Great news!

[Dignity]

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

then you must also include logic with reason, (as logic and reasoning can be interchangeable.. since you are using another term) .. logic tells me..

1) it is a conflict of interest

2) if any changes are made, it may reflect poorly on her reputation..

3) there are no assumptions at this time.

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?

she does not have to actually do anything for it still to be considered conflict of interest..based on the fact she was a President of an organization she may possibly oversee regarding an election of that same organization..and it is not isolated only to our election, any future 'elections' involving a group from the same organization would also be deemed..conflict of interest..

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

I understand she was not, it was theoretical..if an individual such as a President or Vice President of a group is nominated to the NMB(regardless of company or union) and oversees an election of that same group..and how it could be determined not the best appointment for that person to be on the board..

it was an example..

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.

well I have been through a few more...many within the past 5 years..

(will the drama ever end??)

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.

the workplace actually should be neutral..but of course that is merely my personal opinion..

(any "anti-anything" in the workplace bothers me..)

** 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).

Oh.. I believe it..

I understand she is a very well respected woman, but it does not diminish conflict of interest with her being directly associated with 'our' election, since she played a key role in the past..

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

then you must also include logic with reason, (as logic and reasoning can be interchangeable.. since you are using another term) .. logic tells me..

1) it is a conflict of interest

2) if any changes are made, it may reflect poorly on her reputation..

3) there are no assumptions at this time.




she does not have to actually do anything for it still to be considered conflict of interest..based on the fact she was a President of an organization she may possibly oversee regarding an election of that same organization..and it is not isolated only to our election, any future 'elections' involving a group from the same organization would also be deemed..conflict of interest..

Point taken. I'm just saying that just because she was once President of AFA doesn't necessarily mean she will always rule in their favor. So, yes, I agree. It is a conflict of interest in name but not in deed...(not yet anyway).

well I have been through a few more...many within the past 5 years..

(will the drama ever end??)

That's true--you've been through various unions (Teamsters to PFAA to AFA) but never from non-union status to union status. That can be different because of the possible financial and accountability implications to the company. Did NW Mgt. really care whether you guys went from PFAA to AFA?Maybe they did--I'm just asking. Was there a campaign on NW Mgt's part to keep you guys from decertifying PFAA? Again, just asking.

 

[Dignity]

Point taken. I'm just saying that just because she was once President of AFA doesn't necessarily mean she will always rule in their favor. So, yes, I agree. It is a conflict of interest in name but not in deed...

I am not trying to debate your ideas, as I personally find your contributions to this forum..thought provoking..

(not yet anyway).

its a conflict of interest..

That's true--you've been through various unions (Teamsters to PFAA to AFA) but never from non-union status to union status.

everytime we had an election, the result could have been..non-union or loss of representation.. not actually from non-status to status, but the real potential of losing it all has been there each time..

That can be different because of the possible financial and accountability implications to the company. Did NW Mgt. really care whether you guys went from PFAA to AFA?Maybe they did--I'm just asking. Was there a campaign on NW Mgt's part to keep you guys from decertifying PFAA? Again, just asking.

did they care? well probably not really, but I wonder how they were possibly..'licking their chops' and keeping those fingers crossed each time our group pulled these...'lets vote for another union' we would toss it all out the window by not securing a 50 percent plus 1 each time...

and here we are...yet again.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

One more thing. I notice some of the NW FAs on other boards say "let's try it non-union for a while and if it doesn't go well, we will start the process to get a union."
We've been through this twice. It is a looong, laborious process to get those cards signed. Remember, that the cards are only good for one year so if they aren't kept updated, then you have to throw those out from your total tally to gear towards an election. (You only need 35% to file but AFA wouldn't file for an election, from what I understand, until we had 50-60% last time and look what happened.) It's never-ending. We've been through it twice with 13,000 FAs. I can't imagine with 21,000.
So just be really sure that if you choose not to vote (no for the union) that you're aware that it will be non-union for YEARS (if not for the remainder of your career) and that you'd be ok with that. Some probably would be and that's fine. But for those who are unsure, just keep this in mind.

 

[BABABOOY]

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.

yes sorry Luke, it was in referce to 'Alpa's

 

[Dignity]

One more thing. I notice some of the NW FAs on other boards say "let's try it non-union for a while

of course this is an assumption...

some genuinely want to work with the new airline...some probably want to stay in a satellite base and not have to transfer back to their original base and stay put...maybe some want to have more flexibility.. maybe some want the Adays now.. maybe some are tired of infighting within the union..who really knows?

and if it doesn't go well, we will start the process to get a union."

the only problem with that is we will lose scope and possibily lose it for good..

We've been through this twice. It is a looong, laborious process to get those cards signed. Remember, that the cards are only good for one year so if they aren't kept updated, then you have to throw those out from your total tally to gear towards an election. (You only need 35% to file but AFA wouldn't file for an election, from what I understand, until we had 50-60% last time and look what happened.) It's never-ending. We've been through it twice with 13,000 FAs. I can't imagine with 21,000.

if the result is 'not at this time' and decline representation, it will not end.. other unions are going to swamp the Flight Attendants with a new and available opportunity.. knowing full well a good half will still want a union.. and of course the sheer numbers equals... $$.

I predict in that scenerio a grass roots 'lets us start our own inhouse union' campaign goes into full swing...of course with another group attempting signing cards to get AFA back in the picture again...

So just be really sure that if you choose not to vote (no for the union) that you're aware that it will be non-union for YEARS (if not for the remainder of your career) and that you'd be ok with that. Some probably would be and that's fine. But for those who are unsure, just keep this in mind.

the majority will decide..

 

[dapoes]

Please expand on this...

Gee....does it really need any further explanation?

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

of course this is an assumption...

Uh, no...it's not an assumption. I have actually read on the NoWayAFA FB Board from a real NW FA that he proposes trying it w/out a union first.

some genuinely want to work with the new airline...some probably want to stay in a satellite base and not have to transfer back to their original base and stay put...maybe some want to have more flexibility.. maybe some want the Adays now.. maybe some are tired of infighting within the union..who really knows?

I didn't say why. I was just addressing those who have stated in writing (and in person to me--a friend who lives in my city) that they are willing to try it without a union.

the only problem with that is we will lose scope and possibily lose it for good

This is an assumption.*

if the result is 'not at this time' and decline representation, it will not end.. other unions are going to swamp the Flight Attendants with a new and available opportunity.. knowing full well a good half will still want a union.. and of course the sheer numbers equals... $$.

This is definitely an assumption.*

I predict in that scenerio a grass roots 'lets us start our own inhouse union' campaign goes into full swing...of course with another group attempting signing cards to get AFA back in the picture again...

This is your opinion.*

the majority will decide..

Yes, indeed.

* This is what it's like to read many of your posts, Dignity. I'm not saying you're right or wrong and I appreciate your insight. But, to be honest, it gets a little old when you play these semantical tricks all the time.

 

[Dignity]

Uh, no...it's not an assumption. I have actually read on the NoWayAFA FB Board from a real NW FA that he proposes trying it w/out a union first.

that FA probably falls in the catagory of "genuinely want to work with the new airline" or the assumption I should say..

I didn't say why. I was just addressing those who have stated in writing (and in person to me--a friend who lives in my city) that they are willing to try it without a union.

I know, I was just rambling..

This is an assumption.*

we will absolutely for a fact lose scope without a contract, that is not an assumption, when items are lost they are generally very difficult to get back..

This is definitely an assumption.*

20 thousand plus potential dues paying members? we will be swamped..

This is your opinion.*

actually is a prediction or maybe it is an opinion? maybe both?

Yes, indeed.

hopefully the majority will decide what is in best interest of the group..

* This is what it's like to read many of your posts, Dignity. I'm not saying you're right or wrong and I appreciate your insight. But, to be honest, it gets a little old when you play these semantical tricks all the time.

I dont play tricks, I type exactly what is on my mind (and there is a lot)..based on what I read from others and of course what I feel like commenting on... maybe I just like others to try and see it all from different perspectives and then form an opinion?

well I dont know if I should be flattered or insulted? hmm..I guess I can go back to my paragraph styled answers and comments.. or one of my many stories or of course the explainations and benefits of having a positive attitude?

 

[700UW]

I guess you dont realize most mediators are from organized labor or labor relations before they join the NMB and DOL.

Rich Frey for example was labor relations at US went from US right to the NMB and was barred for a period of time in regards to US.

Some of you are realing grasping at straws.

 

[Dignity]

I guess you dont realize most mediators are from organized labor or labor relations before they join the NMB and DOL.

Rich Frey for example was labor relations at US went from US right to the NMB and was barred for a period of time in regards to US.

Some of you are realing grasping at straws.

so Van de Water never was a conflict of interest?

 

[700UW]

I am not saying that. All I said was they come from a union or labor relations background. But being a lobbyist to me is a conflict.

 

[dapoes]

I am not saying that. All I said was they come from a union or labor relations background. But being a lobbyist to me is a conflict.

Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[Dignity]

I am not saying that. All I said was they come from a union or labor relations background. But being a lobbyist to me is a conflict.

it is all encompassing...and will be brought up at the confirmation for sure..

will she be confirmed? probably...but those who will actively participate in this election will absolutely feel she is biased "if" she changes the format..

its a conflict..

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

All I said was they come from a union or labor relations background. But being a lobbyist to me is a conflict.

OK, I'm open..but please expound on why you feel a lobbyist is a conflict and a labor-relations person is not. Is it because being a lobbyist meant "toting Mgt's water" so-to-speak?