U.S. May Ease Rule On Labor Vote

[LukeAisleWalker]

If this article is correct, then -- "paging BB, dapoes and aislehopper to the storage room": you guys better get in there and toss out the "Don't Click; Don't Dial" and "Give It A Rip" posters and hand-outs left over from the last elections!!!! Y'all gonna have to click and dial 'NO' this time 'round. :bleh:

http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_13664666?source=rss

 

[dapoes]

If this article is correct, then -- "paging BB, dapoes and aislehopper to the storage room": you guys better get in there and toss out the "Don't Click; Don't Dial" and "Give It A Rip" posters and hand-outs left over from the last elections!!!! Y'all gonna have to click and dial 'NO' this time 'round. :bleh:

http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_13664666?source=rss

Don't wet yourself to much, remember the company will always have a much greater saturation and penetration to the entire class. Don't be too surprised if this works against the way AFA wants it too. Unintended consequences could very well happen. :bleh:

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Don't wet yourself to much, remember the company will always have a much greater saturation and penetration to the entire class. Don't be too surprised if this works against the way AFA wants it too. Unintended consequences could very well happen. :bleh:

That's fine (as long as DL stays within the realm of the law regarding interference), then I'll support ANY outcome. I would really support the No Union vote once I know for sure that that is exactly what the majority of the those who care--the voting population of FAs-- wants.

 

[dapoes]

That's fine (as long as DL stays within the realm of the law regarding interference), then I'll support ANY outcome. I would really support the No Union vote once I know for sure that that is exactly what the majority of the those who care--the voting population of FAs-- wants.

Well you can guarantee that when AFA loses, they will be whining about interference (as usual). Especially when they think a sign that says "Don't Click, Give A Rip" equates to interference.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Well you can guarantee that when AFA loses, they will be whining about interference (as usual). Especially when they think a sign that says "Don't Click, Give A Rip" equates to interference.

RLA states companies must remain neutral. How does "Don't Click, Give a Rip" show neutrality?
We've been down this road before. Turn the page.

 

[BABABOOY]

You honestly don't think this will be the end of it do you?
The NMB clicks their heels and Delta will say ok?
I highly doubt it. There are many avenues Delta
will persue and I am sure they will. The AFA started us on this road
and it looks like we are in for a long drive ahead. I just hope we have
a different driver before its all over. Too many pit stops about
Dresses, ties, duvet's etc..... And as far as "Give it a rip"...
wasn't that just information telling us how to vote no if WE wanted to?
no interference just information.

 

[dapoes]

RLA states companies must remain neutral. How does "Don't Click, Give a Rip" show neutrality?
We've been down this road before. Turn the page.

Then read the page, precedent set via USAIRWAYS vs NMB 1999 says the company can say whatever they want (freedom of speech) as long as there is no obvious retribution inferred.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

You honestly don't think this will be the end of it do you?
The NMB clicks their heels and Delta will say ok?
I highly doubt it. There are many avenues Delta
will persue and I am sure they will.

Ahh...then it goes both ways then, doesn't it? Your buddy dapoes says AFA will still cry interference if they lose. Now you're saying Delta is going to cry foul.
Each side vying for our vote (or nonvote). Donchya feel like the purdiest gal at the ball bein' asked to dance by all the gentlemen??

 

[BABABOOY]

Looks like the WSJ picked up on this as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125685779104217207.html

"The proposed change would be subject to a 60-day comment period, this person added."

 

[dapoes]

Looks like the WSJ picked up on this as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125685779104217207.html

"The proposed change would be subject to a 60-day comment period, this person added."

60 day comment periods mean very little. If the NMB wants it to stick then they can do it. Unless it is challenged and to be decided by an higher authority. The more drama AFA imposes, the more it can and will be used against them. Go for it I say.

 

[700UW]

Then read the page, precedent set via USAIRWAYS vs NMB 1999 says the company can say whatever they want (freedom of speech) as long as there is no obvious retribution inferred.

Freedom of Speech is only the government restricting speech, not an entity.

And provide us a link to this cause in 99 I dont remember any election taking place at US.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There wasn't a representational election in 1999 (that happened in 1997) but the case was decided by the appeals court in 1999. While you are correct that freedom of speach protects against government restriction of speech, what you miss is that in this case it was the government (the NMB) that sought to restrict speech.

Two links - the Court of Appeals decision and a law article discussing the case (the latter is easier reading).



Ruling

Article

Jim

 

[700UW]

Thanks Jim

 

[jalbalpa]

James Obersar who is the Chairman of the House Committe on Transportation and Infrastructure and George Miller who is the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor strongly support this change. A letter from them was sent to the NMB dated October 29th.

Tom Harkin the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee in the Senate is currently spearheding efforts to gain support in the U.S. Senate.

 

[BABABOOY]

And we have this:


NMB chairman calls for In-Flight election to proceed at Delta
October 30, 2009


The chairman of the National Mediation Board said this week that the board should quickly proceed with an application by the Association of Flight Attendants for a flight attendant representation election at Delta, according to a Bloomberg report.

Responding to a letter from seven U.S. senators earlier this month, NMB Chairman Elizabeth Dougherty said she wanted to “correctâ€￾ an earlier response by the full board, which had said that unspecified “other mattersâ€￾ prevented them from proceeding with the Delta case. Chairman Dougherty’s letter said that in fact there are no other issues preventing the board from immediately proceeding with the flight attendant case.

The senators’ letter stated their concern that the board, which oversees union representation, may be holding up elections at Delta as the board considers a union request to change the majority voting procedures.

I