Union elections and the RLA....POLL!

[700UW]

They never asked us if they should pull it either.

Last time I checked you dont attend meetings nor are an officer at the local or national level, you know the people who are elected by the membership to make those decisions.

Read your bylaws, that you vote on that the union follows and the constitution.

I guess since you admit you are not involved nor attend meetings, you have no right to complain what your officers who were elected by the membership to run the unions.

And does Obama or Congress check with you on how they run the country?

Does DL CEO ask you too?

 

[Dignity]

Last time I checked you dont attend meetings nor are an officer at the local or national level, you know the people who are elected by the membership to make those decisions.

one of the rules in life is simply,

do not assume.

Read your bylaws, that you vote on that the union follows and the constitution.

you mean the same Constitution that was changed to allow non-Flight Attendants to stay in office?

I guess since you admit you are not involved nor attend meetings, you have no right to complain what your officers who were elected by the membership to run the unions.

as long as they are doing one thing, that is taking dues out of our paychecks

I do have the right to voice my concerns.

so, well,

tough.

they act as if they have the right to take dues out of our paychecks, yet have no right to voice an opinion?

(like thats going to win them over..)

face it, you just dont like a different opinion is what its really about!

And does Obama or Congress check with you on how they run the country?

last I checked we have the opportunity to vote for those offices.

Does DL CEO ask you too?

well I know for a fact AFA doesn't!

furthermore, it is a little difficult to assume anything regarding who does what.. when it involves,

1. an individual who is not employed there (at all)

2. a group who has never been employed there (in the past)

3. a union who have never represented the group there (ever)


I am not anti-union.

I believe unions are necessary for some but not required for all companies.

for a very long time I was actually supporting the AFA in regards to their announcement they were excited about the merger and the idea they were going to work with them. To be quite frank, willing to give them a second chance regardless of the lack of promises they kept during their campaign and how ineffective they were during the bankruptcy process. I believe in second chances for everyone.

Being PMNW, and based on our history some reservation regarding trust was there, however a feeling of confidence was present with the Union because they said they were excited about the merger and I thought this would finally be the point when we could all look beyond what happened at NW and focus on a bright future moving forward.

I continued to keep an open mind regarding DL .

The Seniority Lawsuit was the first indicator some are simply not going to try and move forward. The rest of what the AFA has done this past year in particular with their organizers insinuating we are going to be outsourced without any justification and it is the same NW.. up to the point they pulled the request after it was filed.. tells me that some are going to carry over every dysfunctional style right over to DL and I cannot support that anymore based on what I have known in the past and what is being shown in the present.

I fail to understand what the IAM has to do with the Flight Attendants?

 

[BoeingBoy]

the way it is set up.. we vote for an LEC at our base, and then the LEC votes for the MEC.

I think we're saying the same thing with just a semantic difference.

In ALPA, it starts with the LEC at each council (pilot base other than satellite bases which US doesn't have). The LEC is composed of 3 members - Capt rep, FO rep, and Sec/Treasurer. The LEC members are elected by the members in their base with the Capt rep being the LEC chairman, the FO rep the LEC VP, and the Sec/Treasurer elected to that position by the members.

The combined LEC's are the MEC - Master Executive Council - although the LEC Sec/Treasurer is just a record keeping position and doesn't have a vote at the MEC level. The MEC elects the MEC officers, who can but don't have to be LEC members. So the MEC officers are NOT elected by the membership but rather by the membership's reps. However, the MEC officers don't have a vote at the MEC level (unless they also happen to be an LEC officer) except that the MEC chairman casts a tie-breaking vote which is rarely necessary. So while the membership doesn't directly elect the MEC officers, those officers don't vote on issues since a tie is extremely rare (I can remember one tie-breaking vote cast by a MEC Chairman during my 27+ years).

The MEC's, collectively, elect the national officers.

USAPA is more like what you advocate. The USAPA equivalent of the MEC is the BPR (Board of Pilot Reps) that are elected by the members in their bases and are individually like LEC officers. Since USAPA is an in-house union there is only one set of officers instead of one set at the MEC level and another set at the national level. The officers are also directly elected by the membership.

USAPA did create a difference in the representation structure by having the number of local reps determined by the number of members in a base whereas under ALPA each base had the same number of LEC officers (after US retired all the aircraft requiring a flight engineer - prior that that a base with flight engineers also had a FE rep on the LEC). So a big base might have 4-5-6 BPR members while a small base might have only 1.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Guess you dont reaize unions are support each other and the IAM represeents FAs at CO COEX and a few others and CO's CBA is top notch in the industry.

 

[Dignity]

Guess you dont reaize unions are support each other and the IAM represeents FAs at CO COEX and a few others and CO's CBA is top notch in the industry.

AFA did not negotiate those contracts and the ones they have..

O.M.G.

Wow! :blink:

next?


PS:

this isnt about the IAM.

 

[BoeingBoy]

CO's CBA is top notch in the industry.

Because the other airlines have taken such large concessions, leaving CO FA's at/near the top. Go back to before the BK's and concessions started and most of the legacies FA contracts were better than CO.

 

[Dignity]

I think we're saying the same thing with just a semantic difference.

In ALPA, it starts with the LEC at each council (pilot base other than satellite bases which US doesn't have). The LEC is composed of 3 members - Capt rep, FO rep, and Sec/Treasurer. The LEC members are elected by the members in their base with the Capt rep being the LEC chairman, the FO rep the LEC VP, and the Sec/Treasurer elected to that position by the members.

The combined LEC's are the MEC - Master Executive Council - although the LEC Sec/Treasurer is just a record keeping position and doesn't have a vote at the MEC level. The MEC elects the MEC officers, who can but don't have to be LEC members. So the MEC officers are NOT elected by the membership but rather by the membership's reps. However, the MEC officers don't have a vote at the MEC level (unless they also happen to be an LEC officer) except that the MEC chairman casts a tie-breaking vote which is rarely necessary. So while the membership doesn't directly elect the MEC officers, those officers don't vote on issues since a tie is extremely rare (I can remember one tie-breaking vote cast by a MEC Chairman during my 27+ years).

The MEC's, collectively, elect the national officers.

that was interesting to read.

USAPA is more like what you advocate. The USAPA equivalent of the MEC is the BPR (Board of Pilot Reps) that are elected by the members in their bases and are individually like LEC officers. Since USAPA is an in-house union there is only one set of officers instead of one set at the MEC level and another set at the national level. The officers are also directly elected by the membership.

I advocate the members electing all officer positions that draws a salary and benefits, based on collecting dues from
our paychecks.

Every single office within the Union at the airline.

(some just dont see it that way)

 

[jalbalpa]

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]

The AFA had filed the same exact thing the IAM did. It was an application to withdraw the single carrier request. You can't request a representation dispute without first having a single carrier.

 

[jalbalpa]

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]

The AFA had filed the same exact thing the IAM did. It was an application to withdraw the single carrier request. You can't request a representation dispute without first having a single carrier.

 

[Dignity]

The AFA had filed the same exact thing the IAM did. It was an application to withdraw the single carrier request. You can't request a representation dispute without first having a single carrier.

Well!

you certainly cannot proceed or do anything by pulling it altogether.


Do you believe it is not single carrier for representational purposes?

so they filed it.. only to turn around and pull it.. only to have to refile it again.. then
blame the airline for stalling?

 

[jalbalpa]

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?

Do I believe that we have a Single Carrier in place? Yes.

Do I believe that we should have an election using outdated, and flawed rules (the NMB admitted that) in January instead of having a fair election in March? No.

You have to look beyond SOC and down the line, whats gonna happen 1-2-3-4-5-10 years from now? Do you want to rush into this for the purpose of combining the groups and getting ti over with? I don't want to just get it over with...I want to do it right!

 

[Dignity]

Do I believe that we have a Single Carrier in place? Yes.

me too.

Do I believe that we should have an election using outdated, and flawed rules (the NMB admitted that) in January instead of having a fair election in March? No.

the fact two other elections were allowed to proceed,

while we filed before both makes zero sense claiming
the process is outdated and is not considered fair.

those two elections would not have occurred!

this is simply common sense!

You have to look beyond SOC and down the line, whats gonna happen 1-2-3-4-5-10 years from now? Do you want to rush into this for the purpose of combining the groups and getting ti over with? I don't want to just get it over with...I want to do it right!

jalbalpa,

I would like to see issues resolved when it is necessary to do so, showing real effectiveness.

The Union has addressed nothing!

(except to file the request and then pull it)

do you not agree it would have been better simply not to file, if the intent was not to follow through?

 

[BoeingBoy]

The AFA had filed the same exact thing the IAM did.

Either you're wrong or the NMB misread, misquoted, and misresponded to the AFA-CWA's filing.

You can't request a representation dispute without first having a single carrier.

True, but an organization can file for an investigation of a representational dispute without filing separately for a single carrier determination. The NMB will just make the single carrier determination first before proceeding further (really a moot point in this case since a single carrier determination has already been made for several other unions so would be guaranteed to be determined for the AFA-CWA).

After an application is filed, the NMB will conduct a pre-docket investigation to determine whether a single transportation system exists. The investigation may take any form appropriate to the determination. [NMB Representational Manual Section 19.5]

If the NMB determines that a single transportation system exists, the investigation will proceed to address the representation of the proper craft or class. [NMB Representational Manual Section 19.6]

According to the NMB, this is what the AFA-CWA did.

Jim

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

me too.


the fact two other elections were allowed to proceed,

while we filed before both makes zero sense claiming
the process is outdated and is not considered fair.

those two elections would not have occurred!

this is simply common sense!


jalbalpa,

I would like to see issues resolved when it is necessary to do so, showing real effectiveness.

The Union has addressed nothing!

(except to file the request and then pull it)

do you not agree it would have been better simply not to file, if the intent was not to follow through?

Dig,
You seem to be laying all of this at the feet of the AFA. The NMB has something to do with this timeline of events as well. I don't think AFA would have filed for a SCD if they knew for sure that the TTD of the AFL/CIO was going to file for a change in voting procedures. I mean, it's possible but it just doesn't make sense. Maybe jalbalpa can shed some light.
The original SCD was filed by the AFA in late July. From what I understand, the NMB members had vacations and I remember reading something about one having had an illness or something in the family. Bottom line is: the AFA doesn't set the schedule or control the timeline completely. The other is controlled by the NMB and their workload, schedule, etc...
Also, Dig--
You are ready to go without representation and that's fine. I can respect your decision. But are you ready for accepting the consequences that come without representation?
For instance, if you were working FC on a widebody and one of your crewmembers in YC left a Christmas light on the wall of the most aft galley, security was called at the crew-change hub (because according to some, it looked like a "suspect" device) and you were implicated for carelessness just because you were on the crew and subsequently suspended for 2 weeks without pay, how would you feel about that? (Remember you NEVER even went to the back galley because you were working FC). PS: This is a real event that happened approx. 3 years ago.
Second instance: You are notified of a drug test approx one hour or so from landing after a flight from NRT. You drink lots and lots of water, maybe green tea. You submit your sample and home you go. Next thing you know, you are asked to come in and surrender your ID badge, OnBoard Manual, etc.. and you are placed on indefinate suspension which results in your termination because the lab says your sample was "inconsistent with human urine." You are not a drug taker/abuser, esp not prohibited recreational drugs and you certainly have no idea how you would have substituted your urine in the tiny stall of the testing site esp. when all your bags were left out in the holding area.
I'm just curious, should some such situation happen to you, do you have enough $$ in your bank account to cover the exhorbitant attorney's fees? Do you have the strength to endure a long, drawn-out emotionally-devastating fight for your rights and reputation? (And please don't say this is an isolated event or two because let me tell you, NONE of these people EVER thought something like this would happen to them.)
I'm just curious to hear your (intellectually honest) response.
Thanks.

 

[Dignity]

The Union put out a press releases July 27, 2009

they basically said they are officially asking the NMB to conduct a representation election for flight attendants at DL..

there are several steps within that single request.. (do they not remember what they wrote??)


the first step is..

1. the Union requests the NMB declare there is single transportation system.

2. the NMB must then declare they are in fact operating as a single carrier

3. after they, NMB have determined it is a single carrier.. they, NMB set an election date.


it was a single carrier when the request was filed!

The union should not have pulled the request that would ultimately determine an election date.. for the fact
AFA pulled the request was premature because the NMB was to determine single carrier allowing a date to be set.

The request should have stayed in place.