Union elections and the RLA....POLL!

[Dignity]

they can get off their butts

if the group eventually decides they prefer to go forward with representation.. it is going to be another huge time consuming process in order to go from a survey to a ratified contract.


if some can just realize how long it has taken.. simply to get an election in place.. can you even imagine the time frame afterwards to get a contract.

that is the concern for a lot of us, not a lack of confidence or worrying about the results of the election or hoping some will get their preferred election ballot format..

it is.. the whole idea that if in fact representation is the choice we are going to be separate for a very long time, not enjoying the full benefits of the merger while it creates unnecessary costs

(do to being separate)

and all this time right now doing nothing has been and will continue being wasted.

 

[Come Fly with Me]

In 1999 when the ramp was voting for union representation(TWU) some ramp agents received the wrong ballot by mistake. I believe United passenger service was in a campaign at the same time. I don't think Delta was at fault but I do know by fact that the Tower employees did received a ballot which they are dept 118. I am glad they are changing the rules.

 

[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.

you are right.

while I personally like the idea of a recurring election as mentioned..

(if the entire format was changed to a YES/NO ballot)

if the rules are changed allowing an initial election YES/NO to certify a union with 35 percent of cards signed.

there should also be a newly established election allowing a YES/NO to decertify a union with 35 percent of cards signed. (35 percent by the group simply showing interest after a union has been established onto the property.. that would prompt a de-certification election)

that would need to happen for a sense of fairness..

 

[700UW]

Gee that is what I been saying all along, the NRLA has a process for decertification, the RLA doesnt but has a back door way of doing it.

I would be in favor of a straight yes/no ballot and the same process for decertification that the NLRA has.

But to hold an election everytime your CBA is up is crazy as the company will never negotiate in good faith.

Right now the RLA is way too one sided in favor of business.

 

[dapoes]

U.S. Chamber says NMB also must allow union decertification

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the National Mediation Board Wednesday urging the NMB to reject a union request to change the majority voting rule for union certification. The Chamber also stated that if the NMB considers changing the majority voting rule for union certification, it must also amend its procedures to allow employees to vote out a union using the same criteria and voting procedures as an election to certify a union, a process that the NMB has never allowed.

Last month, the AFA, IAM and other unions in the AFL-CIO filed a request with the NMB, the government agency that oversees union representation matters in the airline industry, to change the traditional majority rule for voting in the airline and railroad industries.

The unions are requesting that the rules be changed so that instead of requiring a majority of employees to vote for union representation in order for a union to be certified, a union could represent an entire workgroup with the support of only a small minority of employees.

“If the Board were to grant the [union’s request to change the majority voting rule], then the Board would have an obligation to provide a process for employees to vote out a certified union in an election conducted in the same manner as the election which resulted in certification of the union in the first instance,â€￾ the U.S. Chamber letter stated. “Such a change would be needed to ensure that the representation duties of the Board are carried out in a manner that is consistent with the [Railway Labor Act] and that is fair and just.â€￾

The NMB has not yet indicated how or when it will address the request from the unions to change the rules.

Sounds fair to me...

 

[Dignity]

well I think that is exactly what should happen.

they should establish a new ability for an employee group to decertify *any* union.. including unions established already on the property and those throughout the industry including any trade represented by a union.. by having 35 percent participation enabling an election solely for de-certification..

allowing a YES/NO de-certification election.


that would be fair for everyone.

 

[Dignity]

Sounds fair to me...

the entire format (not just the initial election) will have to change taking all views into consideration.

 

[Dignity]

But to hold an election everytime your CBA is up is crazy as the company will never negotiate in good faith.

they are asking for..a democratic election.

my whole point was simply, they were requesting a democratic election/process.

in order to have a democratic process.. the election format would need to change to a recurring election based on..

what they are asking for

and of course the comparison how other elections
are handled in this country.

 

[700UW]

Gee go figure the Chamber of Commerce is pro company and anti union.

You can decertify under the RLA, you collect cards for a new vote for a new union and then you fail to get the 50%+1 and presto chango your non-union.

Neither the RLA or the NLRA has reoccuring elections, you still dont understand that the company would never bargain in good faith.

And like I stated numerous times and you cant seem to grasp the concept you can decertify at anytime.

 

[Dignity]

Gee go figure the Chamber of Commerce is pro company and anti union.

You can decertify under the RLA, you collect cards for a new vote for a new union and then you fail to get the 50%+1 and presto chango your non-union.

then the election format must remain 50% plus one to establish a union onto the property.

 

[Dignity]

The more I think about it...

they cannot expect to change one end of the process while keeping a 50 percent plus one on the other end.

it will not happen like that..

also if a YES/NO format is established, they are going to absolutely change it all..


you will see more..

YES/NO de-certification elections rather than YES/NO certification elections.

because some will finally feel they have an ability.. to rid themselves of what they perceive to be a very ineffective and divisive union once and for all..

with a,

---> NEW and IMPROVED election removal process..

T-H-I-N-K... very hard what some may be asking for, they may just get it all plus
a little more!

my personal opinion,

(I think Unions are going to screw themselves asking for these changes)

I really, really do..

however!

taking this to Congress two things are probably going to happen.

1. they (Congress) are going to throw it completely out while keeping the process as it is currently defined and supported by Supreme Court decisions.

2. they will change the format to a YES/NO for everything.

realistically...

# 1 will happen and our election that has been delayed would have been a complete waste of time.

(but I try to keep an open mind)

 

[BABABOOY]

The more I think about it...

they cannot expect to change one end of the process while keeping a 50 percent plus one on the other end.

it will not happen like that..

also if a YES/NO format is established, they are going to absolutely change it all..


you will see more..

YES/NO de-certification elections rather than YES/NO certification elections.

because some will finally feel they have an ability.. to rid themselves of what they perceive to be a very ineffective and divisive union once and for all..

with a,

---> NEW and IMPROVED election removal process..

T-H-I-N-K... very hard what some may be asking for, they may just get it all plus
a little more!

my personal opinion,

(I think Unions are going to screw themselves asking for these changes)

I really, really do..

however!

taking this to Congress two things are probably going to happen.

1. they (Congress) are going to throw it completely out while keeping the process as it is currently defined and supported by Supreme Court decisions.

2. they will change the format to a YES/NO for everything.

realistically...

# 1 will happen and our election that has been delayed would have been a complete waste of time.

(but I try to keep an open mind)

It sounds like you do dig, and I might add, you're
intellectually honest..

 

[jalbalpa]

The Supreme Court has only stated that the NMB has the ability to interpret the RLA however they choose to. In 1987, the Supreme Court simply stated that the NMB is an independent agency and has the right to conduct the elections how they want as long as they stay within the limits of the RLA.

The Supreme Court DID NOT say that the current 50%+1 method was the RIGHT method. It simply said that the NMB has the right to interpret it how it wants it.

The NMB could theoretically change the entire election process and simply use card check to determine majority and there is nothing anyone could do about it.

At the end of the day, its whatever the 3 members want to do.

 

[Dignity]

The Supreme Court has only stated that the NMB has the ability to interpret the RLA however they choose to. In 1987, the Supreme Court simply stated that the NMB is an independent agency and has the right to conduct the elections how they want as long as they stay within the limits of the RLA.

so basically there has been no problem with the way elections have been handled.

it is simply...some do not prefer the method or decisions made for the sole reason..they do not agree with it.

The Supreme Court DID NOT say that the current 50%+1 method was the RIGHT method. It simply said that the NMB has the right to interpret it how it wants it.

of course that is what they said (it was the right method)

if they have given the NMB the final say how an election is to be conducted.

any method the NMB determines is the right one.

(50% plus 1, YES/NO, whatever..)

its all good.

The NMB could theoretically change the entire election process and simply use card check to determine majority and there is nothing anyone could do about it.

At the end of the day, its whatever the 3 members want to do.

well..

they should make a decision how to proceed.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

they should make a decision how to proceed.

Absolutely. They need to make a decision in the next week or so.. otherwise the new panel comes off as looking weak and ineffective, rudderless. I'm all for the rule change but let's get going. They were selected because of their expertise. The AFA's SCD application has been in their hands for over 2 months and the TTD's request for a change has been on their desk for a month. It's time. Let's go folks...!!!!!!!!