Delta Announces Summer '10 flying

[goodgirl37]

I do feel a sense of a more positive working environment and not at all naive.




[/quote]


well it would seem to me as if you are just a bit naive, ITS REPRESENTATION ELECTION TIME, do you honestly think they are going to be nasty right now? The nastiness will come later.. I just honestly cannot believe how someone would possibly want to work for an airline without a union contract, there are reasons we have them. But hey, like i have said a million times, you take what delta gives you with a smile on your face and it not the best, not the worst, not the most fair, not the most evil, its just ... ok. Good luck with that, I dont think for one minute if we were to choose non union at UAL that we would be treated better by mgmt. and btw, lets not forget delta is now ran by NWA mgmt, HeLLo, anyone home???? Just please, dont b*tch, when it starts to get nasty, nobody is going to have sympathy for you.

 

[Kev3188]

I believe in Teamwork.

I am nice to Passengers.

I am Honest.

I am an Flight Attendant. ESC.

I try to do the best job I can.

I am just one in thousands of Professionals.

(if thats not what they want, their loss)

Same here. It'd be nice if that was recognized.

 

[BABABOOY]

II just honestly cannot believe how someone would possibly want to work for an airline without a union contract, there are reasons we have them. But hey, like i have said a million times, you take what delta gives you with a smile on your face and it not the best, not the worst, not the most fair, not the most evil, its just ... ok. Good luck with that,

I don't think we need luck, its been working pretty well for 80 years now

I dont think for one minute if we were to choose non union at UAL that we would be treated better by mgmt. and btw, lets not forget delta is now ran by NWA mgmt, HeLLo, anyone home???? Just please, dont b*tch, when it starts to get nasty, nobody is going to have sympathy for you.

Your so sweet, but your comparing apples and Pineapples
again why do you care? enjoy life over at UAL.

 

[Dignity]

well it would seem to me as if you are just a bit naive, ITS REPRESENTATION ELECTION TIME, do you honestly think they are going to be nasty right now?

well I am an actual NW Flight Attendant so I have a pretty clear idea how nasty it can get..

(we had our contract gutted by PFAA)

so!

can you puhleeze stop it... with the naive comments!

thanks so much!

The nastiness will come later..

that could be a scare tactic too, just like they threatened to outsource all our jobs and then turned around and got a court order on all of us (Flight Attendants) to stay on the job..

(I still think it was a bluff to accept the pay cuts)

do we always have to live our lives in fear over something that may not happen at all?

is that written in stone somewhere?

"THE NASTINESS WILL COME"

or what?

I just honestly cannot believe how someone would possibly want to work for an airline without a union contract, there are reasons we have them.

it is whatever the majority decides to do, people form their opinions based on how they are treated, and since I have never worked for DL, I have to reserve judgement at this time!

(but obviously they see it another way)

I am keeping an open mind!

when you keeping portraying yourself as the victim.. you will always find a way to be the victim..(you will always need a union to protect your job) so can we please step beyond that mode and understand it is possible there may actually be a healthy and supportive working environment or at least consider it is an option somewhere..

because for garsh sakes you are starting to get sort of depressing!

But hey, like i have said a million times, you take what delta gives you with a smile on your face and it not the best, not the worst, not the most fair, not the most evil, its just ... ok. Good luck with that, I dont think for one minute if we were to choose non union at UAL that we would be treated better by mgmt.

based on my observations, I would absolutely see why you may need a union.

but this is not UAL, its DAL.

and btw, lets not forget delta is now ran by NWA mgmt, HeLLo, anyone home????

the funny thing about that...R.A, he was one of the most respected Leaders we ever had and I personally liked the man.

(he seemed fair to me, at that time)

Just please, dont b*tch, when it starts to get nasty, nobody is going to have sympathy for you.

Dont worry yourself one bit about that.

while the working environment itself on the aircraft was pretty much for the most part pleasant.

while I never felt safety was compromised...

I never felt supported or respected at NWA.

(that is exactly how NWA made me feel as an employee and human being) even though I always told them the truth and was dedicated

*especially by the base mid level Management and some support staff. They just werent a nice bunch, but it was the "norm" they were just nasty people and oh well deal with it.

this hogwash some of the union activist are spouting off about being able to go in and deal with NW Management by just walking right on in is nonsense, they have always insisted we take someone in there with us at all times..because they just were never helpful people.

if that is the road DL chooses to go, a former NW style, that will = fail.

I do not think that is going to happen or they would have already been unionized.

regardless.....

I believe in second chances...(for everyone)

and..well, forgiveness.

and also strongly believe people can and do change in the right environment that is focused on positive aspects.

(I am already seeing that happen for myself)


I dont need or ask for your sympathy, if one thing I learned at NWA

it was to be a survivor.

(and in a very strange way...appreciate that)


Anyhoo!

:hugs:

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

waiting around for Congress to change an election format is just not a way to show how effective a Union can be resolving issues timely..

According to the Q&A with the TTD (Transportation Trades Dept.), the NMB has the authority to change the election format. No amendment to the law is necessary.
See the second question on page 3.

http://nwaafa.org/docs/TTD_QA_NMB_Election...nge_Request.pdf

 

[Dignity]

According to the Q&A with the TTD (Transportation Trades Dept.), the NMB has the authority to change the election format. No amendment to the law is necessary.
See the second question on page 3.

thanks Luke..I sort of understand that..

to me, the issue at this time is simply if the NMB changes the election format with a former AFA President on board.. to the YES/NO ballot, it will give a perception they are giving the Union an advantage..

(regardless if that is the case or not)

a lot of people will see it that way.

by having Congress change it.. in a sense removes the conflict of interest and of course other perceptions mentioned.

(in a sense takes it out of their hands, any changes and its like..)

"see.. they changed it, we didnt..."


the best thing they could do at this point is to simply let the process play out as it has..

by going with the 50 percent plus one (the actual majority) and the NMB oversee to make sure it is done fairly.

*there are no questions after the fact when the majority decides, because it is the actual majority.

any changes regarding this particular election is not going to look good at all..

(under the circumstances)

the delay filing already does not look good,

(especially since other groups have already resolved their representational issues)

it can appear, any further changes that even remotely gives the impression there is an advantage will only make it worse.

I look at this from a perspective being stuck in the middle.. dealing with the aftermath when the division arises.. when others may view the process was not done fairly initially..

 

[goodgirl37]

by going with the 50 percent plus one (the actual majority) and the NMB oversee to make sure it is done fairly.

*there are no questions after the fact when the majority decides, because it is the actual majorty

it can appear, any further changes that even remotely gives the impression there is an advantage will only make it worse.

I look at this from a perspective being stuck in the middle.. dealing with the aftermath when the division arises.. when others may view the process was not done fairly initially..

Seriously, so you think that people that don't vote, should go for a vote for the company (talk about unfair).. If you dont vote, then it should be a "NO VOTE" b/c you "DIDNT VOTE" INTELLIGENT HEY.... If you vote no union then it goes as a vote for the company, if you vote for the union then it goes as a vote for the union, not taking a bunch of people that didnt vote and put them as a no vote, c'mon... I wonder what kind of company kool aid you would spew if they said "all people that dont vote will go for a vote for the union" ... MIGHT AS WELL, they didnt vote so who knows what they want, or how about if they split the people that didnt vote as half for the company and half for the union, DAL is not confident that they would win if any of these scenarios played out or the current one being considered. Dignity, you are not neutral, i hate to tell you.. You have to think sometimes "why does the company NOT want me to have a union?"... SO PASSIVE!!!! "oh they love us, they gave us a $200 laptop", LOL, seriously, get a contract then we will talk..

 

[BABABOOY]

Goodgirl
Your sarcasm speaks volumes. You haven't answered
the question. What dog do you have in this fight? Enjoy
your life over at UAL.

 

[Dignity]

Seriously, so you think that people that don't vote, should go for a vote for the company (talk about unfair).. If you dont vote, then it should be a "NO VOTE" b/c you "DIDNT VOTE" INTELLIGENT HEY.... If you vote no union then it goes as a vote for the company, if you vote for the union then it goes as a vote for the union, not taking a bunch of people that didnt vote and put them as a no vote, c'mon...

we have had three elections using the 50 percent plus one voting format and I personally never heard one peep from a Flight Attendant (over the course of those multiple elections) the process was unfair.

as a matter of fact the last election they even stressed the point it was necessary to have 50 percent plus one participate or we would be decertified.

it is not a vote for the company if someone does not participate in a 50 percent plus one format, the company has nothing to do with our election at all. (regarding the actual voting process)

having the majority and significant majority of the group opt for representation is imperative..

they need to have a strong 70 percent supporting representation by the actual majority for leverage.

(if some cannot see why that is so dearly important, I do not know what else to say).

I wonder what kind of company kool aid you would spew if they said "all people that dont vote will go for a vote for the union" ... MIGHT AS WELL, they didnt vote so who knows what they want, or how about if they split the people that didnt vote as half for the company and half for the union,

what I really try to do.. in most all situations is to remove the emotional element and
view a situation for exactly what it is.

its difficult, for me anyway,

to just have a cookie cutter mindset and apply what works in one situation and then project that onto all.

(there is never a 'one size fit all' solution for every issue)

unionization may be right for a particular situation and absolutely necessary, but that also does not mean it is right for every single company either.

its necessary to do a lot of research on your own and ask a lot of questions, for any other reason to grasp a better understanding why a group may feel the way they do.

DAL is not confident that they would win if any of these scenarios played out or the current one being considered.

while I do not know that (neither do you)

my first thought would be they are more concerned about a successful and seamless integration as a very high priority.

they appear to have a successful track record regarding integrating an airline due to a merger.

that is more than likely the focus.

Dignity, you are not neutral, i hate to tell you..

I have specific personal views regarding the Union and will participate in an election when it is made available (taking everything into consideration, the effectiveness of the union, the way a company treats their employees.. a lot of research..ext)

however at the same time will always try and look at any situation from all angles for better understanding. you see that is how we learn and grow and when that happens, you will never be perceived

as neutral.

You have to think sometimes "why does the company NOT want me to have a union?"... SO PASSIVE!!!! "oh they love us, they gave us a $200 laptop", LOL, seriously,

actually its best to ask the employees why they prefer to say.. No Thank you.

get a contract then we will talk..

if the majority decides to go that route, we will.

 

[goodgirl37]

we have had three elections using the 50 percent plus one voting format and I personally never heard one peep from a Flight Attendant (over the course of those multiple elections) the process was unfair.

as a matter of fact the last election they even stressed the point it was necessary to have 50 percent plus one participate or we would be decertified.

it is not a vote for the company if someone does not participate in a 50 percent plus one format, the company has nothing to do with our election at all. (regarding the actual voting process)

having the majority and significant majority of the group opt for representation is imperative..

they need to have a strong 70 percent supporting representation by the actual majority for leverage.

(if some cannot see why that is so dearly important, I do not know what else to say).


what I really try to do.. in most all situations is to remove the emotional element and
view a situation for exactly what it is.

its difficult, for me anyway,

to just have a cookie cutter mindset and apply what works in one situation and then project that onto all.

(there is never a 'one size fit all' solution for every issue)

unionization may be right for a particular situation and absolutely necessary, but that also does not mean it is right for every single company either.

its necessary to do a lot of research on your own and ask a lot of questions, for any other reason to grasp a better understanding why a group may feel the way they do.


while I do not know that (neither do you)

my first thought would be they are more concerned about a successful and seamless integration as a very high priority.

they appear to have a successful track record regarding integrating an airline due to a merger.

that is more than likely the focus.


I have specific personal views regarding the Union and will participate in an election when it is made available (taking everything into consideration, the effectiveness of the union, the way a company treats their employees.. a lot of research..ext)

however at the same time will always try and look at any situation from all angles for better understanding. you see that is how we learn and grow and when that happens, you will never be perceived

as neutral.


actually its best to ask the employees why they prefer to say.. No Thank you.


if the majority decides to go that route, we will.

I dont have any dogs in this fight, I just think you are trying to play this "FAIR" "NEUTRAL" position and you show your real company position in every post, if you want the fair way, you take the votes that come inand the most wins... In the states during an election, do we say "Oh, 30 percent of the residents didnt vote so we will take those votes and gives them to the Republicans (or demcorats) - NO!!!" WAKE UP sista, and sit the kool aid down...

 

[Dignity]

I dont have any dogs in this fight,

personally find your comments interesting..

I just think you are trying to play this "FAIR" "NEUTRAL" position and you show your real company position in every post,

I am a Flight Attendant.

if you want the fair way, you take the votes that come inand the most wins...

what DL Flight Attendants do need to understand is simply during a 50 percent plus one voting format
should they write in.. (such as another union) on a ballot that counts as a vote for representation.

they could have 49 percent opt for and vote AFA and 2 percent write in (another union) and the 50 percent plus one criteria would be satisfied and AFA wins by default.

during the AFA representational election, the 50 percent plus one threshold was established.

but the vote did not all go to AFA, a significant number opted to continue course with PFAA..some voted for others and some just did not participate at all.

(there is still real division regarding the issue Union at NW because of the PFAA-AFA raid/mess)

I fail to understand why securing 50 percent of the total group plus one more is so unreasonable, since that has always been the voting format for our past three elections.


But can fully appreciate the need to address changes

(as long as it involves it all and of course does not significantly delay our election) at the same time.

In the states during an election, do we say "Oh, 30 percent of the residents didnt vote so we will take those votes and gives them to the Republicans (or demcorats) - NO!!!"

in those types of elections it is recurring..so if some prefer to go that route then by all means there should be an automatic election to determine if changes are to be made.

WAKE UP sista, and sit the kool aid down...

cute as a button!

 

[Dignity]

goodgirl, what is necessary to happen is simply explain it all.. so if by some reason we have a Union going foward..those unfamiliar with the process.. have a clear understanding how it can be and what we already know..and how it is behind the scenes..

and hopefully avoid
the group viewing it this way...

The Group (unfamilar with the process)

:blink: :blink: :blink:
:blink: :blink: :blink:

Note: Notice the look on the faces, that is what we want to avoid happening.


Now, lets interview one of those from the "Group"

"Hi! What do you think about your new Union and the other little minor issues..Oops! and behind the scene thingys.. you didnt know?"


:blink: "What? WHAT! is this all about? why didnt anyone tell us this before we voted"



*I just want to let you know I am not a Company suck up..trying to get an award or promotion..OK.


I believe people should know the deal so there are no surprises.

will tell you the deal how I see it..

such as,

"You have a piece of lettuce between your teeth, you might want to remove that with floss before you get up there and board the flight"

 

[Dignity]

Your sarcasm speaks volumes. You haven't answered
the question. What dog do you have in this fight? Enjoy
your life over at UAL.

we received a dues increase shortly after we voted them on the property and it probably happened of course the additional salaries that need to be covered and the fact some of the other AFA represented carriers went completely bankrupt and an increase was necessary to cover the loss of dues from other airlines, so they remain stable..

(that is how I looked at it)

it may not be that way at all..

(they just might need the additional revenue to remain solvent)

this election more than likely hinges on the fact without the dues they cannot operate as an association..

that is not a good thing.. if that is the case

and

can show financial instability within the structure itself.

more than likely someone from UAL is not really interested in the election itself rather than desperately trying to keep their own association solvent (the entire association)..and singles out anyone who does not share their view or doesn't keep their mouth shut.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

thanks Luke..I sort of understand that..

to me, the issue at this time is simply if the NMB changes the election format with a former AFA President on board.. to the YES/NO ballot, it will give a perception they are giving the Union an advantage..

(regardless if that is the case or not)

a lot of people will see it that way.by having Congress change it.. in a sense removes the conflict of interest and of course other perceptions mentioned.(in a sense takes it out of their hands, any changes and its like..)

"see.. they changed it, we didnt..."


the best thing they could do at this point is to simply let the process play out as it has..

by going with the 50 percent plus one (the actual majority) and the NMB oversee to make sure it is done fairly.

*there are no questions after the fact when the majority decides, because it is the actual majority.

any changes regarding this particular election is not going to look good at all..

(under the circumstances)

the delay filing already does not look good, (especially since other groups have already resolved their representational issues)

it can appear, any further changes that even remotely gives the impression there is an advantage will only make it worse.

I look at this from a perspective being stuck in the middle.. dealing with the aftermath when the division arises.. when others may view the process was not done fairly initially..

Over and over you talk about how things appear, perception and impressions.
We aren't a nation of perceptions; we aren't, per Constitutional standards, even a nation of men. We are a nation of LAWS.
This isn't about how things are perceived. This is about doing the right thing. We don't send decisions to Congress that aren't in their purview just because it might appear less one-sided. (Besides, how do you think a Democratically-controlled Congress would rule?)
I would highly recommend going back and reading or re-reading the TTD Q&A in its entirety. It was pretty eye-opening to me.

 

[Dignity]

Over and over you talk about how things appear, perception and impressions.
We aren't a nation of perceptions; we aren't, per Constitutional standards, even a nation of men. We are a nation of LAWS.
This isn't about how things are perceived. This is about doing the right thing. We don't send decisions to Congress that aren't in their purview just because it might appear less one-sided. (Besides, how do you think a Democratically-controlled Congress would rule?)
I would highly recommend going back and reading or re-reading the TTD Q&A in its entirety. It was pretty eye-opening to me.

oh for garsh!

did you have to modify my quote like that? I think I have a headache now..! :blink:

(at least I didnt need to put on my glasses to read it again, even though I remember what I wrote)


A Democratically controlled Congress with moderate Democrats can and do vote either way..
they do not always just vote the way you may think...in unison.

have you ever been in a union before? if you did you would know how important it is to have a solid majority show interest in the initial election putting the union on the property.

50 percent plus one would be the actual majority, but they need way more than that for effective leverage.

why is that so difficult for some to comprehend?

(that is not necessarily directed to you, just the whole situation)

the worst case scenerio would be to have less than 50 percent actually put a union on the property and then here comes the interesting part..the real majority...the ones that did not support the union in the first place would have the ability to vote on the TA... they do not have to support any agreement at all and vote it down over and over, and the group is in limbo.

we went through three Tentative agreements and the last one barely passed.. so these things can and do happen!

they better start thinking real fast about what they are doing asking for..regarding a voting process that can put a union on the property with a possible miniority number of votes that do not reflect the real majority!