Acc. To Delta: Combined FA Workforce "Most Likely" to vote again.

[LukeAisleWalker]

This is per the latest "I Believe In Our Delta" memo. This is under the column "If we remain union-free and the merger is consummated."
And I quote:

Q. Will there be a second election for Delta/Northwest FAs if the merger is finalized?

A. (Delta's answer) Yes, there likely would be an election because Delta and Northwest's FA groups are comparably sized.

There you have it. Even the company now seems resigned to this fact. Even if just 40% of DL FAs are for the union and just 80% of NW's, there WILL be a FA union at the combined company. (According to my calculations based on each carrier's total number of FAs.)
I would suggest that the fence-sitters who are vascillating really think long and hard about turning their seniority over to an arbitrator (this is also covered in the same memo..."if unable to reach an agreement, arbitration is available") should they not cast a vote and the vote fails next month. Date of hire is preferable to me than a roll of the dice. But that's up to you. In essence, if you don't vote, you may be tinkering with your seniority (to avoid having a union) and in the long run it would be for nothing because the union would be voted in by the combined carrier's majority of FAs anyway.

 

[USAir757]

I would suggest that the fence-sitters who are vascillating really think long and hard about turning their seniority over to an arbitrator (this is also covered in the same memo..."if unable to reach an agreement, arbitration is available") should they not cast a vote and the vote fails next month. Date of hire is preferable to me than a roll of the dice. But that's up to you. In essence, if you don't vote, you may be tinkering with your seniority (to avoid having a union) and in the long run it would be for nothing because the union would be voted in by the combined carrier's majority of FAs anyway.

Wow, Luke. Talk about a strong-arm.

I feel sorry for the others - that would be enough to make me quit.

 

[Danny Campbell]

Actually, I didn't think Luke's message was STRONG-ARM at all.

But, mine is...

Beyond the issue of seniority, I think all Delta FAs need to understand the history (and the business plans) that Richard Anderson and Doug Steenland have tried to create as their legacy in our industry. Specifically, their goal to create a 'global' airline network that outsources our international routes to low-cost foreign workers. They tried it at NW (which would have eliminated 35-40% of our US based FAs) - and we have every reason to believe they will have MORE INCENTIVE to do it at Delta if they can 'extinguish' our "scope language" in our contract. So, I think Delta (and NWA) FAs need to ask themselves if we want a combined seniority list that includes 22,000 FAs -- or do we want to run the risk of having one that is around 13,000 (or less) and lose most of our international flying to foreign workers.

You can call that strong-arming -- or you can call it a pragmatic warning [based on our experience].

 

[JakesWorld]

Actually, I didn't think Luke's message was STRONG-ARM at all.

But, mine is...

Beyond the issue of seniority, I think all Delta FAs need to understand the history (and the business plans) that Richard Anderson and Doug Steenland have tried to create as their legacy in our industry. Specifically, their goal to create a 'global' airline network that outsources our international routes to low-cost foreign workers. They tried it at NW (which would have eliminated 35-40% of our US based FAs) - and we have every reason to believe they will have MORE INCENTIVE to do it at Delta if they can 'extinguish' our "scope language" in our contract. So, I think Delta (and NWA) FAs need to ask themselves if we want a combined seniority list that includes 22,000 FAs -- or do we want to run the risk of having one that is around 13,000 (or less) and lose most of our international flying to foreign workers.

You can call that strong-arming -- or you can call it a pragmatic warning [based on our experience].

Danny

Can you let us know when Richard Anderson himself attempted to outsource the NW international routes to Foreign Nationals? At one point we at DL had Indian Nationals flying out of FRA and CDG to BOM, DEL, and Chennai, until the JFK-BOM began. I also recall seeing a recent article, in which you are quoted saying:
"Richard went out of his way to resolve a lot of issues with us," Campbell said. "He is a cunning lawyer and a brilliant strategist."
Campbell said he found Anderson "not threatened" by organized labor and willing to discuss solutions to the thorniest problems faced by Northwest workers. At his core, however, Anderson was a tough-as-nails lawyer, Campbell said, possibly owing to the native Texan's early career as a prosecutor in his home state. "He operated from the premise, 'Put it in writing and we see what we can do,' " Campbell said. "He seems to embrace the process of solving problems."
Has your opinion of him changed since making these statement and since the DL organizing began? You also mention the hostile union sentiment at DL, have you ever thought it is the actual employees that don't want a union, we are a pretty educated group as well?

Also, in regards to seniority integration Delta has stated to ALL F/A's that there are options other than date of hire. What has been said is that a team of our peers (DL F/A's) are elected by us the DL F/A's and can sit down with the NW F/A's and negotiate an integration agreement. At that point date of hire may be the best available option, who knows, at least it gives the DL F/A a say in how integration is accomplished as opposed to just having it dictated by the AFA. Also, the DL AFA activist keep telling F/A's that if we don't vote for AFA now an arbitrator will be making the decision for us and DL will suffer and lose seniority. According to the AFA policy manual Section 10.J.2 it states the following: "Seniority integration with a non-AFA-CWA carrier shall, to the extent legally possible, be accomplished by compiling an integrated seniority list in the same manner as provided for seniority integration between flight attendants on AFA-CWA carriers." So are you saying that if DL is not AFA and we opt to select our own DL F/A peers to create a committee and represent us that NW AFA would not speak with them? Or if DL is non AFA NW would automatically want the issue arbitrated and not follow its own policy manual?

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Also, the DL AFA activist keep telling F/A's that if we don't vote for AFA now an arbitrator will be making the decision for us and DL will suffer and lose seniority. According to the AFA policy manual Section 10.J.2 it states the following: "Seniority integration with a non-AFA-CWA carrier shall, to the extent legally possible, be accomplished by compiling an integrated seniority list in the same manner as provided for seniority integration between flight attendants on AFA-CWA carriers." So are you saying that if DL is not AFA and we opt to select our own DL F/A peers to create a committee and represent us that NW AFA would not speak with them? Or if DL is non AFA NW would automatically want the issue arbitrated and not follow its own policy manual?

I don't know of any AFA activist that is saying it will definitely go to arbitration. It is a POSSIBILITY. I used the term in my original post "roll of the dice." It all boils down to this: You believe that your interests will be protected with things as they are now. They may be. My take is that I'm interested in "buying insurance" because we are going into unchartered waters (size, scope, magnitude,fuel prices at 116 today, etc..).It's like other insurance you buy. No, I wouldn't buy auto, home, boat insurance because I'm expecting to get into an accident or a theft, etc..But it's peace of mind IN CASE.
If auto insurance weren't mandatory in most states, I get the feeling that you would opt out and take your chances where as I would want coverage IN CASE.
But some are going on the assumption, and an AA f/a suggested it on these boards a couple months ago, that by remaining non-union and being the surviving carrier, DL f/a's may get something better than DOH. I'm merely pointing out that this is the least likely of all the scenarios.

 

[cooper43]

I don't know of any AFA activist that is saying it will definitely go to arbitration. It is a POSSIBILITY. I used the term in my original post "roll of the dice." It all boils down to this: You believe that your interests will be protected with things as they are now. They may be. My take is that I'm interested in "buying insurance" because we are going into unchartered waters (size, scope, magnitude,fuel prices at 116 today, etc..).It's like other insurance you buy. No, I wouldn't buy auto, home, boat insurance because I'm expecting to get into an accident or a theft, etc..But it's peace of mind IN CASE.
If auto insurance weren't mandatory in most states, I get the feeling that you would opt out and take your chances where as I would want coverage IN CASE.
But some are going on the assumption, and an AA f/a suggested it on these boards a couple months ago, that by remaining non-union and being the surviving carrier, DL f/a's may get something better than DOH. I'm merely pointing out that this is the least likely of all the scenarios.

Ok say we vote down the union this time, and then delta tries but fails to negotiate with AFA a better process than DOH, the worst anyone can be handed is DOH. So my question is why not wait and see if Delta can negotiate us something better and then if they dont when the merger goes thur the union will be voted in anyway and it will be DOH. Make sense? I dont think the f/a's from NW are able to see from our point of view, they are only seeing this in their point of view. I think the merger will go thur but I am concerned about merging with people who are so determined to destroy everyone if they dont get everything they want. Also I keep reading that Delta f/a's have been riding the coat tales of union f/a's but you can also look at it another way. Before 9/11 Delta was the highest paid in the industry, and that was because we were not unionized. Personally I am for the union, but it has usually benefited us not to be unionized because Management would tend to give us a little more money to incourage us to stay un-unionized. But this is a new environment. Anyway, whatever happens I think AFA will be a good choice, but its all about timing.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Ok say we vote down the union this time, and then delta tries but fails to negotiate with AFA a better process than DOH, the worst anyone can be handed is DOH. So my question is why not wait and see if Delta can negotiate us something better and then if they dont when the merger goes thur the union will be voted in anyway and it will be DOH. Make sense? I dont think the f/a's from NW are able to see from our point of view, they are only seeing this in their point of view. I think the merger will go thur but I am concerned about merging with people who are so determined to destroy everyone if they dont get everything they want. Also I keep reading that Delta f/a's have been riding the coat tales of union f/a's but you can also look at it another way. Before 9/11 Delta was the highest paid in the industry, and that was because we were not unionized. Personally I am for the union, but it has usually benefited us not to be unionized because Management would tend to give us a little more money to incourage us to stay un-unionized. But this is a new environment. Anyway, whatever happens I think AFA will be a good choice, but its all about timing.

Cooper, and Danny please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not how the process works. If it's all around better for Delta FAs and less so for NW FAs, then NW FAs would ask that it be taken to an arbitrator who is neither affiliated with DL, nor NW. And I'm not sure what you mean when saying NW FAs don't see "our" point of view. NW FAs as part of AFA, seem to want nothing more than strict DOH. How does this make them "people who are so determined to destroy everyone if they don't get everything they want." ?? I don't get that.
And actually, DL was the best paid at one time but that ended some time before9/11. Southwest has had that distinction for quite some time.
And don't forget FA pay comes in other forms other than dollars and cents. For instance, do you know of any other mainline carrier whose FAs can fly a 3-day trip and come home with just 12 hours?? I don't.

 

[Danny Campbell]

Jake:

First, regarding my comments about Anderson, the reporter captured my views perfectly. I like Richard and worked very well with him. But, I never for one moment made the mistake that his cooperation didn't stemmed COMPLETELY from our collective bargaining agreement. He is a great lawyer - and he appreciates the process of resolving issues. BUT, he is also VERY bold - and without a contract, I have little faith that if it SAVED MONEY, he would move without blinking on the outsourcing plans they tried in the past. You also asked if he was directly involved in the scheme. What you have to understand is that Anderson and Steenland are a team. Anderson was always the strategist and PR guy, and Steenland was the money guy (and the book worm). BOTH of these guys are now at Delta....but it doesn't end there. Also, you have the two guys that took over NWA (thru the 1989 leverage buy-out) Al Checchi and Gary Wilson (they are now on your Delta board). So, you basically have the ENTIRE NWA team running your airline. YES, I have no doubt Anderson was "in" on the outsourcing plans. It was a plan laid LONG before he left -- and it was precisely the same plan they succeeded at using to destroy the mechanics jobs (and ship their work to China).

Now, on the issue of seniority. Delta's appointed members of some "seniority committee" have no power to compel or reach a legal agreement with those of us with a legal contract. So, NO, that committee has no real negotiation power -- they are merely a front group that Delta would put forward to make you feel included. Unless you join AFA and have the protection of the AFA Constitution, you can pretty much guarantee that our seniority issues will land in arbitration. I can't speak for the entire NWA FA group, but I suspect that if Delta FAs reject AFA, it will send the signal that they [you] want something BETTER than date-of-hire. That position is akin to a "war cry" -- and the NWA elected leadership will most likely take the opposite position (i.e., that we have a legal contract and you don't) and we will fight for the polar opposite (ie., we should get more seniority than non-union workers). That's how these things end up in arbitration. It will not be the 'front group' that we will face in arbitration however, it will be Delta lawyers -- because (again) the position is not for Delta FAs to take (you have no legal voice) - it will be a position for Delta executives to take.

Personally, I have always supported date-of-hire. I think it is fair and it is sensible. Where employees get into trouble is when one group thinks they deserve to screw the other group. It's not right - and it causes long term conflicts that are not good for the combined workforce.

 

[Danny Campbell]

cooper43:

When you say the "worse" you can get is DOH, that's simply not true. In fact, you only have to look at the USAir pilots arbitration, where many lost over a decade of seniority to the America West pilots to know that there are GREAT RISKS in arbitrating seniority issues. The arbitrator will look carefully at the two groups, their CONTRACT LANGUAGE and he/she can issue any kind of decision imaginable. And, once that decision is made, it is BINDING.

The reason AFA FA mergers are always the most civil is because everyone KNOWS going into it what they are going to have coming out (their date of hire / current bidding seniority). But, the larger reason AFA has the policy is because it allow the two groups to work together in unity (harmony) to negotiate the best combined contract deal possible. It is hard to place a value on the importance of "solidarity" - but it can make or break a merger AND future pay and benefits.

 

[USAir757]

So let's boil down what you're saying here, Danny.

Unless you join AFA and have the protection of the AFA Constitution, you can pretty much guarantee that our seniority issues will land in arbitration. I can't speak for the entire NWA FA group, but I suspect that if Delta FAs reject AFA, it will send the signal that they [you] want something BETTER than date-of-hire. That position is akin to a "war cry"

This goes back to the other thread and my "strong-arm" comment... you are trying to strong-arm these people into voting for AFA! Saying that a no vote (or a vote for non-union) is akin to voting for something other than DOH is unfair. Please explain to us why voting 'no' to AFA and supporting DOH integration must be mutually exclusive?

How can you sleep at night while you try to solicit the support and endorsement of AFA to thousands of Delta employees, while at the very same time, promise to slash them with unfair integration policy if they do not vote to join your union?

 

[Danny Campbell]

USAir757:

"Slash" them with "unfair integration" - what does that mean? What is 'unfair' with everybody keeping their [earned] date of hire seniority?

Exactly what job did you have at US Air? I suspect you were NOT a flight attendant, right? -- because whether we agree with each other or not, there is an unspoken kindness and respect we have for each other -- I know very few FAs that any other FA would call "strong-arming". 'Passionate' or 'emotional' at times, yes....but being a bully is just not in our nature.

How do I sleep at night? Ambein -- like most good FAs. <wink> See - that was something most FAs would understand (has to do with the time zones and irregular sleep patterns).

 

[JakesWorld]

Now, on the issue of seniority. Delta's appointed members of some "seniority committee" have no power to compel or reach a legal agreement with those of us with a legal contract. So, NO, that committee has no real negotiation power -- they are merely a front group that Delta would put forward to make you feel included. Unless you join AFA and have the protection of the AFA Constitution, you can pretty much guarantee that our seniority issues will land in arbitration. I can't speak for the entire NWA FA group, but I suspect that if Delta FAs reject AFA, it will send the signal that they [you] want something BETTER than date-of-hire. That position is akin to a "war cry" -- and the NWA elected leadership will most likely take the opposite position (i.e., that we have a legal contract and you don't) and we will fight for the polar opposite (ie., we should get more seniority than non-union workers). That's how these things end up in arbitration. It will not be the 'front group' that we will face in arbitration however, it will be Delta lawyers -- because (again) the position is not for Delta FAs to take (you have no legal voice) - it will be a position for Delta executives to take.

Personally, I have always supported date-of-hire. I think it is fair and it is sensible. Where employees get into trouble is when one group thinks they deserve to screw the other group. It's not right - and it causes long term conflicts that are not good for the combined workforce.

Danny

I find that interesting then that in the case of Delta AFA will disregard its own policy manual Section 10.J.2. Also, none of us know what the future holds for any of us. While you see what you say as passing out the facts, it seems more like scare tactics on the part of AFA. When has any DL F/A said they want this to go to arbitration? That is a fear that AFA is spreading. To go on to say that if we do not elect the AFA to represent us it is "akin to a war cry", that does not say much about you, the NW F/A, or the NW AFA. If you think DL F/A's want to screw the NW F/A, think again. So much for democracy. Why is it that when any question is posed to AFA only a bit of an answer is given, you have to keep digging and digging to get the complete truth? i.e. the W2 info on that 3/31/08 newsletter, what/how your equity claim was paid to NW F/A's (not all cash), etc. Why not answer a question entirely with ALL the information?
Can you also tell us where you obtained your information that Checci and Wilson will be on the combined airlines BOD? DL/NW have only stated that the BOD will be comprised of 7 from DL and 5 from NW. Neither Checci or Wilson are on the current BOD of either carrier can you let us know where and when they were on the NW or DL BOD? I would also like to clarify that you are only making assumptions and they are YOUR assumptions that Anderson was in on the outsourcing of mechanics and potential outsourcing of F/A's at NW, can you let us know how/where that can be verified?
All this sounds like is scare tactics. The same thing the AFA and a lot of other unions accuse their employers of. The way this organization campaign is being run, it is no different than that or a political campaign. That's pretty sad, you say you are on our side and yet all you want to do is scare us.

 

[USAir757]

"Slash" them with "unfair integration" - what does that mean?

we will fight for the polar opposite (ie., we should get more seniority than non-union workers).

Exactly what job did you have at US Air? I suspect you were NOT a flight attendant, right? -- because whether we agree with each other or not, there is an unspoken kindness and respect we have for each other -- I know very few FAs that any other FA would call "strong-arming". 'Passionate' or 'emotional' at times, yes....but being a bully is just not in our nature.

You are correct, I was not an F/A... I was a pilot. I apologize if I am coming across as disrespectful, I'm just calling it as I see it.

How do I sleep at night? Ambein -- like most good FAs. <wink>

hahaha

 

[cooper43]

USAir757:

"Slash" them with "unfair integration" - what does that mean? What is 'unfair' with everybody keeping their [earned] date of hire seniority?

Exactly what job did you have at US Air? I suspect you were NOT a flight attendant, right? -- because whether we agree with each other or not, there is an unspoken kindness and respect we have for each other -- I know very few FAs that any other FA would call "strong-arming". 'Passionate' or 'emotional' at times, yes....but being a bully is just not in our nature.

How do I sleep at night? Ambein -- like most good FAs. <wink> See - that was something most FAs would understand (has to do with the time zones and irregular sleep patterns).

Danny,


I'm just having a problem with some of the comments made on a couple different dl threads. One comment was that because DL is non union we dont have as many rights at union employees at NW. The fact is most everyone just wants to not be knocked down from where they are today on the senority list. You indicated that DOH is the most fair way to merge the two work forces. That is totally subjective. I may be able to hold certain things with my senority now that I could not hold if we had DOH blend. NW may have many more senior people than DL or visa versa. So wouldnt it be more fair to at least be able to negotiate and talk about whats fair instead of an automatic system? It may benefit you also. I just want someone to negotiate what is fair and not be told that I am stupid or a cool-aide drinker if I dont want to look at other options. I really am not anti union at all. I think a union is probably inevitable anyway and it will be necessary. I just dont agree that DOH is automatically the most fair way to intergrate. So to sum up, I dont have a problem with being unionized but I do have a problem with AFA's DOH policy.

 

[Cajun Flyer]

This is per the latest "I Believe In Our Delta" memo. This is under the column "If we remain union-free and the merger is consummated."
And I quote:

Q. Will there be a second election for Delta/Northwest FAs if the merger is finalized?

A. (Delta's answer) Yes, there likely would be an election because Delta and Northwest's FA groups are comparably sized.

There you have it. Even the company now seems resigned to this fact. Even if just 40% of DL FAs are for the union and just 80% of NW's, there WILL be a FA union at the combined company. (According to my calculations based on each carrier's total number of FAs.)
I would suggest that the fence-sitters who are vascillating really think long and hard about turning their seniority over to an arbitrator (this is also covered in the same memo..."if unable to reach an agreement, arbitration is available") should they not cast a vote and the vote fails next month. Date of hire is preferable to me than a roll of the dice. But that's up to you. In essence, if you don't vote, you may be tinkering with your seniority (to avoid having a union) and in the long run it would be for nothing because the union would be voted in by the combined carrier's majority of FAs anyway.

First, the 2 carriers Flight Attendant groups are NOT comparably sized. Delta has 5,000 more flight attendants than does Northwest making our group 40% larger. That's not comparable to me. If we go straight date of hire, Delta F/A's get screwed as we have a much better route system than does northwest. We'd have senior NW f/a's transferring into our bases and flying our trips in a heartbeat. The only way that we can protect our seniority is to have a "fair and equitable" integration as outlined in the new law passed by Congress last Fall. If you look at the way seniority was integrated with Western it was more fair because of the opportunities for flying that existed prior to the merger. Currently Delta F/A's have much more opportunies than NW and I for one don't want to lose that in a straight date of hire scenario. Think about the NYC base and how junior you can be to hold international. That would go away quickly with straight date of hire. Secondly, with Delta offering the early outs, that will put Delta F/A's at even more of a disadvantage with straight date of hire.

It also says there in your quote that arbitration is available. Available doesn't mean mandatory and in all likelihood both groups would have to agree to arbitration. So that argument holds no weight.

The only option at this point for Delta F/A's is to keep AFA out and hopefully vote in another union like the one at Southwest at some point in the future. I have never been impressed with the AFA and they got hammered during the bankruptcies of United and Northwest.