Great news!

Why don't you cry a little louder Dapoes...they might hear you all the way to the G.O.

Great job President Obama! It's time the workers had an even playing field again.
 
well... it does appear as a conflict of interest, if she was associated with AFA..and it was stated Van de Water was a conflict of interest for the fact she held a position with NWA, what is the difference?

either way it does not change my vote, but I hope this means an election will be happening shortly..
 
It's time the workers had an even playing field again.
because DAL Flight Attendants did not opt for representation twice in the past does not mean the playing field was not even, it simply means there was not enough numbers.. lets try to be realistic.
 
well... it does appear as a conflict of interest, if she was associated with AFA..and it was stated Van de Water was a conflict of interest for the fact she held a position with NWA, what is the difference?
You got to admit, it does fit perfectly with this administrations motto:
"do as I say, not as I do"

I can't help but wonder what the excuses will be if the AFA gets voted down again....
 
So lets get this straight, AFA complained that there was a conflict of interest with the existing NMB because of her past employment at NWA. So now Obama appoints a new one that was ex president of AFA???

If that's not an obvious conflict of interest then I don't know what is.

I think its a conflict of interest.. but as long as this means we can have an election soon?
 
I can't help but wonder what the excuses will be if the AFA gets voted down again....
I believe the vote when we have it..will go right down the middle, there will not be a landslide either way..however if it does go down again, the conclusion will be..the playing field was "even" and "it is what it is"..and we move forward.
 
I believe the vote when we have it..will go right down the middle, there will not be a landslide either way..however if it does go down again, the conclusion will be..the playing field was "even" and "it is what it is"..and we move forward.
One can only hope.
I wonder how long it will take for this person to get confirmed and in place before
the AFA decides it "safe" enough to call a vote. Hopefully for all of us the stars and
planets will all be aligned soon.
 
Chances are more then likely that if she does get affirmed, legal challenges will ensue.
 
J Alpa, Your response back in Feb:
"Please look at this NMB, and you will see that its the most management friendly board in its history and our elected representatives acknowledge that. Not to mention the chair of the NMB was a director at NW and also has a stake in the outcome as her pension is tied to NW."

What are yoour thoughts about this newest appointment?
Is this obvious conflict of interest ok because it fits your agenda?
or do you feel that No conflict of interest should exsist, either side ?

Linda A. Puchala:
"including work as International President of the Association of Flight Attendants, CWA, AFL-CIO, and Staff Director"
 
"Please look at this NMB, and you will see that its the most management friendly board in its history and our elected representatives acknowledge that. Not to mention the chair of the NMB was a director at NW and also has a stake in the outcome as her pension is tied to NW."

What are yoour thoughts about this newest appointment?
Is this obvious conflict of interest ok because it fits your agenda?
or do you feel that No conflict of interest should exsist, either side ?

Linda A. Puchala:
"including work as International President of the Association of Flight Attendants, CWA, AFL-CIO, and Staff Director"
I am sure the woman is highly respected including creditials .. however does not dismiss the fact this is a conflict of interest period. Placing a former President of a Union on the Labor Board that may oversee an election of the same union she was once a President is amazing to me no one think its not?

it is actually more of a conflict of interest than Van de Water..

a sense of absolute fairness (reflecting both sides) would be achieved by someone who is neutral or does not have any ties to either company or a former President of the union.

the appointment should have been neutral..for an overall sense of fairness respecting..

both sides who will participate in the voting process..
 
This is very Good news.
It is for someone who has a one-sided viewpoint..

people will absolutely feel she is biased (even if that is not the case at all) based simply on her title of being a former President, this was clearly not the best move that could have been made at this time...when thinking long term and overall fairness for all, and the perception of balance..

that is why neutrality would have been the key regarding this appointment..

they cannot remove one person who may have a former tie with a company(while some claimed conflict of interest) and then replace the position with another who has a former tie to a union being a President..

it appears very hypocritical.

I believe she is very well suited to be a mediator based on experience, but the actual nomination of overseeing an election may be an issue at her confimation..