The unions are coming, the unions are coming!

I think you need to understand that Delta AFA activists are operating without any money, on a volunteer basis
Obviously there is money. We are receiving mail - both electronic and snail mail to our homes. Someone is paying for the phone calls. Someone is paying Danny to pop up and answer questions. You are getting support from FPL "volunteers" like Shriver to help you. You have afa lawyers working on your behalf.

You are not without money. You have resources.

and in a battle where the deck is automatically stacked against them (getting a majority of cards signed by other f/a's and not in a work place, the cards expire in a year, the vote is approved and yet there is no requirement to vote "no", you just toss it in the trash)

The system is set up that way because you have the burden of proof that we want a union. If you cannot get these things that you call a "high mountain," it is because our coworkers are lukewarm to the idea of the afa. The system is set up that way for a purpose. To keep a few from cramming a union down the throats of the majority.

--this is a big mountain to climb and for you to not cut a break for your fellow Delta FAs who are fighting for what they believe is in not only their best interest, but yours as well against such odds is a bit rigid and unforgiving.
We believe that a union is not in our best interest. Why should someone cut them a break when we do not agree with their perception of "our" best interest? Be civil, yes. Listen, yes. But to roll over and let that person advocate a position that we feel is against our best interest and do nothing, no.

The anti-union FAs have a multi-million dollar company to back them up. A company with lots of money and anti-union consultants at their ready (which they pay millions to). Please try to put yourself in the activists' shoes. Do you think they are giving so much of themselves just to fill their time?? I'll try to go back to keeping my cool if you try to be a little more tolerant and understanding of the human condition.
Thanks
The pro union people have a multi million dollar union backing them. In the last campaign, the afa spent close to 7 million on the campaign - and lost. You have your FPL organizers coming in and supporting you. Case in point, Danny is on this board doing that very thing - supporting you and the Delta campaign.

If you can give up your time and volunteer for free and advocate your position, why do you not think that someone on the other side of the issue is not willing to volunteer their time to advocate their side of the issue?

You should follow your own advice and put yourself in the anti-afa flight attendants shoes. Just because they disagree with you does not mean that they are all of the adjectives that you have been calling them.

Be civil. Most people can agree to disagree.
 
aislehopper:

First, I agree with you 100% on the point about being "civil".

What I think Luke is alarmed with is the issue of "employer" funding and assistance with the anti-union advocates. He is right to be concerned with this, as it is 'unlawful' in the United States for employers to financially contribute to potential voters. It amounts to coersion -- but unfortunately, it happens all the time.

No matter how you slice it, workers have the deck stacked against them. For example, Delta has much deeper pockets than we have (collectively) as an organization. They have access to 100% of Delta FAs. Workers that want to organize have to work tirelessly to try to obtain contact information -- this is even harder for FAs, where we live all over the world and don't work in the same place at the same time.

Also, Delta has the services of very experienced Union Busting lawfirms like Ford & Harrison on their side. Heck, Mike Campbell comes directly from that firm (in fact, I think he was a co-founder, if I'm not mistaken).

I don't mean to sound condescending when I say this, but I think it warrants mentioning...

Unlike most Delta FAs, people like myself have sat across the table from Ford & Harrison in negotiations. Likewise, I sat across the table from Richard Anderson for several years when I was the President of our NW union. These men are not "evil" people -- but they are definately all cut from the same Harvard/Yale Business School cloth. They care about two primary things; PROFIT and pushing forward their BUSINESS PLAN. It seems to me that most FAs don't really understand how these guys work....so I'm gonna share with you my personal experience...

Whether we are talking about Ford/Harrison, Richard Anderson or the Air Transport Association, these men all have an agenda and ideas they want introduced into our industry. For example, a few years ago, it was "lost time". Immediately, we saw them show up at the bargaining table with these "new" ideas about PPT or "Performance Development" or any number of other clever titles. When you peal away the layers, they are amount to the same thing. MORE SCRUTINY for sick calls, LESS SAFETY NETS for FAs and the end results are "LESS SICK TIME" and more FAs going to work ill. Mission Accomplished - $$$ Also, there was the grand idea that FAs can offer all kinds of NEW choices in the cabin (yippee for our passengers, right?). What it really amounted to, was a desire to ELIMINATE jobs in catering and shift the "assembly" work to FAs. Mission Accomplished - $$$. Another great idea introduced at NWA 2 years ago, was "cultural" needs of transatlantic / transpacific flights...but what it really meant was outsourcing 75% of our jobs to low-cost workers in India and China and elsewhere. (fortunately, AFA stopped that on Capitol Hill). Now, I know there are a many Delta FAs that don't want to hear these things - and they desperately want to blindly trust that somehow this isn't really going on behind closed doors at your airline. But sadly, it is. And, I have no doubt that there current scheme is to defeat you in your organizing campaign - THEN use that defeat to pit you against a merged FA group (like NWA) and then have full clearance to introduce some of their new ideas (that have been stopped elsewhere) at the largest non-union FA group in the country. If their plan works, we can expect to see the flood gates open on outsourcing and other issues that will effectively reduce the group to 25% of its former size. Now, I know some will say -- well, THEN we can organize to stop it, right? WRONG ! That was the lessen that AMFA at NWA learned the hard way. Once NWA reduced the group to a small enough number, it didn't matter what they wanted to do to try to stop NWA from outsourcing their jobs. They had already done it. And, they were small enough to replace the entire work force.

So, there you have. My predictions...in black and white. Again, it's not to say these are evil people - they are simply doing what most corporate leaders in the US are doing - trying to save a buck. But, unfortunately, if there is no resistance -- there will be many that pay the price.

Danny :)
 
If you can give up your time and volunteer for free and advocate your position, why do you not think that someone on the other side of the issue is not willing to volunteer their time to advocate their side of the issue?

You should follow your own advice and put yourself in the anti-afa flight attendants shoes. Just because they disagree with you does not mean that they are all of the adjectives that you have been calling them.

Be civil. Most people can agree to disagree.

Aislehopper: You have a problem distinguishing singular from plural. Nowhere did I say that the anti-afa side is not willing to volunteer. Check out the measley number of posters/visitors to one of your favorite sites, deltafa.org. (something like 20). So, I'm sure there's no money there. I suggested PERHAPS ONE, count it ONE person (Rudy) MIGHT be paid. I said in the posting that I DID NOT KNOW if he was or not.
Secondly, you write "just because they disagree with you does not mean that they are all of the adjectives that you have been calling them." We're talking one person, Jake. ONE. Not multiple people. ONE who thought he could come on this board and disingenuously engage in an argument by distortion and not answering to the very things he was accusing others of. Again, that's ONE person. There is no "them".
Finally, how you can compare the full-on glossy mailings we've been receiving from the company (on average once a week)to the one-sheet, pdf formatted weekly Newsletters from Delta/AFA (which is NOT even mailed out) is beyond me. That last 5-fold, high-gloss, glamour-shot, thing the company just sent out was so over-the-top. For you to say AFA has the same resources is like comparing a Bentley to a Chevrolet. Get real.
 
It had nothing to do with standing up for yourself. Again, you are guilty of DISTORTION in your postings. Claiming things in a post that you said you put forth in the prior posting which you did not. Glossing over items brought to your attention by twisting the truth.You exaggerated your pay by by 3-5K by your own admission. Yes, you are an offensive, passive-aggressive, sychophant. There is absolutely NOTHING you can say to make me change my mind. YOU are what's wrong with this company and with this department. YOU bring nothing to the table but more of the same. All in all I'd say you're nauseating. There's nothing worse than a phony.
This will be my last address to you because you aren't worthy of my time.
This is exactly what is wrong with todays unions. When we don't agree with your opinions or have one of our own we are no good. If you think I am twisting the truth, you better take a good long look with all the information the AFA has been sending out, because you have then been missing something. You are entitled to your opinion just as others are. Unless someone disagrees with your views then they/I can't have an opinion. Even though I disagree with others on this board no one has been less civil than you. By the way Luke, considering you say you recieved less than $5,000 upon emergence, have you found that stock award yet? and you say I I am the one distorting the truth.
P.S. "Averaging" 85hrs each month in 2007 (1/2 may have been closer to 90), adding in A pay, per diem, understaffing and such total income a few dollars above $54,000. If I then add in the emergence award just above $4000 and the stock at $6899 (all before taxes) 2007 income $64899.00. So you are right it wasn't $65,000 and I had not business stating it was close to that amount.
 
P.S. For more information on my earlier statements about our Equity Claim, you can watch this YouTube clip from the Delta-AFA Webcast meeting in ATL...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZsZ9ftSgxM

(there are additional clips there as well)
Danny

I wanted to thank you for your professionalism when responding to my post. Even though we are on different sides of the issue, I have to say I enjoy a good debate. Even though I disagree with you have shown yourself to be a true professional and I respect your passion for unionism.
 
Thanks, Jake - and you are right...I do have a passion for not only unionism, but for our profession also.

Thank you, also for the civility. I spent many years simultaneously fighting agaist corruption in our former union (Teamsters) and NWA -- and I am a bit "battle-worn" - so I don't like the negativity that often comes with political advocacy. It's one of the traits I most like about Delta FAs (the ones I have met, anyway). You have a really wonderful group of FAs that are (for the most part) pragmatic about issues. I think it is a valuable trait that you all would bring to AFA.
 
I would like to extend an apology to those on this board whom I may have offended yesterday. I know there is no excuse, but I had an especially trying weekend. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable to call people names and go off in the manner in which I did.
So to you Jake, I especially apologize. We definitely do not agree except for the fact that I do believe there is withholding of the truth on BOTH sides of this issue. To Danny, keep up the good work. I think you do an excellent job.
I hope everyone has a good week.
--"Luke"
 
LukeAisleWalker:

See? You just proved my point about Delta FAs. That's exactly what I love about you all....

We have some really mean-spirited FAs at NWA who would dig their heels in so deeply that they would never self-reflect the way you guys do. It's such an admirable trait. When I grow up, I want to be just like you <lol>

xoxoxo

Danny ;)
 
Yhaaaaaay...everyone getting along...now back to the topic...

I have a question for Jake or anyone really ...

A big issue that I have is with this regime and their decisions.
To this day they will not admit their mistakes with Song.
They either didn't care or lost a clue as to what it did to divide
several bases. Not to mention the tens of millions that were wasted.
So the question is, couldn't a union insure that
they couldn't do this again? What if this regime decides that
they should farm out International flying ala what NW TRIED to do.
They really lost credibility with so many over past decisions

FROM DC:
"We have some really mean-spirited FAs at NWA who would dig their heels in so deeply that they would never self-reflect the way you guys do. It's such an admirable trait. When I grow up, I want to be just like you <lol>"

xoxoxo

Oh great, I am REALLY looking forward to merging......NOT.....
 
Yhaaaaaay...everyone getting along...now back to the topic...

I have a question for Jake or anyone really ...

A big issue that I have is with this regime and their decisions.
To this day they will not admit their mistakes with Song.
They either didn't care or lost a clue as to what it did to divide
several bases. Not to mention the tens of millions that were wasted.
So the question is, couldn't a union insure that
they couldn't do this again? What if this regime decides that
they should farm out International flying ala what NW TRIED to do.
They really lost credibility with so many over past decisions

FROM DC:
"We have some really mean-spirited FAs at NWA who would dig their heels in so deeply that they would never self-reflect the way you guys do. It's such an admirable trait. When I grow up, I want to be just like you <lol>"

xoxoxo

Oh great, I am REALLY looking forward to merging......NOT.....
Song was Leo's brilliant idea, and I would say it could be done (although very differntly) even with a contract. The difference would be it would have had to run similar to the shuttle or express, all on one bidsheet and one seniority list (obtain Song quals and bid those lines) . Then of course when Grinstein took over, one day Song would be gone then it stayed for a while longer. When it came back to Delta a lot of what they had been doing is now used by DL. There is always a possibility they could farm out intl flying (we used to have F/A from India flying FRA/BOM and then CDG/India), although in reality I don't see that happening with or without a contract. I dont see that happening with or without a contract (just my opinion).
My issue with the AFA is that a lot of the facts being published are being twisted in newsletters and even the webcast. If I am paying $43 a month I expect to be given the complete/honest facts from my union. AFA will talk about the NW equity claim, upon looking at that further it was negotiated into the first T/A by the PFAA and remained in all subsequent agreements. Then not all of the equity claim was in cash, $10,000 of that amount was placed in their 401K. Now AFA has proffered the NMB with a request to change the rules on how the election will be handled. If AFA was not happy with the rules of the NMB that needed to be addressed prior to submitting the cards for election. One of the issues they have is that not voting is equal to a "No" vote, currently there is no option to vote "No" if you place the call, it is only for AFA or a write in choice. AFA now wants it to be you have to vote either yes or no (so everyone will have to call in and at this point most not wanting a union are aware you don't vote). Then there is the issues of those remaining on the furlough list, AFA does not want them to be counted in the active numbers. I am sure Danny C will be able to shed additional light on this.
 
Jake:

I will copy a post I made elsewhere (on a different discussion forum) on just the issues you state above (by the way, you must be on some anti-union email list as your statements above are almost exactly like those posted on the other forum)

_______________________________

ORIGINAL POSTER:
1 - If democracy is all about doing the will of the people as represented by a majority, why does AFA now propose to change the requirement to allow AFA to represent us with only a majority of votes cast? Fear. It is all about winning...not about having support of the majority. I wonder how that would translate into contract negotiations.

MY RESPONSE:
In actuality, AFA's position is far more consistent with the democratic fibers that have held our country together. Your (and Delta executives) position is one that will "reward" passivity -- and encourages people to NOT VOTE and NOT PARTICIPATE. Using your concept would be like agreeing that in our Presidential and Congressional elections, the "incumbents" should receive 1 vote for every person that does not turn out to the polls. That is a system that rewards "silence", not "participation". If the NMB agreed with AFA's position paper on this issue, why would it "scare" you, if you were comfortable that the "majority" of Delta FAs don't want to join AFA. I mean, if they felt that passionate about it, they would simple have to call in their NO vote, right? Seems to me that you are banking on 'apathy' to win your argument. That's what dictatorships do - not democracies. Personally, I love the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had to run a national primary across the country. It is good for voters and its good for our political system. When people are forced to "vote" - it strengthens the foundation this country was built on. Do you disagree?

ORIGINAL POSTER:
#2 - Now that we all have the word that the way to vote no is not to vote at all, AFA wants to change the rules...seems a bit of "slight of hand" going on...again the fear is showing. If they can't win one way, they will attempt to change rules to win another way.

MY RESPONSE:
Again, see my point above about rewarding non-participation....it's anti-American

ORIGINAL POSTER:
#3 - AFA claims to be able to protect our jobs, yet they also claim that those on furlough are "toast"...no way they will come back...so which is it? This is a prime example of how AFA talks out of both sides of the mouth...to suit its own purposes. Is this the kind of double talk you want to pay for?

MY RESPONSE:
The entire premise for determining 'eligibility' is to establish that workers have a employer/employee relationship. When Delta allows 100's or 1000's of workers to remain on their roster with no "reasonable expectation" that they are ever returning to work, that not only fails to meet the employer/employee relationship, but it is inconsistent with any other reasonable practice in our industry. To encourage this, is to encourage employers to 'never' officially sever thier relationship with employees -- all for the purpose of creating a larger pool of employees (most of which are completely unaffected by the day-to-day issues that may give rise to a decision to organize or not).
 
Jake:

I will copy a post I made elsewhere (on a different discussion forum) on just the issues you state above (by the way, you must be on some anti-union email list as your statements above are almost exactly like those posted on the other forum)

_______________________________

ORIGINAL POSTER:
1 - If democracy is all about doing the will of the people as represented by a majority, why does AFA now propose to change the requirement to allow AFA to represent us with only a majority of votes cast? Fear. It is all about winning...not about having support of the majority. I wonder how that would translate into contract negotiations.

MY RESPONSE:
In actuality, AFA's position is far more consistent with the democratic fibers that have held our country together. Your (and Delta executives) position is one that will "reward" passivity -- and encourages people to NOT VOTE and NOT PARTICIPATE. Using your concept would be like agreeing that in our Presidential and Congressional elections, the "incumbents" should receive 1 vote for every person that does not turn out to the polls. That is a system that rewards "silence", not "participation". If the NMB agreed with AFA's position paper on this issue, why would it "scare" you, if you were comfortable that the "majority" of Delta FAs don't want to join AFA. I mean, if they felt that passionate about it, they would simple have to call in their NO vote, right? Seems to me that you are banking on 'apathy' to win your argument. That's what dictatorships do - not democracies. Personally, I love the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had to run a national primary across the country. It is good for voters and its good for our political system. When people are forced to "vote" - it strengthens the foundation this country was built on. Do you disagree?

ORIGINAL POSTER:
#2 - Now that we all have the word that the way to vote no is not to vote at all, AFA wants to change the rules...seems a bit of "slight of hand" going on...again the fear is showing. If they can't win one way, they will attempt to change rules to win another way.

MY RESPONSE:
Again, see my point above about rewarding non-participation....it's anti-American

ORIGINAL POSTER:
#3 - AFA claims to be able to protect our jobs, yet they also claim that those on furlough are "toast"...no way they will come back...so which is it? This is a prime example of how AFA talks out of both sides of the mouth...to suit its own purposes. Is this the kind of double talk you want to pay for?

MY RESPONSE:
The entire premise for determining 'eligibility' is to establish that workers have a employer/employee relationship. When Delta allows 100's or 1000's of workers to remain on their roster with no "reasonable expectation" that they are ever returning to work, that not only fails to meet the employer/employee relationship, but it is inconsistent with any other reasonable practice in our industry. To encourage this, is to encourage employers to 'never' officially sever thier relationship with employees -- all for the purpose of creating a larger pool of employees (most of which are completely unaffected by the day-to-day issues that may give rise to a decision to organize or not).
Danny

LOL....not on an anti-union mailing list, just like to read and keep myself aware of various events that are of interest to me and maybe others. Are you being paid by the AFA to share all your info? just kidding. By the way I am not anti-american or anti-labor, I am anti-war though. Believe it or not I am registered Democrat and voted Democrat since "84. Just wanted to throw that in. By the way I like the picture....