The changing rules of union certification

[Don Smith]

See the link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns...0,7280610.story
Now that the union is asking for changes in the way the union is certified at a carrier it only was a matter of time before the airlines asked for a modification on the ease of decertifying a union.

 

[BABABOOY]

Whats fair is fair right?

 

[RobertD]

"The Air Transport Association said that if the rule is changed, the election ballots should include an option for workers to decertify a union."

Please explain to me what scenario would fit this statement.

Isn't the ballot yes or no?
So if it's a yes vote the union is in and if it's a no vote the union is out?
If it is a unanimous no vote, would there be a need for decertification since there will be no union?

Who would these rules effect should they become law? And would it be fair to anyone else but Delta/NWA or are these rules up for change because of Delta/NWA?

Sorry for all the questions and I hope those that answer will do so without calling me ignorant....lol

 

[BoeingBoy]

Please explain to me what scenario would fit this statement.

While the ATA hasn't stated specifics of what they're asking for and the article doesn't really explain the general idea that well, it boils down to requesting that the rules be changed to make an incumbent union easier to decertify if the rules are changed to make it easier for unions to win a representational election.

Jim

 

[jalbalpa]

Ok everyone...

Under current rules, the only way to decertify a union is by holding a "straw-man" election. Being that 50%+1 is required to certify a union, then 50%+1 is also currently used in this method.

If the voting method changes to a simple majority, then that would also automatically change.

Whats the big deal? The NMB representation manual doesn't have a section for decertification, but this is how its done. You mirror the way to certify, in order to decertify.

So what is the point the ATA is trying to make?

 

[Dignity]

If the voting method changes to a simple majority

If the voting method changes, that is a big if.

does anyone think Congress will just resolve this or even consider making that significant of a change in the next few months or if ever?

dropping card check was the first clue, they are not going to just give into these request easily,

especially when there are moderate democrats who just dont freely go with every idea..

(trying very hard to be realistic here)

when they were asking for a majority of signed cards in order to put a union on the property it was really never going to pass without an election.. so having card check dropped is not a surprise.. but what is interesting.. the initial request was to have a majority of actual employees sign a card..
(the actual majority) only to change the request having a "majority" of those who vote decide.. that may allow a situation where a minority number of employees actually are able to put a union on the property..(less than majority 50 percent plus one) and what that does is actually contradict the first request of having the actual majority put a union on the property by the signing of a card.

so you have a situation by request that it was necessary to have at least 50 percent plus one signed cards with card check and then turn around and request an election format to change allowing a minority number to possibly determine and put a union on a property that can..be less than 50 percent.

they cannot ask to have an actual majority only to turn around and ask for something different and expect that to be resolved timely in Congress.

 

[Don Smith]

I believe the bottom line to all of these desired changes is to chip away at the RLA in order to weaken it. There are safties built into the RLA to protect workers and companies both. The compliance times for example allow sufficient time for both parties to get their information together. Unfortunately sometimes its used to the advantage of the employer (such as NWA having time to hire and train SCABS while saying on the other hand that they can't reach any consensus). For the unions, the mood in congress is in their favor. Companies are continually under the gun now with increased taxes and air travel down.
In response to the ATA wanting a change to the rules of certification you don't back a cat into a corner and not expect to get some scratches.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Under current rules, the only way to decertify a union is by holding a "straw-man" election. Being that 50%+1 is required to certify a union, then 50%+1 is also currently used in this method.

If the voting method changes to a simple majority, then that would also automatically change.

The rules, at least in theory, are already different - if the craft/class is already represented 50%+1 of the members must sign authorization cards to hold an election, but if the craft/class is not represented only 35% of the members need to submit authorization cards to hold an election. I say "in theory" since the union seeking to represent non-union employees usually wants at least 50% of the members to submit authorization cards.

Nothing is to prevent Congress from changing one end of the process but not the other - they could allow a "yes/no" vote with the majority of votes cast deciding whether to unionize a group or not but still require the current 50%+1 vote of all eligible members to dump a union in your "straw man" election. After all, the only reason it's the way it is now is because the law says so (RLA). The law can be changed to say a different procedure is to be used. So the ATA's point is that both ends of the process should be changed or neither should be changed.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

Nothing is to prevent Congress from changing one end of the process but not the other-

Jim

or change the request altogether..

or just drop it entirely..

who is to say what they would do in Congress?

in order to get a request passed through Congress...

we should all know they will modify these "requests" in order to get something to pass and if they cannot come to an agreement at all,

toss the proposal out.

they could possibly change the voting format to a YES/NO ballot going forward for all elections and then modify the original request requiring a minimum number participate in the actual election, or they could still require at least 50 percent plus one of the group to vote YES to certify a Union,

not just a simply majority.

just because some feel there is a pro-labor administration doesn't mean the moderates will not change their minds from time to time and support every issue.

 

[Dignity]

I believe the bottom line to all of these desired changes is to chip away at the RLA in order to weaken it.

its like that saying goes,

be careful what you wish for!

(this may also be to everyone's disadvantage.. if it is weakened)

There are safties built into the RLA to protect workers and companies both. The compliance times for example allow sufficient time for both parties to get their information together.

in these self-help scenarios, the Union is going to be able to do what they have to do, while we also have to consider..

so will the company to keep the doors open.

(it goes both ways)

Unfortunately sometimes its used to the advantage of the employer

its not that its always to someone's advantage, rather than simply it allows both parties..

"to do what they have to do"

now with increased taxes and air travel down.

that is also a consideration that needs to be remembered..

especially when the Union is promising "Industry Leading Contract"

(while we are in the middle of an economic crisis)

I would rather they consider being realistic..

sometimes its best to reserve making these promises and attempting
if for any reason to show others who may be unfamiliar with the process
they have some credibility and know what they are doing while considering
outside factors that absolutely affect our industry..

(basically pay attention to what is going on all around them before making promises they may not or cannot keep)

In response to the ATA wanting a change to the rules of certification you don't back a cat into a corner and not expect to get some scratches.

to me,

at this time..

they are basically just making a point.

 

[roadtrip]

Management has had the upper hand in these unfair elections for 40 plus years so Let Management and the ATA suck it up for 40 years with a policy rule change to NMB election that will balance things out a bit! Then they can ask the board for a policy change....

Oh cant wait to see the replies to this one!!!!

 

[southwind]

Management has had the upper hand in these unfair elections for 40 plus years so Let Management and the ATA suck it up for 40 years with a policy rule change to NMB election that will balance things out a bit! Then they can ask the board for a policy change....

Oh cant wait to see the replies to this one!!!!

Yawns..........................

 

[BoeingBoy]

All true.

Jim

 

[Delta Technician]

Management has had the upper hand in these unfair elections for 40 plus years so Let Management and the ATA suck it up for 40 years with a policy rule change to NMB election that will balance things out a bit! Then they can ask the board for a policy change....

Oh cant wait to see the replies to this one!!!!

In all fairness, not only should their be a decertifying process but it should be based on 50% +1 of decertifying ballots. This could get interesting.

 

[Kev3188]

In all fairness, not only should their be a decertifying process but it should be based on 50% +1 of decertifying ballots. This could get interesting.

I would have no qualms with a revised decertifying process, but would want it held under a "straight" vote (like certification).

I also would like to see the AFL-CIO "no raid" clause become a thing of the past.

Get interesting? It already is...