Union elections and the RLA....POLL!
- Thread starter jalbalpa
- Start date
metopower
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2006
- 932
- 313
yes.. I think it should change going forward to a YES/NO vote and while they are changing the process in Congress..it should also including the ability to vote out the union or keep the union on the property.. after a certain time period such as, every four years or the conclusion of a contract timeframe.. having another automatic election.
example:
the union negotiates a three year contract, at the end of the three year contract, the members have the ability.. to have another election determining if they (union) will continue to negotiate the next one. if the members choose to continue representation after that election, the previous contract will remain in place until the next negotiated contract..if the members choose to not continue representation, the union is decertified.
(that way if a union is not effective, there would be an option to re-evaluate and dismiss their services or continue)
just like every other democratic election in this country.
example:
the union negotiates a three year contract, at the end of the three year contract, the members have the ability.. to have another election determining if they (union) will continue to negotiate the next one. if the members choose to continue representation after that election, the previous contract will remain in place until the next negotiated contract..if the members choose to not continue representation, the union is decertified.
(that way if a union is not effective, there would be an option to re-evaluate and dismiss their services or continue)
just like every other democratic election in this country.
- Thread Starter
- #4
I agree Dignity.
The National Mediation Board should provide cards just as a union does. If the group that doesn't want representation can get 35% cards signed then the NMB can hold an election to decertify the union if a majority of those voting....vote to decertify the union. It can be something like 4 years after a union is certified, and every 3 years after...35% cards must be collected everytime.
This would be the same standard to certify a union.
One other thing that would need to be added is also binding arbitration to initial contract negotiation after 12 months of the beginning of negotiations. That was the company cannot simply stall the progress for a couple of years and get the union de-certified.
The National Mediation Board should provide cards just as a union does. If the group that doesn't want representation can get 35% cards signed then the NMB can hold an election to decertify the union if a majority of those voting....vote to decertify the union. It can be something like 4 years after a union is certified, and every 3 years after...35% cards must be collected everytime.
This would be the same standard to certify a union.
One other thing that would need to be added is also binding arbitration to initial contract negotiation after 12 months of the beginning of negotiations. That was the company cannot simply stall the progress for a couple of years and get the union de-certified.
I believe there should be an automatic election every four years or at the end of the contract.
(not a requirement to have 35 percent signing cards as it would happen on a recurring basis)
this is why I feel that way..
They may change the constitution or by-laws midstream..
Lets takes the Union President as an example.
They changed the criteria that would allow a retired Flight Attendant (not active) to continue to remain in a former position that once required that individual to be active or a current Flight Attendant and basically have enabled an individual to assume an office for life.
(regardless if they are an active Flight Attendant or not)
I cannot vote on that office or if that person should even be allowed to do that.
All the while we still do not have the ability to vote (individually).. who will be our own MEC as that was voted down by those at the executive level.. as the members can only vote for individuals on the local level.
I will never agree with that. (their internal structure is flawed and is not democratic)
a dues increase was put in place (without a vote by the members to authorize that increase) during a concessionary contract.
I will never agree with that either..
you see, they may do things that may appear self-serving or unjustified and therefore we should have an ability to have an automatic election and determine if they will in fact continue to be the representative,
if some are now voicing the need to be democratic.
it should be all encompassing.
to me, we (the members) should have the ability to vote on everything not selectively picking and choosing what we can vote on including elections internally.
if it is stated the need to be democratic during the process that puts a Union on the property during a representational election, then in fact, they (the Union) should also address... changing and basically correcting the ability for it all to be democratic for every election.. be it from a Representation election to LEC local elections at the base.. to the MEC election..ext.. and so on.
(is sort of how I am looking at this)
(not a requirement to have 35 percent signing cards as it would happen on a recurring basis)
this is why I feel that way..
They may change the constitution or by-laws midstream..
Lets takes the Union President as an example.
They changed the criteria that would allow a retired Flight Attendant (not active) to continue to remain in a former position that once required that individual to be active or a current Flight Attendant and basically have enabled an individual to assume an office for life.
(regardless if they are an active Flight Attendant or not)
I cannot vote on that office or if that person should even be allowed to do that.
All the while we still do not have the ability to vote (individually).. who will be our own MEC as that was voted down by those at the executive level.. as the members can only vote for individuals on the local level.
I will never agree with that. (their internal structure is flawed and is not democratic)
a dues increase was put in place (without a vote by the members to authorize that increase) during a concessionary contract.
I will never agree with that either..
you see, they may do things that may appear self-serving or unjustified and therefore we should have an ability to have an automatic election and determine if they will in fact continue to be the representative,
if some are now voicing the need to be democratic.
it should be all encompassing.
to me, we (the members) should have the ability to vote on everything not selectively picking and choosing what we can vote on including elections internally.
if it is stated the need to be democratic during the process that puts a Union on the property during a representational election, then in fact, they (the Union) should also address... changing and basically correcting the ability for it all to be democratic for every election.. be it from a Representation election to LEC local elections at the base.. to the MEC election..ext.. and so on.
(is sort of how I am looking at this)
so it would be necessary to have a TA or contract in a 12 month period of time or arbitration?
If so, that would allow one party to become a little more modivated while allowing another party to be realistic with their expectations (due to economic reasons, economy ext.)
that requirement could allow an advantage for all during very good economic times and a profitable industry.. it may not be the best during an economic downtime time period too.
however,
I do like that idea of getting people (both parties in that case) to resolve issues timely.
but it would be democratic.
not true, if the group opted to continue with representation there would still be bargaining strength or what some simply would assume or perceive.
furthermore, if the group opted to change course and not continue with the current representative (in that type of scenario) does not necessarily mean they would forfeit all representation..they could..during the automatic election opt to change Unions.
because that is how democratic elections are held..there is a time period and that time period comes to a conclusion and another election determines how to proceed.
basically, the idea would be to simply help prevent the current Union from becoming complacent.. if they knew they could be replaced at the end of a contract or every 4 years.
the point... some are requesting a democratic election without maintaining a democratic format going forward.
the whole process would have to change, not just the initial election (making it all democratic), that is more than likely..what would be debated back and forth.. while it is bogged down in legislation awaiting a decision from Congress.
Kev3188
Veteran
Apparently some of you dont understand how the process works.
Section 6 negotiations take place 60 days prior to the amendable date, if you vote and lose the union you have no contract, so your screwed, plus it would raise your dues as campaignining every time costs money and takes time.
Section 6 negotiations take place 60 days prior to the amendable date, if you vote and lose the union you have no contract, so your screwed, plus it would raise your dues as campaignining every time costs money and takes time.
I believe most people understand that (how the process works), what I think you are not grasping is simply.. some of the ideas in this particular thread are theoretical.
Kev3188
Veteran
Exactly.
You either want a certain bargaining agent or you don't, but changing/voting every time sect. 6 comes up would completely undercut the membership's leverage.
democratic elections in this country are recurring,
(and I happen to agree that is the way it should be)
of course it would not be an issue if the "bargaining agent" is effective and the group wants to maintain that relationship going forward.
while I absolutely agree there is a needed change how representational elections are handled.
what I question is simply why some request and compare every other election in this country being..democratic..and changing it to that format.. while at the same time propose keeping the same process in place signing cards in order to replace a union.
it appears as though some want it change one part.. while keeping the other..business as usual and then expect Congress to simply go with that idea?
Congress is not going give unions everything they are requesting without the debate of revising the entire process and come to an agreement.. if there would be any changes at all.
furthermore, regarding an automatic election, even if that was a reality, it does not necessarily hamper the group's ability at all or this idea of leverage..our group in particular has been merged in and out of three unions within the past ten years and we lost *zero* jobs to outsourcing, so I dont quite buy the idea changing unions would effect "leverage" (outside of bankruptcy) do to the current way it is handled or a recurring election that would allow the group to dismiss a service or change to another...
