Delta Labor Relations thread.

Sidebar
swamt said:
My fault. Did not mean to make it look like AMFA was the number one reason for the asso.  It just so happens I did list it first but did not mean to say it was the number one reason. Just one of the reasons. Sorry for the confusion.  If you wish you can list any and all the reasons I listed in any order you want, they all add up to a complete corrupted union working with the company side by side.  
As far as the 8 mechs that wrote in AMFA, did any other union get wrote in?  Was AMFA on the ballot?  Was there an AMFA drive going on?  No is the answer to all these questions.  Most, about 75% or better, don't even know you can write in when voting on representation.  
I too am sick and tired of the excuses of not making the changes at AA for new representation.  
BTW:  They never planned on asking the NMB for a vote, they knew they could push this asso. thru by using the NMB without a vote and get certified before the membership could even figure out what happened, and it did.  A perfect scam by all unions as well as the company involved...
Click to expand...
It was never a scam. People just needed to read the filing on the NMB website that was saying to the NMB that a vote wasn't needed since both Unions held 95% of the combined members. People just didn't want to listen to that filing and thought the NMB would basically rule against their own rules. That was ridiculous to begin with and I said that too many times to count.

I wish they had let us vote on the idea of the Association in the first place and have also said that. Absolutely did not want the NMB to call for a vote against their own rules though cause I don't like the Corporate led line that has the "No Union" option.

But really we do bat this subject around too much on here already. It's done and people should move forward and support the Negotiators to get them the best possible contract they can. The rest of it is all just spinning wheels.
 
Kev3188 said:
They announced the one we received in December a few months prior, but it's not like in a CBA where there may be several future increases (and dates) listed.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Thx for the info...
 
WeAAsles said:
It was never a scam. People just needed to read the filing on the NMB website that was saying to the NMB that a vote wasn't needed since both Unions held 95% of the combined members. People just didn't want to listen to that filing and thought the NMB would basically rule against their own rules. That was ridiculous to begin with and I said that too many times to count.

I wish they had let us vote on the idea of the Association in the first place and have also said that. Absolutely did not want the NMB to call for a vote against their own rules though cause I don't like the Corporate led line that has the "No Union" option.

But really we do bat this subject around too much on here already. It's done and people should move forward and support the Negotiators to get them the best possible contract they can. The rest of it is all just spinning wheels.
Click to expand...
The reason I say it was a scam is because the 2 unions knew it was not going to be voted on by the membership, as the unions request and proof sent to NMB saying no vote was required, yet, even after filing for that request the TWU, IAM, as well as 700 and other leaders were still saying the members will get a vote on the asso. representing the employees of both.  Sorry that YOU think we bat this around to much. But, typical industrial union tactics is to brush things to the side and just hope the membership forgets about what really happened when something negative towards the unions come to light.  I again agree with you on the fact that I too wished the membership would have had a voice on weather or not to even consider a combination of these 2 unions and starting a combined asso.. So now there's 2 votes that never happened that should have.  1- Would the membership be for or against the 2 unions coming together to form an asso.?  2- Then after the asso. is born and new constitution written on how this asso. will be ran ect.. a vote on rather to accept or decline asso.  Just so sad how many times still and in the past the TWU and IAM has by-passed the membership of votes and forced issues upon the membership without any say so from the membership, when does it stop? And I am even talking about contract, pensions, 401K, profit sharing, equity sums voting was stripped from them.  
I also agree with you that the membership should support the current nego's and fully show their support for their contract nego's, but it is very hard to do when the membership gets nothing in the form of communications and no observers allowed. Nobody would support what they have no idea what the hell is going on, it's impossible. So sorry, but I will not just let it go and forget about it, that's just what this asso. wants everybody to do.
BTW, should we not take this to the AA threads, none of this has anything to do with Delta? I'm surprised we have not been ripped for it yet...
 
swamt said:
Gotcha. Thx for the info...
 

The reason I say it was a scam is because the 2 unions knew it was not going to be voted on by the membership, as the unions request and proof sent to NMB saying no vote was required, yet, even after filing for that request the TWU, IAM, as well as 700 and other leaders were still saying the members will get a vote on the asso. representing the employees of both.  Sorry that YOU think we bat this around to much. But, typical industrial union tactics is to brush things to the side and just hope the membership forgets about what really happened when something negative towards the unions come to light.  I again agree with you on the fact that I too wished the membership would have had a voice on weather or not to even consider a combination of these 2 unions and starting a combined asso.. So now there's 2 votes that never happened that should have.  1- Would the membership be for or against the 2 unions coming together to form an asso.?  2- Then after the asso. is born and new constitution written on how this asso. will be ran ect.. a vote on rather to accept or decline asso.  Just so sad how many times still and in the past the TWU and IAM has by-passed the membership of votes and forced issues upon the membership without any say so from the membership, when does it stop? And I am even talking about contract, pensions, 401K, profit sharing, equity sums voting was stripped from them.  
I also agree with you that the membership should support the current nego's and fully show their support for their contract nego's, but it is very hard to do when the membership gets nothing in the form of communications and no observers allowed. Nobody whould support what they have no idea what the hell is going on, it's impossible. So sorry, but I will not just let it go and forget about it, that's just what this asso. wants everybody to do.
BTW, should we not take this to the AA threads, none of this has anything to do with Delta? I'm surprised we have not been ripped for it yet...
Click to expand...
Great info but why is it on the DL board?
 
swamt said:
Gotcha. Thx for the info...
 

The reason I say it was a scam is because the 2 unions knew it was not going to be voted on by the membership, as the unions request and proof sent to NMB saying no vote was required, yet, even after filing for that request the TWU, IAM, as well as 700 and other leaders were still saying the members will get a vote on the asso. representing the employees of both.  Sorry that YOU think we bat this around to much. But, typical industrial union tactics is to brush things to the side and just hope the membership forgets about what really happened when something negative towards the unions come to light.  I again agree with you on the fact that I too wished the membership would have had a voice on weather or not to even consider a combination of these 2 unions and starting a combined asso.. So now there's 2 votes that never happened that should have.  1- Would the membership be for or against the 2 unions coming together to form an asso.?  2- Then after the asso. is born and new constitution written on how this asso. will be ran ect.. a vote on rather to accept or decline asso.  Just so sad how many times still and in the past the TWU and IAM has by-passed the membership of votes and forced issues upon the membership without any say so from the membership, when does it stop? And I am even talking about contract, pensions, 401K, profit sharing, equity sums voting was stripped from them.  
I also agree with you that the membership should support the current nego's and fully show their support for their contract nego's, but it is very hard to do when the membership gets nothing in the form of communications and no observers allowed. Nobody would support what they have no idea what the hell is going on, it's impossible. So sorry, but I will not just let it go and forget about it, that's just what this asso. wants everybody to do.
BTW, should we not take this to the AA threads, none of this has anything to do with Delta? I'm surprised we have not been ripped for it yet...
Click to expand...
I made a commitment to stay away from the vipers den that's the AA mechanic thread. They just want either for me not to be there or more importantly use me as fuel to propel their agenda. Not interested.

"Nothing in the form of communications" Cmon again SWAMT cut it out. They update the members all the time and you know it. They just don't write it in letter form like your group does. But Peterson has done that a few times now and he even just made a video. Saying that they're not being informed is highly disengenuous. And if your basing your comment off the same half dozen regular posters on that thread who hate anything not associated with AMFA you're missing out on what thousands of others might be thinking.

And what you, me and 700 thought about there being a vote is irrelevant. The TWU yes did say that there would be a vote. Did they believe it or were they scamming? Again that was under the old regime and they're out and gone now (People) I never saw a note by the IAM saying that there would be a vote? Can you find me an old link to prove me wrong?

BTW on the Fleet ramp I still get members who are confused that eventually we'll have just one union. They just don't understand and unfortunately it's an educational lack in reading things for themselves and then writing down and asking their questions. I can't tell you how many times I'm explaining the same things to the same people. They actually tell me that they're not as smart as me but that's a crock. They're just as smart but they're too lazy to read and try. And an A & P degree doesn't make those people any different than the ones I talk to.

You know maybe if so many of us didn't have so many different agendas when we converse with each other we might have much stronger members and unions all over this Country? Too bad the agenda always comes first.
 
WeAAsles said:
"Nothing in the form of communications" Cmon again SWAMT cut it out. They update the members all the time and you know it. They just don't write it in letter form like your group does. But Peterson has done that a few times now and he even just made a video. Saying that they're not being informed is highly disengenuous. And if your basing your comment off the same half dozen regular posters on that thread who hate anything not associated with AMFA you're missing out on what thousands of others might be thinking.

 
Click to expand...
Not trying to say guys are not getting "any" communications, but as you state, yes we are use to very detailed updates from our nego's cmte's as well as our numerous observers that attend.  Matter fact the current details being released from nego's while in mediation are a little less informative than in regular nego's because both sides were limited to what they were allowed to print for updates by the mediators. You never want to disobey any request or rules that mediators put forth as the company has done 3 times so far since the mediators has put the rules or request of do's and don'ts out. So I guess when I read the updates from the asso. after their meetings with the co. they are just very, very lame in comparison to ours and what we are use to. Also with observers and very detailed updates it really does stop all the rumors from starting and getting out of control.  For example, over in the AA threads someone posted that they heard the co. was offering a top pay of 48 for a 5 year top out or a 52 for a 10 year top out scale.  His question is legit, but it ended up being just that, rumors as no one has been able to confirm for him as of yet. Just pointing out some good reasons for much more detailed updates rather than the lame and basic updates that the asso. is putting out.  So to recap, I have read the updates the asso. keeps putting out, but after every single one of them so far, I have seen nothing but questions and confusion from the members trying to figure out exactly how or what was actually said, and even what did that update really mean, too many grey ares that lead to all kinds of rumor mills flowing thru-out the membership.
 
swamt said:
Not trying to say guys are not getting "any" communications, but as you state, yes we are use to very detailed updates from our nego's cmte's as well as our numerous observers that attend.  Matter fact the current details being released from nego's while in mediation are a little less informative than in regular nego's because both sides were limited to what they were allowed to print for updates by the mediators. You never want to disobey any request or rules that mediators put forth as the company has done 3 times so far since the mediators has put the rules or request of do's and don'ts out. So I guess when I read the updates from the asso. after their meetings with the co. they are just very, very lame in comparison to ours and what we are use to. Also with observers and very detailed updates it really does stop all the rumors from starting and getting out of control.  For example, over in the AA threads someone posted that they heard the co. was offering a top pay of 48 for a 5 year top out or a 52 for a 10 year top out scale.  His question is legit, but it ended up being just that, rumors as no one has been able to confirm for him as of yet. Just pointing out some good reasons for much more detailed updates rather than the lame and basic updates that the asso. is putting out.  So to recap, I have read the updates the asso. keeps putting out, but after every single one of them so far, I have seen nothing but questions and confusion from the members trying to figure out exactly how or what was actually said, and even what did that update really mean, too many grey ares that lead to all kinds of rumor mills flowing thru-out the membership.
Click to expand...
The rumors on pay are silly because they haven't even reached the point of talking about wages yet for either group.

People are also born conspiracy theorists. They're always looking for what's the angle that someone is trying to pull a fast one on them. I'm frankly amazed on that thread they've even turned on their own. It's no State secret that Owens and Peterson are AMFA supporters. When Bob started to give these guys the truth that Lombardo is doing things differently then Little did they turned on him like a pack of rabid dogs. He doesn't even come on Forums anymore. Peterson tried to file a suit to stop the Association and succeeded in stalling negotiations for a few extra months and now they don't even believe his updates? Those people you read on that thread are honestly nothing more than anarchists. And like I said before you're getting a horrible gauge on the AA membership if you're taking your opinions from those posters.

I don't like observers for two reasons. One if I was a negotiator if people wanted other people to observe me then I would feel like they don't trust me. In that case I don't know if I'd want to even represent the members and negotiate for them if I feel they don't trust me. Unlike another member commenting on the AA Fleet thread, my integrity is very important to me.

The second reason is in a group as large as ours is who gets picked to "watch" us? And talks are sometimes sensitive and fluid and things change. What if some of those observers have big mouths and blow the hand I'm trying to play against the company by spitting it all over social media? And if the members weren't going to believe me when I update them who's to say they'll believe those observers? If they believe the observers over me they should have just voted for them in the first place.

I just think the idea of observers can cause way more harm than good. And I could be right just by the pace of talks in your group? Again to me the observer issue is all about trust. Either you trust your negotiators or you don't. And if they were voted in by a majority of the membership, I think the members should let them do the work.
 
Kev3188 said:
Open invite. First come, first serve.
Click to expand...
Do you put a mussel on those members who may be a little more vocal or emotional than they should be? Or do you let them pound their fists in frustration and anger?
 
Observers were one of the best things that happened to us.  After having the teamsters doing all kinds of back door deals, we fully welcomed the observer option. Yes it does keep the nego cmte honest, which is a good tool.  It keeps the co. on their toes as well as they always use to say "we never said that" and it would pit the co. against the nego cmte against the membership in a he said she said war.  It keeps the rumors to an absolute "0".  And as far as your loud mouths you ask about, being an observer is an option being picked by the LEC with some rules and regs set to follow, if the members do not comply they simply will not attend another nego's session. Also, AMFA has some strict rules for observers to be present. Basically, you sit and listen, if something comes up and you totally disagree, you remain quiet and say nothing while they are at the table, you write down what your topic is you want to add input for. Wait for the next caucus to bring your concerns to the nego cmte. If for some reason there is a immediate need to speak to the nego's at that very moment, you can signal the lead nego or the National represenative present and they will immediately stop nego's and address your concerns.  I can tell you that I have been told by our nego leaders that observers have been successful at changing the way the cmte was nego in certain ways about 6 times and more in the past.  You never know, as an observer, you may catch some things that they are missing or is looking at it in a very different way.  The cmte is always open to your input and suggestions and have implamented them many times in the past in the memberships favor.  When very sensitive issues are discussed the co ask for the leaders only, then are only allowed to discuss legally with observers such as future growth plans, airline mergers and or purchases, ect...  Not one negative item has shown up in the over 10 years we have had observers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The Latest Hangar News.
Replies
77
Views
9K
American Airlines
delldude
delldude
J
Fa's To Vote On Honoring Amfa Picket Lines
Replies
0
Views
858
Delta Air Lines
justanadd
J
Garfield1966
Looking for an answer
Replies
23
Views
4K
Delta Air Lines
CSAR GYRENE
CSAR GYRENE
jenny@nw
NWA tells attendants price of rejection
Replies
76
Views
10K
Delta Air Lines
700UW
700UW
V
Union vs Non Union My Response
Replies
302
Views
52K
Delta Air Lines
groundcontrol
G

Latest posts

Top Bottom