The changing rules of union certification

I was able to read a few more speeches that were made available.

One speech was written by a PMNW Flight Attendant named Ed and another one was written
by a PMDL Flight Attendant named Candy.

I was really impressed with Ed's focus as he touched base regarding how many people feel and what is necessary
in his view point to move forward as a group.

Candy's speech was well thought out and I really appreciate her experience and how she was able to pinpoint what really needs to be done. She made a comment in the last part of her speech that basically said, we have to fly together
so we can learn about each other. That is very true.

What I am learning as we approach the S.O.C. is simply we have more similarities than differences
and when all is said and done will focus on being and making Delta the best regardless of the issues.

One thing has become very clear, Delta Flight Attendants are the best.

They all conducted themselves so professionally sharing their unique viewpoints.

Thank you, Ed and Candy.

I feel so honored, to be part of such a great Flight Attendant group now more than ever.
 
I was able to read a few more speeches that were made available.

One speech was written by a PMNW Flight Attendant named Ed and another one was written
by a PMDL Flight Attendant named Candy.

I was really impressed with Ed's focus as he touched base regarding how many people feel and what is necessary
in his view point to move forward as a group.

Candy's speech was well thought out and I really appreciate her experience and how she was able to pinpoint what really needs to be done. She made a comment in the last part of her speech that basically said, we have to fly together
so we can learn about each other. That is very true.

What I am learning as we approach the S.O.C. is simply we have more similarities than differences
and when all is said and done will focus on being and making Delta the best regardless of the issues.

One thing has become very clear, Delta Flight Attendants are the best.

They all conducted themselves so professionally sharing their unique viewpoints.

Thank you, Ed and Candy.

I feel so honored, to be part of such a great Flight Attendant group now more than ever.
Can you post a link to these speeches dignity?
 
It was just nice to read so many different opinions either way!

when you remove all the reasons why everyone was there, you are left with a bunch of people who really care not only about the profession but their ideas as well.

I am just proud overall in that regard!

hooray for everyone!
 
It was just nice to read so many different opinions either way!

when you remove all the reasons why everyone was there, you are left with a bunch of people who really care not only about the profession but their ideas as well.

I am just proud overall in that regard!

hooray for everyone!

I agree Dignity. Once you get past the union form letters it is some interesting reading.
 
I agree Dignity. Once you get past the union form letters it is some interesting reading.
I believe it is important to go through and read every speech and particularly pay attention
what the individual is saying or expressing...regarding their viewpoint.

It is all about forming balanced opinions and that is necessary when the actual time
comes to vote.
 
I think the comments with the most value are the ones from neutral experts on the subject such as professors from univerisites etc...

Copied from facebook:

I write in support of the NMB’s proposed rule that would certify a
bargaining representative based on a majority of all votes cast rather
than a majority of all employees in the bargaining unit.

The proposed rule would bring the NMB representation election counting
system in line with the representation election counting system under
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Although it is well known that
unions have concerns about National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
elections, these concerns are focused on the rules of the campaigns
preceding the elections. Neither employers nor unions have ever
criticized the criteria by which the NLRB determines a majority – a
majority of all votes cast. That aspect of the NLRB election process
has worked well for over 60 years. There is no reason that the NMB
should not emulate it.

Moreover, the NLRB counting system operates under language similar to
that in the RLA. Section 9(a) of the NLRA states, in relevant part: “®
epresentatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective
bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for
such purposes, . . ..†Under this language, the NLRB certifies a union
based on a majority of the votes cast. The RLA language in Section 2,
Fourth - “(t)he majority of any craft or class of employees shall have
the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or
class for the purposes of this chapter†- can accommodate the change in
the rule.

The proposed rule would also make NMB representation elections
consistent with political elections. There is no political jurisdiction
of which I am aware that decides an election based on a majority of
voters rather than a majority of the votes cast.

The proposed rule represents a sensible, modest change that would bring
enhanced fairness to the NMB representation process and should be
adopted.

Richard N. Block
Professor
School of Labor and Industrial Relations
South Kedzie Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
517-353-3896 (voice)
517-355-7656 (fax)
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------

I am writing to support the proposed rule change allowing for union
certification when the union receives a majority of the votes cast
rather than a majority of the eligible votes. Colorado is a state which
has a supermajority rule for elections to approve union security
provisions in a collective bargaining contract. Under that state’s law,
the union must have approval of three-quarters of those voting, or a
majority of the eligible votes, whichever number is greater. I conducted
a twenty-year study of those elections and found that unions won about
two-thirds of their elections. Under a simple majority standard, unions
would have won 91 percent. Clearly, a rule requiring an unusually high
standard deprives workers of valuable rights in collective bargaining.

Morevoer, our political system elects officials with a majority of
ballots cast, even when that does not result in a majority of the
electorate. The NMB should follow commonly understood procedures as does
the National Labor Relations Board.

Thank you for your attention.

Hogler-Signature
Raymond L. Hogler
Department of Management
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1275
970.491.5221
Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Labor Law, 2007
University of Tuscia (Viterbo, Italy)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Mediation Board’s (NMB), November 3, 2009 issuance of a
proposed change to its election procedures so that a majority of those
participating in a union election actually prevail corrects a serious
flaw in the current NMB procedure. The current election procedures
undermine democratic electoral practice by counting the non-votes of
workers as a rejection of the union. In this sense the NMB procedure
grants a powerful, unaccountable and non-transparent “veto by silenceâ€
to non-voting workers over the majority opinion of participating (i.e.,
voting) workers. The procedure as currently enforced creates a perverse
disincentive for workers to withhold (intentionally or unintentionally)
participation in a decision-making process that has direct and
meaningful implications for their economic well-being. Whether
elections are civic-based or to determine the presence of a union in a
workplace, electoral procedures should encourage voting. To infuse a
non-voter’s non-participation with the same authority as a participating
voter is to dramatically de-value the act of political participation.

However, the proposed rule change would incentivize the interests of
workers who want to consciously express their will by assuring that
their votes are determinate. By making the act of voting genuinely
meaningful the NMB would be creating the context for increasing voter
turnout in union elections.

Additionally, assigning a “no union†value to the inaction of non-voters
grants the interpreter (i.e., the NMB) a degree of subjective discretion
repugnant to democratic procedures. To put it simply, just because a
worker does not vote, that does not mean that he or she does not want a
union. There can be any number of reasons that a worker with a strong
preference for (or against) a union misses a vote. At its simplest, all
that can be safely and fairly assumed about a worker not voting is that
the worker did not vote. Arbitrarily assigning voter intent when none
has been expressed is undemocratic and gives birth to an arbitrary judge
with the power to supplant expressed political will with administrative
fiat.

The current procedure also encourages the kind of aberrant behavior that
has long been recognized as unacceptable in civic elections. When the
will of those who vote is ignored and undermined, employers with a
decided interest in the election outcome have an incentive to engage in
voter interference, coercion and suppression. Employer misconduct can
be effective and subsequently rewarded because current election
procedures count all non-voters as “no†votes.

The current producers also treat one group of workers (i.e., eligible
voters) differently than other workers (i.e., eligible voters). There is
no rational justification why airline and railroad employees should be
subjected to a different and less reliable election standard than other
workers. All workers must have a legitimate choice to vote for union
representation, to vote against representation or to abstain from
voting.

In summary, the proposed NMB change to its election rules allowing a
majority of voting workers to determine the outcome of a union election
is good pubic policy because it is consistent with accepted democratic
electoral practices, discourages bad employer behavior, inoculates
against unintended worker/voter behavior, eliminates subjective
interpretations of the franchise, creates a unified field for all
workers/voters and encourages the act of voting. The Board has the
power to adopt this rule change and it is time to update its procedures
to reflect a customary understanding about union electoral behavior.

Robert Bruno
Associate Professor of Labor and Employment Relations
Director of Labor Education Program
School of Labor and Employment Relations
University of Illinois
815 W. VanBuren, Suite #110
Chicago, IL 60607
DIRECT: 312-996-2491
FAX: 312-413-2997


-------------------------------------------

I have studied, taught, and engaged in research in labormanagement
relations for over thirty years. I noted with interest that
the National Mediation Board has proposed a Rule.Change in it's
Representation Election Procedure. The change by the NMB would mean
that Railway Labor Act elections would be decided by a majority of
employees voting in an election, as opposed to the current rule in which
a majority of the employees eligible to vote is required for union
certification. This is a long overdue change that brings the RLA in
line with the National Labor Relations Act and I would encourage the NMB
to move forward with the change.

The current rule counts those employees not voting as "no" votes
in the selection of a bargaining representative, when it is not
clear at all that a non-voter opposes the union. There are many reasons
why employees do not vote and the NMB should not be in the business of
reading what is on the minds of non-voters.

I would argue that the current process is undemocratic.

Changing the system to count the yes and no votes of employees
participating in an election and allowing a majority of those votes cast
to determine whether employees will be represented by a union is a more
democratic process.

Again, I support the NMB's proposed change and hope they will
move forward with the proposal.

Sincerely, Paul F. Clark, Ph.D.
Paul F. Clark, Professor and Head
Dept. of Labor Studies and Employment Relations & Professor of Health Policy and Administration
Penn State University
127 Willard Bldg.
University Park, PA 16802
Ph.: 814-865-0752
Fax: 814-863-3578


---------------------------------------------

I support the National Mediation Board’s November 2009 proposal to amend
its rules regarding representation election procedures. The best way to
measure employee sentiment in representation elections is by the
majority of those voting. The amended NMB rules would adopt this
appropriate standard for determining whether a majority of employees
favor union representation.

In contrast, the old NMB rules require the union to win a majority of
those ELIGIBLE to vote, so that non-voters are counted as votes against
union representation. There are three reasons why the old NMB rules
were inappropriate, and why the November 2009 proposal to amend the
rules represents an improvement.

First, the old NMB rules rely on a false assumption: they implicitly
assume that nonvoters unanimously oppose unionization. I am a professor
specializing in labor relations, and I am quite familiar with research
about union representation elections. I am not aware of any credible
scholarly studies indicating that employees who fail to vote in a union
representation election are unanimously opposed to union representation.
The November 2009 amendments avoid any extreme assumptions about the
preferences of non-voters and instead rely on the actual preferences
expressed by a majority of those who cared enough about the matter to
cast a vote.

Second, the old NMB rules are unjustly discriminatory, imposing heavier
burdens on employees seeking union representation if they are covered by
the Railway Labor Act than if they are covered by other American labor
laws. The NMB is one of many administrative agencies in the U.S. that
conduct union representation elections. The NMB’s peers include the
National Labor Relations Board (which has jurisdiction over most
private-sector employees), the Federal Labor Relations Authority (which
has jurisdiction over most federal employees), and the public employment
relations boards administering state laws governing labor relations for
state and local public employees. All of the NMB’s peers decide who
wins a representation election based on the majority of valid ballots
cast in the election. The NMB’s November 2009 proposal to amend the
Railway Labor Act rules would eliminate this discrepancy in how union
representation elections are conducted, applying to employees covered by
the RLA the same rule for determining the outcome of a representation
election that is used by the NLRB, the FLRA, and state PERB’s.

Third, the old NMB rules set a standard for electoral victory that even
extremely successful candidates for President of the U.S. have been
unable to meet. In the last half century, the three biggest electoral
landslides in Presidential elections were the victories of Lyndon
Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, and Ronald Reagan in 1984. The
biggest victory margins in these elections were in the District of
Columbia in 1964 (in which Johnson won 85.5% of the vote), Mississippi
in 1972 (in which Nixon won 78.2% of the vote), and Utah in 1984 (in
which Reagan won 74.5% of the vote). But had the old NMB rules been
used to determine victory in these elections, none of these landslide
victors would have won the electoral votes even of the jurisdictions
where their share of the vote was the highest. Johnson would have lost
D.C. (having received 169,796 votes, which was only 33.1% of the 513,000
voting age population); Nixon would have lost Mississippi (with 505,125
votes, only 34.6% of the 1,462,000 voting age population); and Reagan
would have lost Utah (with 469,105 votes, only 45.9% of the 1,023,000
voting age population). It is unreasonable to set a standard for
electoral victory that even the most successful Presidential candidates
of the past half century would not have met in the jurisdictions where
they were strongest. The NMB’s November 2009 proposal sets a more
reasonable standard for electoral victory—one that is consistent with
the standard routinely used in elections for the Presidency and
Congress.

For these reasons, I commend the National Mediation Board for the
November 2009 proposal to amend the representation election rules for
employees covered under the Railway Labor Act. I urge the NMB to
proceed with its plan to use the majority of the votes cast in a
representation election as the indicator of whether a group of employees
wants representation by a labor union.

Sincerely,
Gregory M. Saltzman, PhD
Professor and Department Chair
Department of Economics and Management
Albion College
&
Adjunct Research Scientist
Institute for Research on Labor, Employment, and the Economy
University of Michigan
 
it is not considered neutral if a recommendation is only supporting one side.

I think in this particular situation, the ones with the most value are those who will be directly affected by the election that was pulled.

(regardless of viewpoint)

it was all a good read,

none-the-less.
 
Actually they are neutral parties.

It's sort of like a jury...they are neutral but pick a side based on the facts. That doesn't make the jury not neutral. They are neutral because they aren't on the side of one party or the other. In this case the university professors aren't union members/leaders nor are they management. This makes them neutral, they pick their side based on the facts only and not whats best for anyone's pocket.

Kind of like when you have arbitration...you have a neutral arbitrator. He picks a side but it doesn't make him not neutral.

The support for the proposed changes is over 90% in favor, the rules should change. We should find out by early February.
 
Actually they are neutral parties.

It's sort of like a jury...they are neutral but pick a side based on the facts. That doesn't make the jury not neutral. They are neutral because they aren't on the side of one party or the other. In this case the university professors aren't union members/leaders nor are they management. This makes them neutral, they pick their side based on the facts only and not whats best for anyone's pocket.

Kind of like when you have arbitration...you have a neutral arbitrator. He picks a side but it doesn't make him not neutral.

The support for the proposed changes is over 90% in favor, the rules should change. We should find out by early February.
Liberal professors from liberal colleges being neutral? Since when?
 
My comment to the NMB:


Chairman Dougherty, members Hoglander and Puchala, thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change.

The way we conduct elections in the United States is what sets this country apart from many others. We see the “Get out the Voteâ€￾ campaigns during our national and regional elections, from evangelicals launching voter drives to boost conservatives to MTV’s “Rock the Voteâ€￾ aimed at younger voters. Nowhere do we see any of the participating parties urging voters not to vote.

If employees choose to be represented or not to be, then employees have a very simple choice, vote “YESâ€￾ for union representation or “NOâ€￾ for the status quo. The NMB has made the voting process quick, easy and private. The employees can choose to participate and vote their conscience or choose not to participate and not be counted.
 
I find a few things interesting...

Those professors, supposedly having reasonably high intellect, could only come up with the same rationales for changing the rules as the 2 NMB members or the unions. Is that the only two logical reasons that exist?

Their remarks are really nothing more than a paraphrasing of each other - not even the order of their rationales is different.

While I didn't take the time to research previous writings of these professors, I did for the first quoted above. A few years ago he wrote that "Unionization necessarily subjugates individual liberties to the good of the group so it's important that the majority of employees express a desire to unionize." Majority of employees - not majority of votes. Wonder why he changed his mind...

All talked about the election process for political office in this country, but none mentioned the other ways unions are treated that are distinctly different from elective officeholders. Elected for a specific term - none recommended that unions be held to that standard. Having to seek reelection at the end of that specific term - no word about that for unions. Why not if the goal is to make represental elections meet the same standards as political elections? Of course, the unions and two NMB members would not be happy if those changes were implemented - could that be why they weren't mentioned?

Jim
 
I find a few things interesting...

Those professors, supposedly having reasonably high intellect, could only come up with the same rationales for changing the rules as the 2 NMB members or the unions. Is that the only two logical reasons that exist?
Good point. Goes back to my same conclusion as mentioned above.

Their remarks are really nothing more than a paraphrasing of each other - not even the order of their rationales is different.

While I didn't take the time to research previous writings of these professors, I did for the first quoted above. A few years ago he wrote that "Unionization necessarily subjugates individual liberties to the good of the group so it's important that the majority of employees express a desire to unionize." Majority of employees - not majority of votes. Wonder why he changed his mind...

All talked about the election process for political office in this country, but none mentioned the other ways unions are treated that are distinctly different from elective officeholders. Elected for a specific term - none recommended that unions be held to that standard. Having to seek reelection at the end of that specific term - no word about that for unions. Why not if the goal is to make represental elections meet the same standards as political elections? Of course, the unions and two NMB members would not be happy if those changes were implemented - could that be why they weren't mentioned?

Jim

Of course thats why they weren't mentioned!