Flight Attendants now free to Unionize at Delta

[FM2436]

"Labor unions will have an easier time organizing workers at U.S. airline and railroad companies after the Obama administration on Monday changed a 76-year-old rule on union elections."

"The most immediate impact of the change would be at Delta Air Lines, where unions are trying to organize about 20,000 flight attendants."

http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/printer.jsp?id=36423

 

[dapoes]

"Labor unions will have an easier time organizing workers at U.S. airline and railroad companies after the Obama administration on Monday changed a 76-year-old rule on union elections."

"The most immediate impact of the change would be at Delta Air Lines, where unions are trying to organize about 20,000 flight attendants."

http://www.airportbusiness.com/online/printer.jsp?id=36423

The ATA will be all over this and expect this to be challenged in court.

We continue to believe the National Mediation Board does not have legal authority to implement this rule, one that undoubtedly will lead to more labor discord. It is quite clear to us that the NMB was determined to proceed despite the proposed rule’s substantive and procedural flaws, leaving us no choice but to seek judicial review.

ATA Link

 

[Kev3188]

F/A's were always "free" to vote. This is just a quantum leap in process improvement.

Same goes for ACS personnel, and any other classification.

The ATA will be all over this and expect this to be challenged in court.

I think most people would be stunned if they didn't challenge it....

 

[goodgirl37]

The ATA will be all over this and expect this to be challenged in court.

before too long, most of DAL will be all union. I bet Management is very nervous.

 

[floatingon9]

before too long, most of DAL will be all union. I bet Management is very nervous.

Let's hop so! Its time for the Delta Flight Attendants to have representation.
More on the change here:

 

[dapoes]

Let's hop so! Its time for the Delta Flight Attendants to have representation.
More on the change here:

If we wanted representation then we would have it already.

 

[goodgirl37]

If we wanted representation then we would have it already.

Well Dapoes, I suppose we will find out.

 

[dapoes]

I honestly don't think this will make it any easier for the unions. The company will still have a greater saturation and penetration to the entire class of employees then the unions ever will. This may very well back fire.

What’s most troubling is the NMB did not provide an equal process to decertify if the employees wish to do so in the future. A true decertification is not just the ability to change unions, but to vote a union out completely. So if the AFA is elected, they may never have to stand for re-election and it is impossible that the flight attendants would be able to vote the union out if they became dissatisfied with union representation.

When the AFA asked NMB to change the voting rules, they said they wanted the the NMB to adopt an election process consistent with union elections conducted under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However the AFA fails to acknowledge that the NLRA includes an important and equal decertification process. In its decision the NMB has not included a comparable decertification process, making it easier for the AFA to be voted in and nearly impossible for a large work group to become union-free.

 

[goodgirl37]

I honestly don't think this will make it any easier for the unions. The company will still have a greater saturation and penetration to the entire class of employees then the unions ever will. This may very well back fire.

What’s most troubling is the NMB did not provide an equal process to decertify if the employees wish to do so in the future. A true decertification is not just the ability to change unions, but to vote a union out completely. So if the AFA is elected, they may never have to stand for re-election and it is impossible that the flight attendants would be able to vote the union out if they became dissatisfied with union representation.

When the AFA asked NMB to change the voting rules, they said they wanted the the NMB to adopt an election process consistent with union elections conducted under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However the AFA fails to acknowledge that the NLRA includes an important and equal decertification process. In its decision the NMB has not included a comparable decertification process, making it easier for the AFA to be voted in and nearly impossible for a large work group to become union-free.

Well, I guess we will soon find out, now that the tables have turned. Atlanta is going to be sweating for the next few months.

 

[dapoes]

Well, I guess we will soon find out, now that the tables have turned. Atlanta is going to be sweating for the next few months.

I doubt any time soon. This does not give the green light to AFA. It going to wind its way thru the courts first.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

There IS a decertification process in the form of a strawman poll. (Russell v NMB 1983) This case, upheld in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NMB had to process an application for an election which would terminate a union's monopoly bargaining privilege.
For instance, all FAs would have to do is get 35% of cards signed with say, a known anti-union f/a's name on the ballot as their representative. In the election, if the majority of those voting casts votes for this anti-union f/a, he/she would win over AFA (or any other union) and of course, this person would not be "representing" f/a's so the union would become null and void.

 

[Kev3188]

It going to wind its way thru the courts first.

It sure is.

I find it interesting that all along memos from West, Smith, et al talked about how they " just want us to be able to vote." Now that that is was very real possibility, we get to wait while DL & the ATA take it to court. Even yesterday's letters do, while at the same time talking about going to court! Awesome.

Every anti union person that decried the AFA & IAM for supposedly "delaying the vote" should now do the same to the CLT.

 

[dapoes]

It sure is.

I find it interesting that all along memos from West, Smith, et al talked about how they " just want us to be able to vote." Now that that is was very real possibility, we get to wait while DL & the ATA take it to court. Even yesterday's letters do, while at the same time talking about going to court! Awesome.

Every anti union person that decried the AFA & IAM for supposedly "delaying the vote" should now do the same to the CLT.

It has been transparent from day one that AFA has been delaying because of fear the 50+1 numbers werent there for them. They delayed to see if Obama would be voted it, they delayed to see if there would be a change in NMB, the filed for vote, retracted vote, etc. This push for NMB change is a desperate attempt to hold on.

Of course it will be challenged as well it should. It didn't stop the NMB to allow other union votes while single out DAL at the same time. We can only hope that it takes as long as it can to break the financial backs of AFA.

Thru the delays of AFA, we have seen their true colors. Their reputation has been trashed as a result. Im also comforted by the overwhelming amount of NWA FA's who have given up on AFA. The failure of the "Me Too" grievance put a nail in that coffin for the NWA FA's. I dont blame them. If they would have had a successful outcome then that would have been a powerful achievement (as proof). But they chose not to so they (according KD) "would not alienate the DAL FA's". Throw the NWA FA's under the bus in hopes of winning over DAL FA's. Desperation.

And like I have always said before, there is now way the union will have the saturation and penetration to the entire class to vote....no.

 

[BABABOOY]

There IS a decertification process in the form of a strawman poll. (Russell v NMB 1983) This case, upheld in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NMB had to process an application for an election which would terminate a union's monopoly bargaining privilege.
For instance, all FAs would have to do is get 35% of cards signed with say, a known anti-union f/a's name on the ballot as their representative. In the election, if the majority of those voting casts votes for this anti-union f/a, he/she would win over AFA (or any other union) and of course, this person would not be "representing" f/a's so the union would become null and void.

Why not use the same process to vote out the union as this new proposal to vote them in? only fair.
Also,
I curious how many times has this method been used to vote out a union all together? I believe the answer is never.

Also Kev,
Many do think that this delay and any future delay lays squarely with the AFA. This could have been over along time
ago. They chose to pull the request hoping to get the rules change. I understand the teamsters didn't have any problem
over at Continental with the present rules. The AFA knew they don't have around 10,000 votes.
I don't believe this will be over for quite awile.

 

[dapoes]

Ultimately this is not a decision that is in the powers of the NMB, rather congress itself. This ruling effectively politicizes the NMB and threatens the stability of the RLA.

What happens when there is a republican majority on the NMB? If the NMB is allowed to make sweeping changes every 4/8 years then it can render the RLA useless. Therefore any sweeping changes to the RLA should only fall on congress. NMB's role is not to change laws, but to mediate.