"Machinists, F/A's Likely Face Uphill Fight At Delta"

[aislehopper]

. . . But even if I agreed with you and gave you that point on a technical basis, wouldn't you really want to know that the majority of our peers really, really don't want representation, rather than surmising they don't because everyone starts as a "NO" vote? Do you really support winning because of an ancient law? If so, then I think perhaps you may want to check your intellectual honesty.
Have a great day.

Luke:

Ancient Law? Is the new standard to throw out laws simply because they have been on the books longer than you would like? Should we toss out the Bill of Rights? It is much older than the RLA. Besides, that whole First Amendment thing really, really gets in the way sometimes. What about "thou shalt not kill." That one is really old. It should go too.

If I have a union, I want the majority of us to have to take some action to ask for it. The afa has a time tested standard that it has to meet if it wants to represent us, 50%+1. If the afa is unable to meet that standard, it does not deserve to represent us.

I guess I really, really want 50%+1 of us to take the five minutes necessary to vote if he or she is going to force me into a union.

The standard RLA practice is clear, and there is long standing precedent for 50%+1. To change a law or practice simply because one organization cannot live up to the standard would be wrong.

 

[Kev3188]

If "majority of total votes cast" is a good enough standard for voting in city/state/municipal elections, why not at companies covered under the RLA?

 

[Dignity]

That's a fairly worthless deduction, since dues are included the employee bus. expense basket and only the portion of that total that exceeds 2% of your AGI is actually deductible (assuming you can itemize at all). Even if you have some excess and can deduct that excess, what marginal tax bracket are most FAs in? 15%? 25%? Even in the top tax bracket, deducting $500 would mean tax savings of only about $170. For most FAs, the savings will be much, much less.

but its still deductible and a savings!

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Luke:

Ancient Law? Is the new standard to throw out laws simply because they have been on the books longer than you would like? Should we toss out the Bill of Rights? It is much older than the RLA. Besides, that whole First Amendment thing really, really gets in the way sometimes. What about "thou shalt not kill." That one is really old. It should go too.

If I have a union, I want the majority of us to have to take some action to ask for it. The afa has a time tested standard that it has to meet if it wants to represent us, 50%+1. If the afa is unable to meet that standard, it does not deserve to represent us.

I guess I really, really want 50%+1 of us to take the five minutes necessary to vote if he or she is going to force me into a union.

The standard RLA practice is clear, and there is long standing precedent for 50%+1. To change a law or practice simply because one organization cannot live up to the standard would be wrong.

See, this is why I don't like to engage with people who build these strawmen. How DARE you bring up the First Amendment and the Ten Commandments! Again, more intellectual dishonesty.
We are not talking about moral imperatives here. This (union vote) doesn't begin to rise to those occasions!!
I gave you the reason as stated for the standard voting methods for the act (disruption of interstate commerce.) and I asked you why this would hold true today. Instead, I get this. I should have known. Also, I'm still waiting to hear what you think about the NLRA only requiring a simple majority. Don't bother...I'm not interested in readomg any more deflective, intellectually-dishonest posts.

 

[aislehopper]

If "majority of total votes cast" is a good enough standard for voting in city/state/municipal elections, why not at companies covered under the RLA?

Kev:

IMHO, in city/state/municipal/national elections, you are typically voting to fill an office. Someone has to serve, so you fill the position with whoever gets the most votes. Now, this rationale does not work with some things like California voter initiatives on ballots.

In our election, we are not voting to fill a position that is already there, we are voting to show the NMB that there is sufficient interest among the majority to certify a collective bargaining agent. The best way to show this interest is to have 50%+1 vote.

The afa is seeking to have the 50%+1 bar lowered only to give itself a better chance at winning. In our case, it has its doubts that it can convince the majority of us to spend the five minutes to support it. Therefore, it is pinning its hopes that its pro afa minority will vote more than the anti afa minority if it can get a Laker Ballot.

A secondary motive for complaining about how the current, tested system is unfair is to try to stir up some (self)righteous indignation among its activists to motivate them to work harder.

In any event, the 50%+1 standard has been used under far left and far right Congresses. I will be surprised if they change this time.

 

[Dignity]

A Laker Ballot is a way to lower the bar and game the system so the minority get what they want and can impose their will on the majority who do not want a union and who do not care.

I dont think I agree that it lowers the bar, regarding individuals who "do not care".

because in that situation, they dont care either way!

...the only way a minority number of votes can overrule the majority in a YES/NO vote is simply if some just dont bother to vote at all.. by not participating.

that is of course if the majority of those are "I do not care"

so...

(who's fault is that?)

 

[aislehopper]

See, this is why I don't like to engage with people who build these strawmen. How DARE you bring up the First Amendment and the Ten Commandments! Again, more intellectual dishonesty.
We are not talking about moral imperatives here. This (union vote) doesn't begin to rise to those occasions!!
I gave you the reason as stated for the standard voting methods for the act (disruption of interstate commerce.) and I asked you why this would hold true today. Instead, I get this. I should have known. Also, I'm still waiting to hear what you think about the NLRA only requiring a simple majority. Don't bother...I'm not interested in readomg any more deflective, intellectually-dishonest posts.

Luke:

Typically, when people start using language like "how dare you" they have either crossed the border from logic to emotion or they are trying to hide a flawed argument with emotional outbursts. In either case, the people reading this will decide which position they find more persuasive.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about agreeing with the premise that a union has to meet the standard of having a majority of a class and craft vote for it before it can be certified as a collective bargaining agent. In fact, it is easy to argue that your position is intellectually dishonest because you are supporting changes to precedent and time tested law solely so your side can change the standard so it can win. To cover this up, you wrapped yourself in the flag, and when I called you on it, you cry "how dare you."

Moving from flame bait to the disruption of commerce, the whole of the RLA is written to prevent the disruption of interstate commerce -from the rules governing organizing, to how the bargaining process works. see a simple flow chart of how the process works. If you follow the flow chart, you can see that there is a long involved process that makes it difficult for either party to engage in self-help (lockout or strike). This keeps planes flying and trains rolling.

You cannot pick and choose what parts of the RLA that you like or any more than you can pick and choose which laws are too "ancient" to still be relevant. The act has functioned fairly well since its inception. The only people screaming that a part of it is unfair are those trying to benefit by a lowering of the bar.

Now, if you want to throw out the RLA in total, I can live with that. The NLRA has methods for decertifying a union and the NLRA does not have Federal preemption of state right to work laws like the RLA. Therefore, under the NLRA, the majority of us who are apathetic or do not want the union will not have to join the union or pay dues or an agency fee.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Typically, when people start using language like "how dare you" they have either crossed the border from logic to emotion or they are trying to hide a flawed argument with emotional outbursts. In either case, the people reading this will decide which position they find more persuasive.

I must admit, I allowed your baiting (mentioning unrelated codes of ethics and moral imperatives) to get me a bit steamed. But, again...most readers will see the holes in much of your logic. They will see it for what it is...a dishonest attempt to switch the argument from an antiquated loosely written standard from the late 1920s to today's world.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about agreeing with the premise that a union has to meet the standard of having a majority of a class and craft vote for it before it can be certified as a collective bargaining agent. In fact, it is easy to argue that your position is intellectually dishonest because you are supporting changes to precedent and time tested law solely so your side can change the standard so it can win. To cover this up, you wrapped yourself in the flag, and when I called you on it, you cry "how dare you."

Writing that your comparisons of union voting to the Ten Commandments was intellectually dishonest was not "wrapping myself in the flag." This is simply YOUR opinion.

Moving from flame bait to the disruption of commerce, the whole of the RLA is written to prevent the disruption of interstate commerce -from the rules governing organizing, to how the bargaining process works. see a simple flow chart of how the process works. If you follow the flow chart, you can see that there is a long involved process that makes it difficult for either party to engage in self-help (lockout or strike). This keeps planes flying and trains rolling.
You cannot pick and choose what parts of the RLA that you like or any more than you can pick and choose which laws are too "ancient" to still be relevant. The act has functioned fairly well since its inception. The only people screaming that a part of it is unfair are those trying to benefit by a lowering of the bar.

Again, I'll ask for the third time, how does using a Laker-style ballot disrupt or threaten interstate commerce??

Now, if you want to throw out the RLA in total, I can live with that. The NLRA has methods for decertifying a union and the NLRA does not have Federal preemption of state right to work laws like the RLA. Therefore, under the NLRA, the majority of us who are apathetic or do not want the union will not have to join the union or pay dues or an agency fee.

I know...that $43/mo. is far more than you can afford. I guess Georgia has gotten really expensive.

Bottom line is this: I actually agree with you that the NMB will NOT change the standard of voting in this election. I believe they will only use a Laker Ballot if they find gross charges of interference with a really close vote (See my initial post.) So far, the likelihood of major interference may be slim as there are no slick glossies coming in my mailbox telling me "Don't Click; Don't Dial" nor do we see them in the lounges. More than likely you won't see them this time as Delta knows they can't afford to upset Mr. Hoglander for the third time since he now sits as a majority member on the Board.

 

[WorldTraveler]

If "majority of total votes cast" is a good enough standard for voting in city/state/municipal elections, why not at companies covered under the RLA?

Kevin,
I believe the standard for labor representation is based on Roberts Rules of Order which is based on votes from the total membership of the body while popular votes are indeed usually based on the number of people actually voting which is the standard in the US (but not necessarily other countries). The standard for the House and Senate are a majority of the body - not just those present - on the most significant legislation.

 

[Kev3188]

I believe you are correct.

Of course, while we're at it, I could rant and rave about the electoral college, but that'd be WAY off topic.

 

[700UW]

aislehopper,

Although there is not a defined process in the RLA to decertify a union it can be done, you get enough cards for another union to replace you and then you fail to get the 50%+1 standard and then your decertified.

 

[aislehopper]

aislehopper,

Although there is not a defined process in the RLA to decertify a union it can be done, you get enough cards for another union to replace you and then you fail to get the 50%+1 standard and then your decertified.

It has been done at Delta. The Pilot ground instructors elected the TWU sometime before 9-11. When things did not work out so well, they submitted authorization cards with an individual's name on them. They got the 50%+1 in cards. When the election was held, less than 50% voted, and the TWU was decertified.

I think that it would be more difficult with a larger group, so I would rather not go there.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

It has been done at Delta. The Pilot ground instructors elected the TWU sometime before 9-11. When things did not work out so well, they submitted authorization cards with an individual's name on them. They got the 50%+1 in cards. When the election was held, less than 50% voted, and the TWU was decertified.

I think that it would be more difficult with a larger group, so I would rather not go there.

aislehopper:
What are your thoughts about DL f/a's forming their own union or the TWU?
From what I hear, forming an in-house union is extremely expensive and time-consuming.
TWU--I don't think they have the resources to spend on organization.
Believe it or not, I am not a real rah-rah person about AFA at all! (First of all, they don't know the FIRST thing about public relations or how to win friends. Finesse is a word that is not in their lexicon. I mean the "letter" to Ed was worse to me than the red dress fiasco..that was more media-generated) Anyway, I am more pro-CONTRACT, than pro AFA.
But again, in all honesty, I don't think it's going to pass so I guess if "all hell breaks loose" with a different executive team and/or outsourcing I guess we'll just turn into Scarlett O'Hara and "think about it tomorrow"....I mean, how appropo...Atlanta and all! Hopefully, in a few short years, I'll be leaving Tara (retirement). I hate to sound selfish like a lot of the anti-union crowd can sound but I've been w/out a contract this long, what's a couple more years? Maybe I'll be gone if the foreign nationals start working NRT-US flights!

 

[HPGUY]

Apathy is why a standard election should be run. If the afa-CWA cannot convince 50%+1 to vote, it proves that the majority of us do not want a union. Calling or logging in over a four week period in the privacy of your own home is not a very hard step to take if you truly want something. A Laker Ballot would allow a motivated minority of us who want a union to out vote the majority of us who are either apathetic or do not want the union.


IMHO, unless we can get a very solid majority actively voting for a union, we will not have the solidarity necessary to successfully negotiate. That is why I am in favor of decertifying the afa. If all of the afa activists are right and we get screwed by management without the union, we will then have the solidarity to overwhelmingly vote in a union and management will know that our negotiators have the vast majority of us standing behind them.

If we vote in a union by a narrow majority, there will always be enough PMD F/A's who will feel that any problem is due to the afa. If a strike vote is called, these people would vote no and might not cross a picket line. Management will know this as they negotiate and it will be to our detriment.

If I am right and the afa is unnecessary, the PMNW F/A's will get raises and save over $500/year in dues. PMD will not have to pay dues and have to have the contentious NWA vs. Management atmosphere take root here. All of us will get to fly each other's equipment sooner without the threat of a USAirways/America West delay in putting the halves together.

For these reasons, we are better off without a Laker Ballot. If the afa cannot convince a solid majority of us to call or click in a regular election, it should not be our representative.

Great post!! A lot of good points I had not considered before.

 

[aislehopper]

aislehopper:
What are your thoughts about DL f/a's forming their own union or the TWU?
From what I hear, forming an in-house union is extremely expensive and time-consuming.
TWU--I don't think they have the resources to spend on organization.
Believe it or not, I am not a real rah-rah person about AFA at all! (First of all, they don't know the FIRST thing about public relations or how to win friends. Finesse is a word that is not in their lexicon. I mean the "letter" to Ed was worse to me than the red dress fiasco..that was more media-generated) Anyway, I am more pro-CONTRACT, than pro AFA.
But again, in all honesty, I don't think it's going to pass so I guess if "all hell breaks loose" with a different executive team and/or outsourcing I guess we'll just turn into Scarlett O'Hara and "think about it tomorrow"....I mean, how appropo...Atlanta and all! Hopefully, in a few short years, I'll be leaving Tara (retirement). I hate to sound selfish like a lot of the anti-union crowd can sound but I've been w/out a contract this long, what's a couple more years? Maybe I'll be gone if the foreign nationals start working NRT-US flights!

I am leaning toward believing that the union will be certified. When push comes to shove, I think that the PMN flight attendants will go with what they know.

My first choice is to stay union free. I do not believe any of the doom and gloom scenarios unless the economy really tanks. I think that the outsourcing issue was done mostly to scare the NWA flight attendants so they would back down on other issues. if we organize, we will see it again. if we do not, I think that we have a better chance of having it contained to the PMN side of the globe.

If the afa is voted down, I think that we will continue down the normal path. Management will implement a policy. We scream, and they back off the policy.

However, were we to need a union, I like the independent option. We would not be subject to pattern bargaining. We would not have our dues spent elsewhere. We would fly with all of the people who make decisions with, and for us. For lobbying and external matters, we can join with APFA and other unions to make our voice heard on the Hill. However, the problem with independents is that they can be raided. We saw the afa do it to PFAA. The afa was even trying to do it to APFA back in the early to mid 1990's. Also, unions tend to radicalize over time. What might start with a group that tries to find the best course for the company and the union employees may be replaced by people with axes to grind or are just generally radical.

As for others, I think that the IAM or TWU can always come up with the money to pursue us. The reason why the TWU dropped out was due to an AFL-CIO brokered agreement. The afa was making more progress, so it was allowed to continue without having to contend with the TWU. Email Greg L. he was involved with the TWU campaign and would have first hand knowledge of the inside scoop.

When we are put together, we are going to have a stable of people like Danny Campbell, Jose Ibarra, Molly Reilly, and others who have a tremendous amount of talent for organizing. if we need to start a union, we will have the talent to do it. I think that this will keep management honest.