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.