Great news!

[Airlinelifer]

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..

The pendulum has swung.

 

[Dignity]

The pendulum has swung.

maybe a tad too far.

 

[jalbalpa]

Read Van de Water:

Director at Northwest Airlines until 1997
Lobbied for NWA until 1999
Husband works for a company that has received $1.75 mil from NW since 1998 and over $4 mil from AA...


Linda Puchala:

Was AFA president about a quarter of a century ago.


The opposition didnt seem to think that Read had a conflict of interest even with CURRENT ties to airline management, yet seems to think that someone that was affiliated with AFA a quarter of a century ago is a MUCH more serious thing.

Please explain this to me...actually don't waste your time, you dont have an argument!

 

[Delta Technician]

maybe a tad too far.

Dignity,
You deserve applause for your view on this subject. You want to be FAIR which is more than I can say for most. Maybe things haven't been fair in the past administration but you haven't taken that to mean things shouldn't be fair now. I think it is fair to say two wrongs don't make a right and I believe you believe that. Thank you.

 

[Dignity]

Read Van de Water:

Director at Northwest Airlines until 1997
Lobbied for NWA until 1999
Husband works for a company that has received $1.75 mil from NW since 1998 and over $4 mil from AA...


Linda Puchala:

Was AFA president about a quarter of a century ago.

there is an issue with both of these women..neither one should be in that role with their past affiliations handling or overseeing this particular upcoming election.

The opposition didnt seem to think that Read had a conflict of interest even with CURRENT ties to airline management, yet seems to think that someone that was affiliated with AFA a quarter of a century ago is a MUCH more serious thing.

when someone removes the emotional element and actually determine conflict of interest, one will understand it does not necessarily soley involve 'financial'..it can be determined that one who was associated with a former organization is asked to change something that will benefit the same group they previously represented or had an interest(in the past)...even the appearance of such can be determined conflict of interest..

the bottom line is simply if any changes are made in this particular election..regarding a ballot and so on, ext.. she is not the one to make these changes simply because it may appear an advantage is being given to the same group she formerly represented. Now if an individual who was not associated with either company or held a union office made these changes, it would actually appear completely differently.. there are many examples of how conflict of interest is determined and why it is the case here..

Please explain this to me...actually don't waste your time, you dont have an argument!

personally feel all views and opinions are important, it is actually necessary for balance..and at minimum..
hopefully a sense of fairness (that other perspectives are at least..taken into consideration)

 

[bagboy]

maybe a tad too far.

Now that isn't very neutral and unbiased.

 

[Dignity]

Maybe things haven't been fair in the past administration but you haven't taken that to mean things shouldn't be fair now.

how it actually appears is simply 'getting even'....'they did this in the past, so we are going to do this now'.. it really isnt the best way to project..fairness for all involved..(especially if changes are made).

 

[southwind]

And you people really believe this administration is on your side?

Obama , "There will be "TRANSPARENCY" in this new administration..........................right after I sign all this pork into law behind locked and guarded doors"!

Can't believe you still fall for this guy......................hook,line and sinker !

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

I think the jury is out.
Many are already making assumptions about Ms Puchala and she hasn't even been confirmed yet. These are the same assumptions that the anti-union/AFA crowd accused pro-AFA people of making about Read Van De Water. The only problem is Ms Van de Water showed through her actions that she was biased by:
1. Not taking the dead FA off the list when it was brought to her attention.
2. Refusing to even look at charges of interference from AFA.
3. Moving the ballot due-date in the last election up approx 2 weeks and not providing any explanation as to why. (After materials, alerts had already gone out with the original due date thus causing some confusion.)

Now, when we see Ms. Puchala acting biased in such blatant ways, then I'm all for agreeing with you that her appointment is a conflict of interest.
Remember, it has been 23 years since she was Pres. of AFA. (the anti-AFA people always said Van de Water hadn't been with NW since the early 90s- well I guess Puchala has that time line beat.) and also remember that this woman's reputation is on the line. If she shows gross bias right off the bat, it won't look good for her and to have risen through the ranks like she has, she's no dummy.

My predictions (And I am just a "lay" person so I have no inside track or any of that. It is just MY OPINION):
She will be confirmed (Dem's are in power in both Houses of Congress).
She will not rule in favor of a Laker-type (yes/no) ballot for our election...not in the beginning anyway.
The vote will be close:
--There will be challenges and then, she may very well rule in favor of a Laker Ballot for a re-vote especially if Delta goes wild with all the posters, mailed-home DVDs and the like.
--Because Delta knows that they are fighting a union election for the first time with a Democrat in charge, you will probably see a much more toned-down anti-union campaign..well, at least not as obvious as the last two..so as not to trigger the possiblity of the Laker Ballot on a re-vote and drag this out even more. Dragging it out according to today's Detroitnews.com
(http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090316/BIZ/903160347/1001/rss21)
could have damaging consequences on our bottom line in this economy, and none of us wants that.

 

[jalbalpa]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0347/1001/rss21

In response to this article...

One would never expect objective reporting from the Detroit Free Press on the question of unions (given the paper’s own attempted union-busting) and its latest “storyâ€￾ on the Delta/Northwest merger shows why. The paper “reportsâ€￾ that two of the unions for Northwest employees (the AFA representing flight attendants and the IAM representing ramp/ground service employees) “aren’t cooperatingâ€￾ on Delta’s efforts to turn their employees into a “unified forceâ€￾ (whatever that is.) The headline tells you that you are entering a Fox News-like “No Spin Zoneâ€￾–â€￾2 Unions Stall Delta’s Progress.â€￾

Oh, please, stop.

Delta is not ready to combine either its flight crews or even the infrastructure (including IT) required to combine ground service employees until next year. Giving everyone the latest slinky outfit dreamed up by some designer (check out this story on a Delta flight attendant from Pittsburgh for more on that) and swapping signage in airports is hardly operational combination. There is no “progressâ€￾ being stalled by Delta having to follow the law on resolving disputes over union representation of its employees.

And Delta’s much-reported contract with its pilots reflects little on what is the proper result for other employee groups. It also says little about how quickly the representation issues for other employee groups need to be resolved, since even the pilots won’t be combined for operations until the end of 2009 at the earliest.

The deal also tells us little about Delta’s “good intentionsâ€￾ towards its employees. ALPA represented pilots at both Delta and Northwest. Delta couldn’t avoid dealing with ALPA and having to negotiate a combined agreement after the merger. So it chose to negotiate the deal ahead of the merger in order to resolve that issue with its pilots.

As discussed here earlier, it made part of that deal ALPA’s agreement to file a “single carrierâ€￾ application with the National Mediation Board promptly after resolution of the pilots’ seniority integration. That application would ask for ALPA’s certification as representative of the combined pilot group.

Of course, the pilots had their own reasons for seeking that quick certification–it let them fully resolve all contractual and representation issues associated with the merger. But since Delta had to deal with the pilots, that it chose to do so ahead of the deal is no surprise.

And, in fact, Delta’s conduct in attempting to bootstrap ALPA’s application into a quick election for its other employee groups (also discussed earlier)–long before any actual combination of those employees–exposes the airline’s calculation in the ALPA deal. It sought a quick resolution of issues with its pilots so it could then fast track labor issues with its other employees in an effort to get rid of the Northwest unions. (It succeeded with the moribund AMFA to no one’s surprise after that union’s disastrous tenure at Northwest.) Cut a deal with a smaller number of employees whose union you can’t get rid of in the hopes of dumping the unions who could represent many more of your employees.

The article has the expected comments from pro-management consultants cast as “observersâ€￾ and is devoid of any skeptical inquiry regarding management’s intentions. And, no surprise, it casts the dispute over when a union election would occur as just a matter of the unions wanting dues–rather than the real issue of whether the flight attendants and ground service employees will have an enforceable labor contract (like the pilots do, remember) or will go under the unilateral discretion of management to set work rules, pay and benefits however it wishes in its interest.

This is the kind of shallow and lazy reporting that, unfortunately, characterizes a lot of the reporting on the airline industry. Why actually report when you can just call up a spokesman (and an “observerâ€￾ who the company spokesman likely suggests)?

Airline passengers are used to having to occasionally use air sickness pills. But with spin like this going on, it will be the flight attendants and ground employees of Delta/Northwest who need the Dramamine.

===============

P.S. Maybe the Detroit News should read the USA Today, it might help their reporting–“Delta takes its time to get Northwest merger right.â€￾

 

[Dignity]

I think the jury is out.
Many are already making assumptions about Ms Puchala and she hasn't even been confirmed yet.

since you made that comment on this particular thread...it is necessary to refer you back to this comment..

if any changes are made in this particular election..regarding a ballot and so on, ext.. she is not the one to make these changes

"if any changes are made", that is not an assumption, that is merely pointing out how it can be perceived after the fact..

These are the same assumptions that the anti-union/AFA crowd accused pro-AFA people of making about Read Van De Water. The only problem is Ms Van de Water showed through her actions that she was biased by:
1. Not taking the dead FA off the list when it was brought to her attention.
2. Refusing to even look at charges of interference from AFA.
3. Moving the ballot due-date in the last election up approx 2 weeks and not providing any explanation as to why. (After materials, alerts had already gone out with the original due date thus causing some confusion.)

because you believe people are making assumptions does not make it to be the actual case..

Now, when we see Ms. Puchala acting biased in such blatant ways, then I'm all for agreeing with you that her appointment is a conflict of interest.

her nomination can still be considered conflict of interest based on the fact.. she was a representative of the same union she will oversee regarding an election..

Remember, it has been 23 years since she was Pres. of AFA. (the anti-AFA people always said Van de Water hadn't been with NW since the early 90s- well I guess Puchala has that time line beat.)

theoretically if a senior VP of Inflight Service was in the same position and placed on the NMB overseeing an election of the same group it would be conflict of interest, there really is no difference here regardless of the timeline, other than the fact..if that theoretical scenario came into play, some would throw an absolute fit..

and also remember that this woman's reputation is on the line. If she shows gross bias right off the bat, it won't look good for her and to have risen through the ranks like she has, she's no dummy.

it is, she cannot actually make any changes other than simply overseeing the election should she be confirmed, it just would look poorly on her and that perception could possible further divide the group at another time..

My predictions (And I am just a "lay" person so I have no inside track or any of that. It is just MY OPINION):
She will be confirmed (Dem's are in power in both Houses of Congress).
She will not rule in favor of a Laker-type (yes/no) ballot for our election...not in the beginning anyway.

I actually agree with all of that being very possible to happen..

The vote will be close:
--There will be challenges and then, she may very well rule in favor of a Laker Ballot for a re-vote especially if Delta goes wild with all the posters, mailed-home DVDs and the like.

This is all possibly going to end up one big mess..

as an aside,
her nomination did not change my view on the vote..(neither did Van de Water on the board change it as well..)

 

[BABABOOY]

it amazes me how quick the "official AFA" response appears
on here. lol... One accuses Dapoes of working for Delta, One
can probably do the same with the other side..
When you don't agree, go for the personal attacks and discredit
the source and not address the facts....familiar mantra...

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

because you believe people are making assumptions does not make it to be the actual case..

Ok, for semantical reasons, let's change the word "assumptions" to "reasons".

her nomination can still be considered conflict of interest based on the fact.. she was a representative of the same union she will oversee regarding an election..

I don't doubt how it is "considered" or "perceived". All I'm saying is she has actually done nothing, to my knowledge, (key word being an action verb--DONE), that SHOWS she would be biased. All I'm saying is that yes, her appt, may be perceived as a conflict of interest but let's wait and see what she actually DOES. Will it confirm that she has a conflict of interest or will it dispel it?

theoretically if a senior VP of Inflight Service was in the same position and placed on the NMB overseeing an election of the same group it would be conflict of interest, there really is no difference here regardless of the timeline, other than the fact..if that theoretical scenario came into play, some would throw an absolute fit..

She wasn't VP of Inflight Service but she was a lobbyist for NW (Van de Water).


As far as either appt changing your vote--I don't think AFA is saying either appt is going to change your vote.** They are saying that they believe a FAIRER election process can take place. You have not been through a FA election yet. We've been through TWO. It's the PROCESS (signs up in the lounge, anti-union DVDs playing in the lounge on a loop 24/7, challenges about who or who shouldn't be on the final voting list, etc..) they're talking about and moreso this time because they know the election will probably be close.
I'm not saying I agree with everything AFA is doing but again it is strategy--like political strategy. And Delta does it too and has enjoyed the formerly Rep-controlled NMB to its favor as well.
Strategy is strategy...on both sides.

** Believe it or not, there ARE fence-sitters (people unsure) from both airlines...probably NW moreso than DL as we just went thru an election.
So, in fact, the process may very well affect how some end up voting (or not voting).

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

it amazes me how quick the "official AFA" response appears
on here. lol... One accuses Dapoes of working for Delta, One
can probably do the same with the other side..
When you don't agree, go for the personal attacks and discredit
the source and not address the facts....familiar mantra...

Hi BB--
It would help if perhaps you could use the Quote feature so we know which post you're referring to. I think it was Jal's, not mine...right?
Thanks.

 

[jalbalpa]

it amazes me how quick the "official AFA" response appears
on here. lol...

Please expand on this...