Anti-AFA Delta FA's On US 1549

[Dignity]

Exactly!

The burden is upon the union to empower the majority to attain the required votes needed (50+1).

actually it really falls on the employees and their wishes..

It shouldn't be upon the company to defend the status quo against an outside entity only for them to cry "interference" when they try to do so.

they actually should simply just focus on running an airline.. as the sole focus..

knows exactly what they are doing with this.

they havent even started seniority integration meetings I hardly think you know what they are doing if we dont..on anything that concerns them..

If they successfully get the RLA laws changed and the voting procedure the way they want, the process is now "gamed" to achieve victory for them much, much easier.

change the RLA? expect to be waiting for a while..

Because if the company says "VOTE NO"

they should not be saying anything, its not their decision or their place..



oh and BTW..

tell Dapoes hi...

 

[dapoes]

actually it really falls on the employees and their wishes..

Not so says the RLA or any other labor related legislation

they actually should simply just focus on running an airline.. as the sole focus..

So your saying items that affect the employees is not part of running an airline. Are you serious?

they havent even started seniority integration meetings I hardly think you know what they are doing if we dont..

No Dig, ever since the AFA lost they threw everything at wall hoping something will stick. They did the same thing back in the 2002 election as well. They are hoping to get a union-friendly NMB (even Danny C admitted) in hopes that if they lose again they have a better chance of something sticking.

change the RLA? expect to be waiting for a while..

Exactly, but thats what AFA wants to do....fat chance.

they should not be saying anything, its not their decision or their place..

Well if that's the case, then your democracy example is thrown out the window.
Besides there is already precedent that they can in previous airlines vs nmb decisions (free speech).

 

[Dignity]

Not so says the RLA or any other labor related legislation

the bottom line is simply
the decision will fall on the individual, in this case the actual employee..

So your saying items that affect the employees is not part of running an airline.

I said they should focus on running an airline, these other issues(campaigns ext..) are not relevant to the actual daily operation of the company..

Are you serious?

yes, it was not that difficult to figure out..

No Dig, ever since the AFA lost they threw everything at wall hoping something will stick. They did the same thing back in the 2002 election as well. They are hoping to get a union-friendly NMB (even Danny C admitted) in hopes that if they lose again they have a better chance of something sticking.

I honestly have no idea what happened in 2002 what sticked then or will stick now..based on your comments..it appears it could be a very sticky situation..

Exactly, but thats what AFA wants to do....fat chance.

I honestly do not think the RLA is changing that drastically any time soon

Well if that's the case, then your democracy example is thrown out the window.
Besides there is already precedent that they can in previous airlines vs nmb decisions (free speech).

let me rephrase that then, I personally would prefer a neutral work place...but of course that doesnt look like its going to happen...as you see while the union and company bickers with each other during these campaigns, we are stuck in the middle...(or at least that is how I feel)

 

[dapoes]

I also invite all of you to view this hearing as it helps you familiarize with the election process under the RLA.

Yes please do, as you will find that the committee has/had no idea what they were meeting on and was more of a RLA-101 education process. You would think that if they were to hear AFA's gripe then they would have at least educated themselves on NMB and RLA. Some of the committee members couldn't even pronounce NMB and kept mixing up the RLA and NMB. It is utterly painful to watch.

It is also interesting that AFA huggers always cry foul that Read Van de Water is biased because she used to work at NW what 17 years ago. But yet the committee chair is Jim Oberstar (Minnesota Congressman) who fought like hell to derail the DAL and NW merger. How could he be "un biased"?

It is hilarious how Van De water schools the committee and Pat Freind. If you go to approx 53 min into it Oberstar asks Van De water about the voting process. She tells him..err its been that way since 1936

 

[Dignity]

committee members couldn't even pronounce NMB

how do you pronounce NMB?

is it.. \'nem\ ?

 

[dapoes]

how do you pronounce NMB?

is it.. \'nem\ ?

Watch the video, some of them couldn't even simply say "NMB" properly, its rather comical.

 

[Dignity]

Watch the video, some of them couldn't even simply say "NMB" properly, its rather comical.

Dapoes,

you never cease to amaze me..

that comment was as dazzling as watching a cow chewing cud..

(do you find cats stuck in trees funny too?)

tsk...tsk...

 

[dapoes]

Dapoes,

you never cease to amaze me..

that comment was as dazzling as watching a cow chewing cud..

(do you find cats stuck in trees funny too?)

tsk...tsk...

Go ahead Dig, pull up a bag of popcorn and watch the clip, its only about 2.5 hours. Then give me your honest (non-biased) opinion.

 

[Dignity]

Then give me your honest (non-biased) opinion.

I can do that..however..in reality it is easier said than done..most of us are biased to a certain degree..since every human always has an opinion about something..

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Realistically, when the group that is being asked to vote (prompted by an outside source), if being ask to do so in order to change the status quo. I don't think you should even have to vote NO at all. IF you want a union, you let your voice be heard. If you don't, then the status quo is satisfactory.

This is done, so that true democracy holds up. A flight attendant who truly wants representation will continue to vote for a union, but when someone who doesn't care about the union gets continually "hassled" by votes, then turnout decreases, making it unfair for one side.

A union preaches fairness, well then you can't get much more fair, and much more democratic than 50% + 1. If you are unable to stimulate a work group enough to get 50% +1, then are you honestly honoring the true word of the flight attendant base by finding ways to reach your numbers.

There's no forcing someone into a voting booth that is already pleased with their airline, their choice to not even give the process a moment of their time says NO loud enough for one to hear all the way over at the G.O.

Dapoes,
Do you think if there was a requirement to vote either way (Yes or No), meaning that only votes cast were counted, that the No side would still win? (Remember it's a secret ballot, only the NMB knows how you voted, not Delta, not the AFA). Would the anti-union FAs have enough people (besides the regulars at the NoWayAFA FB site) to maintain the status quo? If your answer is yes, then that means you have enough confidence that Delta FAs prefer the status quo and would take action (by calling/clicking on "no")that frankly, you shouldn't be worried about anything.
Please answer Yes or No. If your answer is no, it would be great if you could answer why you think the No-Union side would lose.
Thanks.

 

[dapoes]

Dapoes,
Do you think if there was a requirement to vote either way (Yes or No), meaning that only votes cast were counted, that the No side would still win? (Remember it's a secret ballot, only the NMB knows how you voted, not Delta, not the AFA). Would the anti-union FAs have enough people (besides the regulars at the NoWayAFA FB site) to maintain the status quo? If your answer is yes, then that means you have enough confidence that Delta FAs prefer the status quo and would take action (by calling/clicking on "no")that frankly, you shouldn't be worried about anything.
Please answer Yes or No. If your answer is no, it would be great if you could answer why you think the No-Union side would lose.
Thanks.

I have no idea what either group would or wouldn't do under your "what if'" scenario.

Luke, I don't expect you to understand or agree with my point of view. But in my previous post, this very same philosophy is echoed in the RLA and has been for over 70 years. Over several mergers and over numerous elections over the years. AFA griped about it after the 2002 election. But they only bring it up when they lose as a legal tactic. They throw everything at the wall to see if something will stick. Its more of automatic appeal process for them and their lawyers.

The AFA's opinion is that they are "entitled" however if you review the RLA you will see the first line under provisions: LINK

§ 151a. General purposes
The purposes of the chapter are: (1) To avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein;

The RLA was enacted to establish a set of ground rules for companies and unions at the premise there should not be interruption to the carrier.

Again reffer to the RLA for how it spells out the voting process.

Fourth. Organization and collective bargaining, freedom from interference by carrier, assistance in organizing or maintaining organization by carrier forbidden; deduction of dues from wages forbidden

Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this chapter.

Nobody has really answered why after 70 years, all of a sudden this voting process is a problem. It never held up the unions from organizing before....right? Is it not true that the MAJORITY of the airline industry is unionized? How could the RLA inhibit the process when it clearly shows that it had no affect in inhibiting the airlines from being a majority unionized industry.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

I have no idea what either group would or wouldn't do under your "what if'" scenario.

Luke, I don't expect you to understand or agree with my point of view. But in my previous post, this very same philosophy is echoed in the RLA and has been for over 70 years. Over several mergers and over numerous elections over the years. AFA griped about it after the 2002 election. But they only bring it up when they lose as a legal tactic. They throw everything at the wall to see if something will stick. Its more of automatic appeal process for them and their lawyers.

The AFA's opinion is that they are "entitled" however if you review the RLA you will see the first line under provisions: LINK



The RLA was enacted to establish a set of ground rules for companies and unions at the premise there should not be interruption to the carrier.

Again reffer to the RLA for how it spells out the voting process.


Nobody has really answered why after 70 years, all of a sudden this voting process is a problem. It never held up the unions from organizing before....right? Is it not true that the MAJORITY of the airline industry is unionized? How could the RLA inhibit the process when it clearly shows that it had no affect in inhibiting the airlines from being a majority unionized industry.

Dapoes,
Please don't make assumptions about what I agree on or understand. Frankly, I DO understand the idea behind the RLA and the "burden of proof" being on the union, so-to-speak. (Kind of like in a criminal trial, the bruden of proof is on the prosecution). At least I understand it from the standpoint of the early 1930's. I do wonder myself why in all these years it hasn't been challenged.
Personally, I believe that anything written 70+ years should be revisited. And actually, I think that's what a lot of the Congress people were saying in the hearing.

However, I was asking you the question, NOT because I am arguing in favor of the RLA being changed at this juncture, before we vote, but because I am just curious to get your take on whether the No-AFA side feels that the Delta FA group, as a majority, are passionate enough about maintaining their non-union (or no AFA) status that a majority would take action (call or "click") to keep it that way.
Or do you feel that the majority of FAs (for whatever reason--they are busy with kids, life, flying--, they remain undecided so take no action..etc..) would do nothing?
Thanks.

PS: If your reply is that you don't deal in hypotheticals, (like some do in debates when they are cornered) then that's the same to me as admitting that "no", you don't believe the non-union side has the numbers to defeat AFA should the law be changed to be like every other vote in this country.

Edited and UPDATED:
Dapoes, I apologize. I reread your post and your answer was you "have no idea" what the group would do. That gives me the answer; you don't have confidence in the group that they would actually take action to keep the AFA out. 21,000 IS a lot of people---especially in a job like ours where you can drop to zero, take leaves, etc...Now you see what a big job unions that fall under the RLA have.

 

[dapoes]

Dapoes,
Please don't make assumptions about what I agree on or understand. Frankly, I DO understand the idea behind the RLA and the "burden of proof" being on the union, so-to-speak. (Kind of like in a criminal trial, the bruden of proof is on the prosecution). At least I understand it from the standpoint of the early 1930's. I do wonder myself why in all these years it hasn't been challenged.
Personally, I believe that anything written 70+ years should be revisited. And actually, I think that's what a lot of the Congress people were saying in the hearing.

Again what people are failing to see is that it is not a problem. It would be considered a problem if it was inhibiting unions in organizing in the industry. The airline industry is one of the most highly unionized out of all sectors.

However, I was asking you the question, NOT because I am arguing in favor of the RLA being changed at this juncture, before we vote, but because I am just curious to get your take on whether the No-AFA side feels that the Delta FA group, as a majority, are passionate enough about maintaining their non-union (or no AFA) status that a majority would take action (call or "click") to keep it that way.
Or do you feel that the majority of FAs (for whatever reason--they are busy with kids, life, flying--, they remain undecided so take no action..etc..) would do nothing?
Thanks.

I have no idea how what they would do. I hope the majority would vote no.

PS: If your reply is that you don't deal in hypotheticals, (like some do in debates when they are cornered) then that's the same to me as admitting that "no", you don't believe the non-union side has the numbers to defeat AFA should the law be changed to be like every other vote in this country.

Now you are just making silly assumptions to reinforce your position/opinion.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Now you are just making silly assumptions to reinforce your position/opinion.

Perhaps, but that is also an assumption on your part that my opinion is set in stone. But I think BOTH sides are running scared right now. I think the Pro side is insecure that they will not get the numbers out to vote even with NW. And I think your side (the Anti) is also afraid that with NW they may end up as members of AFA against their will.

Now, if you're not sitting down, have a seat. I am actually becoming more and more disenchanted with what I'm reading in AFAs Constitution and Bylaws when it comes to "discipline, crossing picket lines, being late with dues, and having to pay even for 90 days when furloughed."
These things solidify my opinon even more that we should form OUR OWN union and/or as NxNW used to say..an Int'l union of Skyteam FAs. That being said, I understand it is quite expensive to do so, however, in the long run I think it would be the better outcome. I also know it would take years; I don't plan on being here for that much longer but at least it would be of benefit to the more junior people.

I am not saying that I will not still vote for representation as I believe it would be easier to change unions (per my NW friends--they are saying AFA first, then w/ 21k of us, get rid of them for our own) than to start from scratch with no union. But I need more info about this.
So who knows...maybe I'm joining the other undecideds and climbing up on the proverbial fence.


Statistically as I have stated before, I think AFA is going to have to make sure that at least a solid 80-85% of NW's FA population votes in favor of staying unionized with AFA or case closed. That means if about 1,200 NW f/a's don't vote, game's over.

 

[dapoes]

Perhaps, but that is also an assumption on your part that my opinion is set in stone. But I think BOTH sides are running scared right now. I think the Pro side is insecure that they will not get the numbers out to vote even with NW. And I think your side (the Anti) is also afraid that with NW they may end up as members of AFA against their will.

Now, if you're not sitting down, have a seat. I am actually becoming more and more disenchanted with what I'm reading in AFAs Constitution and Bylaws when it comes to "discipline, crossing picket lines, being late with dues, and having to pay even for 90 days when furloughed."

Holy smokes, I think I need a defib

These things solidify my opinon even more that we should form OUR OWN union and/or as NxNW used to say..an Int'l union of Skyteam FAs. That being said, I understand it is quite expensive to do so, however, in the long run I think it would be the better outcome. I also know it would take years; I don't plan on being here for that much longer but at least it would be of benefit to the more junior people.

Yes I agree. It seems that it would be costly.

I am not saying that I will not still vote for representation as I believe it would be easier to change unions (per my NW friends--they are saying AFA first, then w/ 21k of us, get rid of them for our own) than to start from scratch with no union. But I need more info about this.
So who knows...maybe I'm joining the other undecideds and climbing up on the proverbial fence.


Statistically as I have stated before, I think AFA is going to have to make sure that at least a solid 80-85% of NW's FA population votes in favor of staying unionized with AFA or case closed. That means if about 1,200 NW f/a's don't vote, game's over.

Yes i agree as well. Very well said overall.