Union elections and the RLA....POLL!

Should union elections under the RLA be like every other election where you can vote YES/NO and the

  • YES

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
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).
what happened.. in our contract by the Teamsters, they made a lot of issues unique to them. Dues check off was in the contract exclusive to Teamsters.

when we changed unions that language became void even though PFAA said, it would not be a problem, therefore we lost dues check off and actually any language that had Teamsters on it.

they did change the language to "Union" going forward to prevent that from happening again, I assume?

I recall people did not have to pay and still were allowed to be represented by a technicality.

it was a disaster.

I hope you're right (and by retroactive I mean back to the date the union won the representational election or shortly thereafter).
that is what I was implying, the date the union is officially the representative for the non-members in regard to retro payment.

I agree. One note/question - you're talking about national union officers I presume. 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
the salaries for those on the local level is available and that is what I am talking about.

pay upwards of $90,000 is not what I define "pay cut".

some have claimed they make no more than a regular Flight Attendant being in the "union" and that is just false.

a topped out Flight Attendant has to fly 100 hours a month at $40.56 for $4056.00 a month X 12 months = $48,672.00

so if someone in the union is pulling in the high 50's to 60 grand up to 90 they are not on our paycut.

I am sorry but that is just not possible.

our union also changed the constitution allowing non-active Flight Attendants to secure national offices, that means
anyone who is not a current Flight Attendant can stay in office after they leave their Flight Attendant position, that is simply just not right, taking into consideration we are not permitted to vote for the MEC at our own airline or national offices and they are claiming the rules need to change to reflect a democratic election that is not even followed at the union.

that is hypocrisy.
 
what happened.. in our contract by the Teamsters, they made a lot of issues unique to them. Dues check off was in the contract exclusive to Teamsters.

I do seem to recall that dues check-off does not automatically apply when a group changes unions but rather has to be worked out between the new union and the company. That's fuzzy though so could be wrong. I also suppose some unions don't use dues check-off, though I can't see why not.

therefore we lost dues check off and actually any language that had Teamsters on it.

That doesn't seem right unless there were some things that were unique to the Teamsters (i.e. a retirement fund under Teamster control or something like that. According to the NMB, when a change of unions occurs the existing contract remains in place to be enforced by the new bargaining agent until a new contract is negotiated (usually in normal section 6 negotiations but might well be different timing during BK).

I recall people did not have to pay and still were allowed to be represented by a technicality.

it was a disaster.

Sounds like it. Any union is required to represent all employees in the covered group in contract issues (from negotiation to grievances), including non-members (that's why the agency fee is required to be paid by non-members).


the salaries for those on the local level is available and that is what I am talking about.

Bummer. That just isn't right. ALPA did play some games with pay and FPL - MEC officers were paid based on what equipment their seniority could hold as opposed to what they did hold before being elected (something that would affect pilots but not FA's) and local reps could use FPL to "augment" their income thus making more than they would have on the line (lineholders getting FPL for union business when they didn't miss any trips to do that union business and reserves getting FPL on top of guarantee when they wouldn't have broken guarantee if on the line). But I don't think it ever rose to the level of paying double what they could make on the line.

our union also changed the constitution allowing non-active Flight Attendants to secure national offices, that means
anyone who is not a current Flight Attendant can stay in office after they leave their Flight Attendant position, that is simply just not right, taking into consideration we are not permitted to vote for the MEC at our own airline or national offices and they are claiming the rules need to change to reflect a democratic election that is not even followed at the union.

that is hypocrisy.

Again using ALPA as my point of reference, there's some logic to that - a MEC officer is considered non-active as a pilot since they don't fly but can still be elected to national office, for example. But one does have to be on the pilot's seniority list in an otherwise active position (i.e. not furloughed, out on medical, etc).

ALPA did do somewhat the same back in the 90's - the national President was EA and when EA closed up shop they changed the constitution so he could continue as President. I think ALPA still requires active membership to be elected, however.

Likewise, ALPA does not provide for the direct election of the MEC chairman, vice chairman, or Sec/Treasurer or the national officers. The MEC members elect the MEC officers and national officers are elected by all the ALPA MEC's normally at the annual board meeting (I assume that there's provision for election between board meetings is the need arises). So the membership indirectly elects MEC and National officers since the votes each MEC casts is equal to the number of members they represent.

USAPA, the new in-house pilot's union at US, is showing some early signs of playing the same games with pay - paying officers what their seniority could hold instead of what they did hold and paying a stipend on top of normal pay for being an officer or local rep. I guess some of this type of thing is just human nature - what's supposed to be voluntarily contributed time with no personal gain becomes "but I'm spending all my non-flying time doing union business so I deserve..." after getting in.

Jim
 
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.

Sounds good, as long as said union can be voted "OUT" , using the same process !
 
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.
Then we have to also stop the "Charade" that is being perpetuated by the AFA
that this election should be treated just as any other democratic election. IF so then why
aren't we voting the AFA based on a term? Isn't that the "real world" ?
When I vote for someone it is for a term. Whether it be 2 , 4 or 6 years. I elect them
for a TERM. There is a big difference here. That's why the present rules puts the "oness" on
the Union that is trying to get on the property. It has worked for many carriers in the past hasn't it?
Just not Delta....
Lets not forget that the present rules are OK
for the recent election of USA3000, and Compass..... gotta love the Hypocrisy ;-)
 
I do seem to recall that dues check-off does not automatically apply when a group changes unions but rather has to be worked out between the new union and the company. That's fuzzy though so could be wrong. I also suppose some unions don't use dues check-off, though I can't see why not.
the way it is worded now, dues check off will carry over to another union should the group opt to change unions again.

That doesn't seem right unless there were some things that were unique to the Teamsters (i.e. a retirement fund under Teamster control or something like that. According to the NMB, when a change of unions occurs the existing contract remains in place to be enforced by the new bargaining agent until a new contract is negotiated (usually in normal section 6 negotiations but might well be different timing during BK).
well it is right.

this is what they did.

they wrote specifically in the contract items such as dues check off remains in effect as long as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is the bargaining representative.

when the PFAA was campaigning to change Unions.. this language was being brought up that was in our contract and how it was worded specifically Teamsters. The PFAA Activists were claiming it was not going to be a problem because dues check off was already established and of course the Company was going to honor that.

wrong!

what the Company actually did was follow the contract to the letter and when we changed from Teamsters to PFAA it voided the dues check and anything other language that was specifically attached to Teamsters.

that is how we lost dues check off.

that is how these people got the idea they didnt have to pay anymore.

the very strange part in all of this, was the former Teasmters who were so adamant about unionism turned around and took that technicality to their advantage when we lost it and just refused to pay dues to the PFAA.

these are life long unionist who knew better.

then they turned around and campaigned AFA, and then secured themselves into Union positions.

Sounds like it. Any union is required to represent all employees in the covered group in contract issues (from negotiation to grievances), including non-members (that's why the agency fee is required to be paid by non-members).
to me, it was just the whole principal.

they all knew we are to pay dues and some just refused what appeared out of spite.

it was actually very telling of these individuals in my book.

we still had a responsibility to pay our dues, each and everyone of us.

the credit union even made it possible to deduct the amount from our accounts as a convenience.

that is what I did when it was made available later, so there were options to pay the Union dues.

Bummer. That just isn't right. ALPA did play some games with pay and FPL - MEC officers were paid based on what equipment their seniority could hold as opposed to what they did hold before being elected (something that would affect pilots but not FA's) and local reps could use FPL to "augment" their income thus making more than they would have on the line (lineholders getting FPL for union business when they didn't miss any trips to do that union business and reserves getting FPL on top of guarantee when they wouldn't have broken guarantee if on the line). But I don't think it ever rose to the level of paying double what they could make on the line.
my whole point was, these organizers should not get up there and say they are only making what a Flight Attendant makes and then you find out they are making upwards of 90K.

Again using ALPA as my point of reference, there's some logic to that - a MEC officer is considered non-active as a pilot since they don't fly but can still be elected to national office, for example. But one does have to be on the pilot's seniority list in an otherwise active position (i.e. not furloughed, out on medical, etc).
our MEC are actual Flight Attendants, we just cant vote for them the way AFA has the structure set up.

it is open to manipulation because we witnessed that happen.

the infighting was just ridiculous.

ALPA did do somewhat the same back in the 90's - the national President was EA and when EA closed up shop they changed the constitution so he could continue as President. I think ALPA still requires active membership to be elected, however.

Likewise, ALPA does not provide for the direct election of the MEC chairman, vice chairman, or Sec/Treasurer or the national officers. The MEC members elect the MEC officers and national officers are elected by all the ALPA MEC's normally at the annual board meeting (I assume that there's provision for election between board meetings is the need arises). So the membership indirectly elects MEC and National officers since the votes each MEC casts is equal to the number of members they represent.

USAPA, the new in-house pilot's union at US, is showing some early signs of playing the same games with pay - paying officers what their seniority could hold instead of what they did hold and paying a stipend on top of normal pay for being an officer or local rep. I guess some of this type of thing is just human nature - what's supposed to be voluntarily contributed time with no personal gain becomes "but I'm spending all my non-flying time doing union business so I deserve..." after getting in.

Jim
for me, I would like to vote for every position just like a democratic election in our country.
I am able to vote for Mayor, Representative, Governor, even President, but with AFA they limit our voting at the base.

I think it would be fair to be able to vote for those locally at the base , the MEC and the national officers.

Why would someone have an issue with that?

would that not be democratic, especially since the AFA is insisting on a democratic election to secure themselves on any airline property with a rule change.
 
Then we have to also stop the "Charade" that is being perpetuated by the AFA
that this election should be treated just as any other democratic election. IF so then why
aren't we voting the AFA based on a term? Isn't that the "real world" ?
When I vote for someone it is for a term. Whether it be 2 , 4 or 6 years. I elect them
for a TERM. There is a big difference here. That's why the present rules puts the "oness" on
the Union that is trying to get on the property. It has worked for many carriers in the past hasn't it?
Just not Delta....
Lets not forget that the present rules are OK
for the recent election of USA3000, and Compass..... gotta love the Hypocrisy ;-)
they just need to tell DL Flight Attendants the whole story, not just pick and choose what sounds good.

so people are aware what to expect so there are not any surprises if AFA is voted in.

You will have real limitations voting, your voice is not always heard and they will make decisions minus
your input such as the pulling of the election request and make promises that cannot be delivered.

I am more concerned about the promises made that are being stuck in people's head and the fact they will refuse
to vote for a Tentative Agreement because it may not be industry leading.

The idea we could be released into a 30 day cooling off period due to these promises being made right now,
that may not be able to come into fruition due to the economy is really disturbing.

The minute they start planning their strikes at DL, you can just kiss the reputation goodbye.

its over at that point.

threatening stranding passengers due to a job action is not what I consider, good customer service.

(even if it doesnt happen, it does not take much to ruin a good name when that is mentioned)




we are already aware of the serious internal structural flaws of their voting of officers but they refused to address it.

you will all have an understanding and see it from a different perspective if AFA is the representative,

that you can count on.
 
Sounds good, as long as said union can be voted "OUT" , using the same process !
exactly.

there must be balance.

if the rules are changed on one end to a democratic Yes/No, then the same must be
made available for the industry to vote out a Union as well.

that is the only way this will be considered fair.

if they allow a Yes/No vote without the ability to vote out the Union using the same format should they, Union be
considered ineffective. I would highly suggest researching who is to be voted on the property because you are going
to end up stuck with them for a long time if they are successful.. with your only realistic recourse being to vote another union in.

do not vote for a union just for the sake of having one. if you end up with a very ineffective one, issues that are needing to be resolved become 10 times worse for the fact they side track, delay and shift responsibility.

do your research.
 
our MEC are actual Flight Attendants, we just cant vote for them the way AFA has the structure set up.

That's different from ALPA and USAPA then, where the MEC (or BPR in USAPA-speak) are the local reps as a group. They're elected by membership vote in each respective base. The MEC officers, on the other hand, are elected by the MEC members (USAPA doesn't have BPR officers since it's an inhouse union but the equivalent to national officers are elected by the membership).

Sounds like the company was playing hardball with the contract language and got away with it. With USAPA's election at US, they inherited the original US and HP pilot's contracts as required by the NMB. Since ALPA was the former CBA, both contracts contain numerous references to ALPA and are of course signed by the old ALPA MEC's and national president. But both the company and USAPA are still bound by those contracts (and accompanying letters of agreement) until a combined contract is ratified. USAPA did have to work out dues checkoff with the company - bank account numbers, dues percentage (most pilot unions charge a percentage of pay as dues instead of a fixed amount) and such.

Jim
 
Then we have to also stop the "Charade" that is being perpetuated by the AFA
that this election should be treated just as any other democratic election. IF so then why
aren't we voting the AFA based on a term? Isn't that the "real world" ?
When I vote for someone it is for a term. Whether it be 2 , 4 or 6 years. I elect them
for a TERM. There is a big difference here. That's why the present rules puts the "oness" on
the Union that is trying to get on the property. It has worked for many carriers in the past hasn't it?
Just not Delta....
Lets not forget that the present rules are OK
for the recent election of USA3000, and Compass..... gotta love the Hypocrisy ;-)

There is no hypocrisy. You are swallowing what Ford & Harrison (the union-busting consulting firm) has fed you.
USA3000 voted under the present rules because they weren't involved in a merger and did not have to seek a Single Carrier Determination to trigger their election...UNLIKE the DL/NW situation. NWAFA/Delta C3 NEVER filed for an election. They filed for a Single Carrier Determination (which would later trigger an election). That Determination NEVER came from the NMB. Instead, the NMB made notice that they were highly considering altering the present election regulations to be LIKE EVERY OTHER UNION ELECTION THAT IS NON-RAILROAD, NON-AIRLINE. (Not to mention other elections in our country.) It would only stand to reason that strategically, AFA would wait for an election which actually measures the true INTENTION of the voter.
 
NWAFA/Delta C3 NEVER filed for an election. They filed for a Single Carrier Determination (which would later trigger an election).

Not quite right. Unlike ALPA, PAFCA, and NAMA which all filed first for a single carrier determination, AFA-CWA applied for an investigation of a representational dispute. That filing automatically triggers an investigation which starts with the "single transportation system" determination and proceeds automatically to an election if necessary - no separate filing for an election is necessary.

Jim
 
Unlike ALPA, PAFCA, and NAMA which all filed first for a single carrier determination, AFA-CWA applied for an investigation of a representational dispute. That filing automatically triggers an investigation which starts with the "single transportation system" determination and proceeds automatically to an election if necessary - no separate filing for an election is necessary.

You are actually incorrect here Jim.

ALPA and AMFA filed for "single transportation system" but never filed for an investigation of a representational dispute.

Once the NMB determines that single carrier status exists...then the representative must provide a showing of interest from at least 35% of the craft/class, if the union successfully does that...then the NMB determines that a dispute does exist and the NMB would subsequently run an election. If no showing of interest is provided within 14 days...the certification is pulled.

Remember what AMFA did? They filed for single carrier determination...but never provided a showing of interest therefore AMFA was decertified.

AFA-CWA filed for single carrier determination, not for an investigation of a representational dispute.
 
AFA-CWA filed for single carrier determination, not for an investigation of a representational dispute.

While the AFA-CWA certainly did not copy me in on their filing, the NMB says that it was indeed an Application for Investigation of a Representational Dispute":

Subsequently, the AFA filed a letter with the NMB which stated that “AFA-CWA hereby withdraws, without prejudice, its July 27, 2009, "Application for Investigation of a Representation Dispute.‟ - [emphasis mine]

Quoted from the NMB's notice of dismissal of the original filing which quoted from the AFA-CWA application withdrawal.

Note that this is different from the IAM, where the NMB said:

Subsequently, the IAM filed a letter with the NMB which stated, “the IAM hereby withdraws its single carrier application for Fleet Service Employees without prejudice to re-filing at the appropriate time.â€￾ - [emphasis mine]

Jim
 
That's different from ALPA and USAPA then, where the MEC (or BPR in USAPA-speak) are the local reps as a group.
the way it is set up.. we vote for an LEC at our base, and then the LEC votes for the MEC.
even though specifically, I actually respect our MEC President, as I consider her a great Flight Attendant. I do not agree with not being able to vote on that office.

As a member, I feel we should elect all officer positions/offices within our own airline, including National officers.

it is the principal.

Sounds like the company was playing hardball with the contract language and got away with it.
one word or even one line can change the whole meaning.

when we changed Unions, because of the fact the wording was specifically Teamsters and when it changed
to PFAA.. the company was not playing hardball with the language, they were in fact following the contract
as it was outlined. (I can clearly see why we lost dues check off)

they did not get away with anything, as it was we, Flight Attendants who changed the language by changing
unions.

When we lost dues check off, it was then the Union's responsibility to address that and negotiate the language back
into the contract or amend it. But the PFAA was refusing to do so.. because they were unwilling to open negotiations
regarding anything because the Company was asking for a concessionary amount and of course they, PFAA basically told them they would talk with them at the conclusion of our agreement.
 
ALPA and AMFA filed for "single transportation system" but never filed for an investigation of a representational dispute.

Once the NMB determines that single carrier status exists...then the representative must provide a showing of interest from at least 35% of the craft/class, if the union successfully does that...then the NMB determines that a dispute does exist and the NMB would subsequently run an election. If no showing of interest is provided within 14 days...the certification is pulled.

Remember what AMFA did? They filed for single carrier determination...but never provided a showing of interest therefore AMFA was decertified.

AFA-CWA filed for single carrier determination, not for an investigation of a representational dispute.
jalbalpa,

do you believe, we are not considered single carrier for representation purposes at the time the request was pulled?

had they left the request in place, there was no reason why we would not be having our election, especially since the SOC is projected by next month and other groups have resolved all their issues.

to me, its just an excuse at this point, as the merger was approved October 2008 and by January 2010 we still have none of our issues addressed.

the July 27, 2009 AFA press release said that we were ready to move forward and once the NMB determined their criteria an election date would be set?
 
USA3000 voted under the present rules because they weren't involved in a merger and did not have to seek a Single Carrier Determination to trigger their election...UNLIKE the DL/NW situation.
we have already established the criteria for representational purposes or the request never would have been filed.

NWAFA/Delta C3 NEVER filed for an election.
They never asked us if they should pull it either.

did the C3 poll all of PMDL advising and seeking input regarding their intent to pull the request?

because they certainly did not poll PMNW.

here is a quote to keep in mind..

"The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant."- Max Dupree