responsible plan even before late last year, when it threw the contract, then under negotiation, into state arbitration.
Arbitration wasn't in the interests of riders or taxpayers: All it did was put us on the path to these giveaways, in such a way that all the politicians can avoid the blame. MTA management didn't have to go along with what Albany and City Hall wanted. It should have just let the union suffer for a while.
Yes, then-CEO Elliot Sander, a Spitzer appointee, would've risked losing his job if he crossed the new governor. But Paterson fired him a few months later, anyway.
The final ingredient was the arbitration panel selected by the state's Public Employment Relations Board to draw up the contract, supposedly independent of political forces.
One arbitrator, Dall Forsythe, tried his best (see below). But the deck was stacked against a fair contract.
One of his fellow arbitrators was the TWU's Roger Toussaint. And the third, former Abe Beame official John Zuccotti, chose the union over taxpayers.
Finally, there's the TWU concession that the MTA gave back.
Last year, the TWU tentatively agreed to let trains on two lines -- the No. 7 and the L -- run with only a driver, instead of a conductor and a driver. This isn't a good idea in all cases. But, with appropriate provision for security and emergency response, it's fine -- and could save tens of millions a year.
But the flexibility provision got left out of the official contract. The MTA did get a lesser concession: The union finally agreed to let station cleaners do basic maintenance work, instead of having to call better-paid workers from far-off stations just to change light bulbs. But the new health-care cost likely will be three times greater than the savings here. The change is long overdue, anyway.
Why did the MTA actively help arbitrators give away the store?
The MTA's "interim leadership" -- LIRR chief Helena Williams -- has seemed more transparently willing to make decisions that harm the transit system but please the politicians, as her giveaway to Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner showed.
Perhaps, in that light, the Atlantic Yards giveaway was just an advance taste of yesterday's gift to the TWU.
The worst thing about the arbitrators' decision was its suggestion how the MTA could pay these new costs: essentially, take money away from stimulus and other funds meant for its capital-investment program, especially new projects. The arbitrators said "the MTA could manage its capital programs to meet better its overall financial requirements" -- bureaucratese, apparently, for choosing parochial political interests over the city's future.

 

[JAFA]

I don't know if the typo is yours or the article you posted, but MTA's union is UTU not TWU.

 

[Ed Norton]

I don't know if the typo is yours or the article you posted, but MTA's union is UTU not TWU.

Local 100
Ralph Kramden was a proud TWU member!

BROTHER RACCOON! Woo, woo!

 

[Jackrla]

Local 100
Ralph Kramden was a proud TWU member!

BROTHER RACCOON! Woo, woo!

Correct and to the point and with panache. Excellent!!!
MTA is big and has several sub-entities:
MTA Staten Island Railway (part of NYC Transit's Department of Subways),
MTA Long Island Rail Road, MTA Long Island Bus, MTA Metro-North Railroad, MTA Bridges and Tunnels, and MTA Capital Construction.
Local 100 is a major component of the TWU Transit Division.
I believe the UTU does represent some of the Staten Island Railway and Long Island Railway people and maybe some other units.