So if iam reading you correctly, A contract wouldn't have prevented Song as a WHOLE, BUT it
would have protected F/A's in those bases. They couldn't Divide the F/A group if we had/have
a contract.
The unions are coming, the unions are coming!
- Thread starter bagboy
- Start date
So if iam reading you correctly, A contract wouldn't have prevented Song as a WHOLE, BUT it
would have protected F/A's in those bases. They couldn't Divide the F/A group if we had/have
a contract.
You are correct....the flying would most likely had remained on the specific bases bidsheets. Although, there is a possibility that to receive a Song qualification or to bid for the flying, would have required an interview or other training. That would have depended on what the contractual language was/is or how it is written.
Any DL F/A hired this year (2008) will not be eligble to vote in the AFA election. I was saying how several new hires that I have flown with came from other airlines (UA, NW) and had been represented by AFA, they did not share anything positive about AFA with us.
WOW! ANYONE? I can understand that if your hired AFTER the vote, but why not
give F/A's a say who are on the property, here and now, a say about their future?
So, some are worried about not being able to vote no, how about the denial of a VOTE T AT ALL
to a certain group?
Anone else see why I am confused?
Danny Campbell
Advanced
- Mar 29, 2008
- 114
- 0
Jake:
Like any democracy, of course there are many FAs that are not happy with AFA. But, in almost ALL cases, when you peal away the layers, most are angry by what has happened to us in bankruptcy -- and we take it out on our union (its the convenient punching bag for many). It's easier to blame AFA, then to focus on the US Bankruptcy Code or the monumental task of getting Congress to change the laws.
The NMB's position on 'new hires' being eligible to vote goes back 70 years. The rules provide that all FAs that are on-line and active as of the last payroll period prior to the "filing" are eligible. Because the Delta FAs filed their petition on Feb 14th, the last payroll period would be the end of January -- so unless the new hires were online in January, the NMB would exclude them.
But, (and here is the big question), the current NMB has been highly hostile to FAs wanting to organize and one of the three (3) appointed members (Read Van De Water, appointed by George Bush) was formerly a legal counsel for NWA and will draw a pension from my carrier. Since she already stepped into REDUCE your voting period from 6 weeks to 5 weeks, I wouldn't be too surprised to see her load the eligibility roster with new hires (i.e., departing from 70 years of past practice). The current NMB has been incredibly unlawful in their adherence to past rules -- well, many of the Bush administration appointees have for that matter.
Time will tell.
Like any democracy, of course there are many FAs that are not happy with AFA. But, in almost ALL cases, when you peal away the layers, most are angry by what has happened to us in bankruptcy -- and we take it out on our union (its the convenient punching bag for many). It's easier to blame AFA, then to focus on the US Bankruptcy Code or the monumental task of getting Congress to change the laws.
The NMB's position on 'new hires' being eligible to vote goes back 70 years. The rules provide that all FAs that are on-line and active as of the last payroll period prior to the "filing" are eligible. Because the Delta FAs filed their petition on Feb 14th, the last payroll period would be the end of January -- so unless the new hires were online in January, the NMB would exclude them.
But, (and here is the big question), the current NMB has been highly hostile to FAs wanting to organize and one of the three (3) appointed members (Read Van De Water, appointed by George Bush) was formerly a legal counsel for NWA and will draw a pension from my carrier. Since she already stepped into REDUCE your voting period from 6 weeks to 5 weeks, I wouldn't be too surprised to see her load the eligibility roster with new hires (i.e., departing from 70 years of past practice). The current NMB has been incredibly unlawful in their adherence to past rules -- well, many of the Bush administration appointees have for that matter.
Time will tell.
Danny Campbell
Advanced
- Mar 29, 2008
- 114
- 0
P.S. While there are many NWA FAs that will gripe about our union, the fact is that 65% of those who voted in our last election chose AFA. Also, a recent poll shows that the majority are pleased by what AFA has been able to do for us.
North by Northwest
Veteran
AFA is not perfect, nor is APFA, IAM, ALPA, or any other Union. What it does offer, is far more security than any non union airline employment in the Western world.
Having known the vile abuse and self serving greed in American aviation for over 25 years, I know that it has gotten worse and will most likely continue down that path.
Having known the vile abuse and self serving greed in American aviation for over 25 years, I know that it has gotten worse and will most likely continue down that path.
No entity is perfect. I think a lot of the anti-union feelings are just that, anti-UNION but disguised as Anti-AFA. If DL FAS were getting ready to have a vote on joining TWU or TEAMSTERS, the company would have gotten their union busting consulting firms to find all the negatives about those organizations as well. Then the anti-campaign would be showing up as an anti-TEAMSTER, anti-TWU one just like now all the focus is on tearing down the AFA, rather than unions in general.
As a side note, I wonder if some of these new FAs were questioned about their AFA/union feelings in the interview. I have also flown with (and seen ads from) these new FAs. One actually walked out on their previous employer, mid-rotation. I wonder if DL knew about this.
In the absence of a medical or emotional problem, which I am sympathetic to, I can't respect anyone who would do this so I took this person's anti-AFA tirade in stride.
Also, I TOTALLY agree with AFA's asking that NO votes be recorded. This is the truly democratic way. Suppose in the current Dem race, the rules were- those registered voters who want Clinton, just stay home and do nothing. Those that want Obama , go out and vote. That would not be democracy. You are so correct Danny, the way it's written rewards apathy and we all know how apathetic FAs can be especially when many are a part-time (trip drops, leaves) work force.
And on a final note, as I am always willing to put truth first, I have reread the AFA newsletter w/ the pay comparisons and I must say that Jake is onto something. If you're just going to compare W-2s, then do that. If you're going to compare ALL compensation for the year, then do that for all airlines listed. I don't think it should have been mixed. Consistency is important.
With that being said, let's move forward as this year (08), except for the profit sharing, will be about basic pay. So I think the best comparison should come in strict W-2 flight pay earinings.
Danny Campbell
Advanced
- Mar 29, 2008
- 114
- 0
Luke:
The strategy you outlined in the first paragraph above is an actual tactic that is outlined in the "anti-union" handbook that Delta and other companies use. It's called the "anybody but...." tactic and it is mostly used as part of a Whisper Campaign. We see the same thing in ALL organizing campaigns, where employers say "IF you join a Union, it shouldn't be (fill in the blank)..." then they bullet point all thier slanted research.
In fact, one of your Delta FAs (Mara Levene) wrote about it when she attended organizing training. This is her article: http://www.deltaafa.org/aefiles/DeltaWklyNewsLtr10.pdf
The strategy you outlined in the first paragraph above is an actual tactic that is outlined in the "anti-union" handbook that Delta and other companies use. It's called the "anybody but...." tactic and it is mostly used as part of a Whisper Campaign. We see the same thing in ALL organizing campaigns, where employers say "IF you join a Union, it shouldn't be (fill in the blank)..." then they bullet point all thier slanted research.
In fact, one of your Delta FAs (Mara Levene) wrote about it when she attended organizing training. This is her article: http://www.deltaafa.org/aefiles/DeltaWklyNewsLtr10.pdf
Very interesting reading the above paragraph because you can easily substitute the word AFA for Delta
to read:
Like any democracy, of course there are many FAs that are not happy with Delta. But, in almost ALL cases, when you peal away the layers, most are angry by what has happened to us in bankruptcy -- and we take it out on Delta (its the convenient punching bag for many). It's easier to blame Delta, then to focus on the US Bankruptcy Code or the monumental task of getting Congress to change the laws
Just thought it was interesting
You must agree that 70years doesn't necessarily make it right. What is the AFA's stance on this?
Are they actively trying to change that position? Wouldn't the AFA want Everyone to vote?
it seems that more people are concerned about HOW we are voting than the issue of
NOT everyone is VOTING....
Another question that concerns me. IF ALPA can't unify both pilot groups
how can the AFA unite both Delta / NW F/A 's ?
Danny Campbell
Advanced
- Mar 29, 2008
- 114
- 0
Bababooy:
You bring up a good point about substituting AFA for Delta in the sentiments. And, for the most part, I agree with you that our carriers (companies) have dealt with some major financial crisis. However, I also think its true that the people that manage and run our companies have not suffered AT ALL during these times. Executive compensation in our industry is at an all time high (although I do commend Grinstein for not taking part in the excessive greed we've seen everywhere else). But, now you have Richard Anderson (a man I worked with closely while he was at NWA). He is a shrewd lawyer and a cunning strategist. Without a contract, you (Delta FAs) are going to be very sorry - in my opinion. He (and Doug Steenland) were the architects of the outsourcing scheme they proposed at NWA - i.e. 75% of our international routes being staffed (replacing us) with low-cost foreign workers. If you don't organize, I wager you will see this take form at DAL within the next 1 - 2 years. Unfortunately, I'm seldom wrong about these things (in fact, I predicted Richard Anderson was going to be your CEO in February 2007 and most of the DAL FAs thought I was insane).
AFA hasn't taken a position on the issue of new hires. I'm sure AFA wouldn't fight the issue if the NMB would also agree to a more FAIR voting process (that encourages ACTION in stead of APATHY).
One of the best things about AFA, is that we have a strict Date-Of-Hire merger policy. That's why merger between AFA represented groups is always smoother than you see on the pilot side. When one group tries to "get ahead" in seniority, is when you see things fall apart (like we are seeing with NW/DL and what we saw with US/AW).
Also, the reason I think that FAs from DAL and NWA would be easier to 'unite' together, is because we already share an incredible amount of respect with each other at our carriers. Those of us NWA FAs who have been working with your DAL FAs on the AFA campaign, have grown very close and have great respect for each other. In the last 1.5 years we have been working together on the campaign, I can only think of two issues that came up that we saw differently. With the 100's of issues there are to communicate about, that's really amazing. And, even better -- our discussions over the issues we saw differently were extremely civil - and I must admit, I even began to question my own views on the subjects.
Danny
You bring up a good point about substituting AFA for Delta in the sentiments. And, for the most part, I agree with you that our carriers (companies) have dealt with some major financial crisis. However, I also think its true that the people that manage and run our companies have not suffered AT ALL during these times. Executive compensation in our industry is at an all time high (although I do commend Grinstein for not taking part in the excessive greed we've seen everywhere else). But, now you have Richard Anderson (a man I worked with closely while he was at NWA). He is a shrewd lawyer and a cunning strategist. Without a contract, you (Delta FAs) are going to be very sorry - in my opinion. He (and Doug Steenland) were the architects of the outsourcing scheme they proposed at NWA - i.e. 75% of our international routes being staffed (replacing us) with low-cost foreign workers. If you don't organize, I wager you will see this take form at DAL within the next 1 - 2 years. Unfortunately, I'm seldom wrong about these things (in fact, I predicted Richard Anderson was going to be your CEO in February 2007 and most of the DAL FAs thought I was insane).
AFA hasn't taken a position on the issue of new hires. I'm sure AFA wouldn't fight the issue if the NMB would also agree to a more FAIR voting process (that encourages ACTION in stead of APATHY).
One of the best things about AFA, is that we have a strict Date-Of-Hire merger policy. That's why merger between AFA represented groups is always smoother than you see on the pilot side. When one group tries to "get ahead" in seniority, is when you see things fall apart (like we are seeing with NW/DL and what we saw with US/AW).
Also, the reason I think that FAs from DAL and NWA would be easier to 'unite' together, is because we already share an incredible amount of respect with each other at our carriers. Those of us NWA FAs who have been working with your DAL FAs on the AFA campaign, have grown very close and have great respect for each other. In the last 1.5 years we have been working together on the campaign, I can only think of two issues that came up that we saw differently. With the 100's of issues there are to communicate about, that's really amazing. And, even better -- our discussions over the issues we saw differently were extremely civil - and I must admit, I even began to question my own views on the subjects.
Danny
Thanks for your insight Danny.
Great point!!
And this is why I brought up the SONG issue.
They did it once, and I am afraid they will do it again.
Great point!!
And this is why I brought up the SONG issue.
They did it once, and I am afraid they will do it again.
Danny Campbell
Advanced
- Mar 29, 2008
- 114
- 0
They tried the same thing at United (with TED), but AFA negotiated the SAME PAY and SAME WORK RULES for the group, and eventually, well....we all know it didn't work out the way management planned. NWA did the same thing with us, with their start-up carrier (Compass). But, we agreed to NOT be the representative of the Compass FAs -- and they are on their own. I suspect they will eventually join AFA (if their wages continue to be as bad as they currently are).
I think somebody else here (Jake?) said that Song wouldn't be an issue of "negotiation" in a contract -- that's not accurate...it absolutely would be negotiable. It just depends on what specific protections you write into your Scope/Job Security section of your contract.
I think somebody else here (Jake?) said that Song wouldn't be an issue of "negotiation" in a contract -- that's not accurate...it absolutely would be negotiable. It just depends on what specific protections you write into your Scope/Job Security section of your contract.
I am confused as to the situation with Compass? Are the NW Flight attendants flying it? How is
seniority worked? Can you fly a compass flight one day and a NW flight another?
If it is set up as Song was, where a chunk of flying dissapeared, than what is the difference?
Are NW pilots flying Compass planes?
Danny Campbell
Advanced
- Mar 29, 2008
- 114
- 0
Compass is run as an independant subsidiary of NWA. They hire their own pilots and their own FAs. There are 'flow-thru' agreements for NWA pilots, but not for the FAs. Those of us on the AFA-NWA seniority list do not operate or fly on any Compass airplanes.
Our NWA scope language ties us to the NWA pilots'. Whenever they are in the cockpit, WE are in the cabin. The only exception is some of the flights that are South and West of NRT (our contract defines a square box by Longetitude and Latitude and foreign nationals can not fly on our aircraft outside of that box) - however, even on those flights, we have 2 positions on those aircraft. Everywhere else, we have full "scope" protection that only we are on the aircraft.
Our NWA scope language ties us to the NWA pilots'. Whenever they are in the cockpit, WE are in the cabin. The only exception is some of the flights that are South and West of NRT (our contract defines a square box by Longetitude and Latitude and foreign nationals can not fly on our aircraft outside of that box) - however, even on those flights, we have 2 positions on those aircraft. Everywhere else, we have full "scope" protection that only we are on the aircraft.
Similar threads
