Union elections and the RLA....POLL!

[Dignity]

I'm not

OK.

I was wondering about the C3? a group of individuals (Union activists) many of us simply do not know who they are (at all)
and making decisions on our behalf without our input, that is directly affecting our careers.

personally, I am very concerned.

good luck with the VOTE

Thank you!

(it appears we are not going to have one this year at all) because it has been delayed right up
to the point of the projected SOC.
taking the busy holiday season into consideration and the delay, at this point it may be better the election occurs next year (we really dont have a choice now) so people can focus on this important decision.

my only concern with the delay of our election was simply.. they had a target date for both groups to combine
late spring and it seems that too will be delayed if we continue to stay separate and issues are not being resolved as both groups are in limbo.

that in itself is a real shame, the delay, because the merger has been so successful, DAL really knows what they are doing regarding mergers, I think that should be acknowledged.

and everything you wish for union or non-union

the list is not a wish, it is real expectations of Union Leaders

(if that is the direction the majority chooses to proceed)

????????????????????????

I am a Flight Attendant and understand we are going to work with these people regardless of representational
issues and will come together as a group.

My "wish" is simply some get on the same page and this process happens timely.

 

[LegacyPilot]

Here is a question for AFA supporters, and I hope you don't mind me jumping in on this thread.

Suppose the AFA is voted in. Can the Original Delta flight attendants who do not want to join the union be forced to pay dues? If they refuse to write a check to the AFA what happens then?

Without a contract covering them they can't be forced to pay by agency shop. And Delta management would not fire anyone for not paying dues untill a contract is in place requiring them to enforce dues collection.

Just wondering as many anti AFA flight attendants tell me they simply won't pay dues if the union is voted in.

LP

 

[Dignity]

Suppose the AFA is voted in. Can the Original Delta flight attendants who do not want to join the union be forced to pay dues? If they refuse to write a check to the AFA what happens then?

they would not pay dues until the tentative agreement covering both groups is ratified and a contract is in place. if the Union and Company negotiate and establish closed shop and dues check off, it would be a condition of employment, I would imagine? that is how it is set up at this time, you are required to pay dues to AFA or the process of termination begins.

(I have actually seen the termination form letter sent out to a Flight Attendant for being $40.00 in arrears, she showed me!) it was not an intentional non payment in her case...unlike the hundreds of dollars and upwards to over a thousand like others..

to me,

it is simply best to support the majority decision and financially cover the individual responsibility of paying dues for the group.

I have always viewed that as the right thing to do.. even though some do not feel that way including some current AFA Reps, LECs and Activists who just did not pay their share in the past, refused or simply felt they could do as they please.

it causes real issues for everyone and I view that to be avoidable issues, many of us have already seen the real division and dysfunction it creates.. when those just feel they dont have to pay.. when really they should in that situation of Union representation.

those who do not pay their share, it only causes problems for the whole group at some point.

if someone doesnt want a union is one thing, but if a union does come into place, I would highly suggest just supporting the group and paying.

it all ends up showing who really focuses on the group.

pay because petty doesnt = professional.


I have heard every excuse under the sun why people just refused to pay their dues in the past.

the bottom line is simply it boils down to respect.

if someone really respects the group, they would simply pay their dues or would have.

 

[BoeingBoy]

they would not pay dues until the tentative agreement covering both groups is ratified and a contract is in place. if the Union and Company negotiate and establish closed shop and dues check off, it would be a condition of employment, I would imagine?

Almost undoubtedly not closed shop, but definitely an agency shop meaning membership in the union is not required as a condition of employment but paying dues (or more likely agency fees as an objector) is.

Whether dues/agency fee payment would be retroactive to a union's election as CBA would depend on the union and it's constitution/policy, but my guess is that there's a better than 50-50 chance it would be since the union would be performing it's representational duties by negotiating a combined contract. Enforcement, however, would be difficult/impossible until a contract containing such retroactive language was in place since it's ultimately the company that would be required by the contract to take punitive action against individuals for non-payment - no contract, no requirement for the company to penalize for non-payment.

It creates an "interesting" dichotomy between the two FA groups until a single contract is in place - pre-merger NW FA's are covered by a contract which I'm sure contains penalties for non-payment but original DL FA's don't have a contract. So it's possible that a pre-merger NW FA could be terminated for non-payment while an original DL FA would face no punishment for the same offense. Of course, the original DL FA would eventually face the same fate when a contract went into place.

Jim

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Just wondering as many anti AFA flight attendants tell me they simply won't pay dues if the union is voted in.

Resistance is futile. They will be assimilated.
mmuaahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha :mf_boff:

 

[southwind]

Resistance is futile. They will be assimilated.
mmuaahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha :mf_boff:

So , the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many , in this case ! :down:

 

[Dignity]

first things first!

first they need to get a union on the property then they can worry about the dues!

oh wait a minute! they pulled the election request so ..well,

nevermind!

 

[Dignity]

Almost undoubtedly not closed shop, but definitely an agency shop meaning membership in the union is not required as a condition of employment but paying dues (or more likely agency fees as an objector) is.

we are required to pay dues as PMNW, fees or whatever they want to call it!

and!

you are paying up or getting the "letter"!

Whether dues/agency fee payment would be retroactive to a union's election as CBA would depend on the union and it's constitution/policy, but my guess is that there's a better than 50-50 chance it would be since the union would be performing it's representational duties by negotiating a combined contract.

I am almost certain they would not require retroactive payment for those who were non-members. (they may even waive the initiation fees) However, those who are members and just did not pay in the past and did not because of a technicality should, or at minimum not allowed to run for union offices (until they are current for everything they owe) as they owe the group for their non-payment.

they are probably not going to really focus on that, why would they? they would have the 21,000 X $43.00 = $903,000.00 a month x 12 months = $10,836,000.00 a year after the ratified contract.

but would probably make sure going forward everyone does pay up.

Enforcement, however, would be difficult/impossible until a contract containing such retroactive language was in place since it's ultimately the company that would be required by the contract to take punitive action against individuals for non-payment - no contract, no requirement for the company to penalize for non-payment.

if the Company ever takes a stance to impose punitive actions against their own employees is the day the culture comes to a complete halt.

(it actually ends the moment the Union is on the property.. because it is shown representation was necessary for the majority, that is of course the actual majority puts a Union on the property)

It creates an "interesting" dichotomy between the two FA groups until a single contract is in place - pre-merger NW FA's are covered by a contract which I'm sure contains penalties for non-payment but original DL FA's don't have a contract. So it's possible that a pre-merger NW FA could be terminated for non-payment while an original DL FA would face no punishment for the same offense. Of course, the original DL FA would eventually face the same fate when a contract went into place.

that seems to be actually a possibility at this time, a PMNW could face termination for non-payment of dues while a PMDL would not..

interesting.

however it may play out this Union representation condition of employment baloney needs to come to a stop, threatening Flight Attendants with job termination over a mere $40.00 and then letting others go so far delinquent in the past not paying their dues and then are allowed to be become Union Officers or Activist making decisions without input.. that directly affect our careers is total nonsense.

 

[BABABOOY]

(it actually ends the moment the Union is on the property.. because it is shown representation was necessary for the majority, that is of course the actual majority puts a Union on the property)

Majority? Not Necessarily under the "proposed" rule change.

 

[Dignity]

Majority? Not Necessarily under the "proposed" rule change.

BAB,

I know that proposed rule change, that is why I wrote..

if the actual majority puts a Union on the property.

the proposed rule change can theoretically allow a minority number that does not reflect

the actual majority.

however,

if the actual majority does in fact put a union on the property (whenever there is an election) and it is a significant number then the majority in that situation actually does says the culture does not exist.

or

the Union has convinced enough people it is necessary and bought their line.

(probably would be a combination of both)

 

[BoeingBoy]

we are required to pay dues as PMNW, fees or whatever they want to call it!

The overwhelming majority do become members after being hired and thus pay dues. Since the agency fee charged objectors is usually around 90% of the dues amount (don't know specifically what it is with the AFA) for most it's not worth giving up the rights of membership to save a few bucks a month. Of course, for most union members in this industry a union was there when they were hired, which won't be the case for DL FA's if the AFA wins a representational election.

I am almost certain they would not require retroactive payment for those who were non-members. (they may even waive the initiation fees)

they are probably not going to really focus on that, why would they? they would have the 21,000 X $43.00 = $903,000.00 a month x 12 months = $10,836,000.00 a year after the ratified contract.

You may well be right, but that nearly #1 million a month might look very attractive while the AFA is negotiating a combined contract (if they win a representative election, of course).

if the Company ever takes a stance to impose punitive actions against their own employees is the day the culture comes to a complete halt.

In the case of non-payment of dues/agency fee the company ultimately has no choice - it's in the contract. The union doesn't have the power to actually fire anyone, but they can negotiate contract language that requires the company to fire someone for non-payment.

however it may play out this Union representation condition of employment baloney needs to come to a stop, threatening Flight Attendants with job termination over a mere $40.00 and then letting others go so far delinquent in the past not paying their dues and then are allowed to be become Union Officers or Activist making decisions without input.. that directly affect our careers is total nonsense.

While I certainly agree that the union should be fair-handed about enforcing any non-payment penalties, I don't see the agency shop provisions coming to an end
at any unionized carrier. The unions will never give up the leverage that keeps the dues money flowing. Eliminating the agency shop provisions of a contract would be cutting their financial throat, especially in times of concessions like the industry is in currently - how many members would see reducing/stopping dues payments as a convenient way to reduce spending after a 10%, 20%, 30% pay cut if there were no consequencies to doing so?

Jim

 

[Dignity]

The overwhelming majority do become members after being hired and thus pay dues. Since the agency fee charged objectors is usually around 90% of the dues amount (don't know specifically what it is with the AFA) for most it's not worth giving up the rights of membership to save a few bucks a month.

to my understanding, when we lost dues check off, everyone was still entitled to union representation.. regardless if someone paid or not, as the union covered the group.

Of course, for most union members in this industry a union was there when they were hired, which won't be the case for DL FA's if the AFA wins a representational election.

I doubt there would be any retroactive payment for those who were non-members.

In the case of non-payment of dues/agency fee the company ultimately has no choice - it's in the contract. The union doesn't have the power to actually fire anyone, but they can negotiate contract language that requires the company to fire someone for non-payment.

I do not believe anyone should lose their job over something like that, even those who did not pay their dues.

but fully understand the point.

While I certainly agree that the union should be fair-handed about enforcing any non-payment penalties, I don't see the agency shop provisions coming to an end
at any unionized carrier.

It probably will not.

I just guess..

I do not understand how the rules applies differently for some having to pay and then some dont.

The unions will never give up the leverage that keeps the dues money flowing. Eliminating the agency shop provisions of a contract would be cutting their financial throat, especially in times of concessions like the industry is in currently - how many members would see reducing/stopping dues payments as a convenient way to reduce spending after a 10%, 20%, 30% pay cut if there were no consequencies to doing so?

what is interesting to me, some in the the Union forget we the members are also under pay concessions.

I do not see anyone in the Union taking a paycut,

but they are determined to collect our dues to make sure their salaries and benefits stay intact.

sorry but to me, this is all just wrong.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

So , the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many , in this case ! :down:

Let's put a stop to this "minority" charade being perpetuated by the union-busting consulting firms and company lawyers.
You have a computer, obviously, and I'm sure you have a telephone.
When you get the PIN from the NMB (in the mail), you simply log in or dial in (they give you a CHOICE) and select "NO UNION" (or NO REPRESENTATION or however it will be worded). It will take you all of 1 minute at the most.
If you don't care enough to vote, then you can not complain----just like in the real world.

 

[Dignity]

I think the point is not necessarily the election format, rather than the delay it is causing because some are just
not confident (insecure) or comfortable with the current format.. that has just recently secured a Union at two airlines.

they filed an election request under the current format and then pulled it.

they should have simply not filed it at all or left it in place.

when they filed the election request with the current 50 percent plus one, what they actually said was

it was fair or they would not have filed under those circumstances and pulled the other elections that were ongoing, if they felt it was unfair.

 

[BoeingBoy]

to my understanding, when we lost dues check off, everyone was still entitled to union representation.. regardless if someone paid or not, as the union covered the group.

Since I know nothing about that situation I'll take your word for it. I am surprised, however, since dues check-off is usually merely a convenience (for the member) and not required to retain membership (although dues payment is).

I doubt there would be any retroactive payment for those who were non-members.

I hope you're right (and by retroactive I mean back to the date the union won the representational election or shortly thereafter).

what is interesting to me, some in the the Union forget we the members are also under pay concessions.

I do not see anyone in the Union taking a paycut,

but they are determined to collect our dues to make sure their salaries and benefits stay intact.

sorry but to me, this is all just wrong.

I agree. One note/question - you're talking about national union officers I presume (president, vp, etc). My experience was with ALPA and the local union oficers (those on the US seniority list, not "local" as in base reps) did take the same paycuts as the members since their pay was based on what their pay would be if they were flying the line (the base reps did fly the line so automatically took pay cuts too).

Jim