Unions dig in for Delta fight

[Dignity]

This is my reasoning for thinking it would be D.O.H based on training date (in this instance Inflight) absent of a Purser program and L.O.D. program there may be some justification for a little closer evaluation of "fair and equitable" form of seniority integration. However, if the Purser program remains intact, and of course the L.O.D program will certainly stay in place(based on a new global airline) what other justification would there be to argue against D.O.H. for the remaining bid positions? An arbitriator could simply view it as... well if someone wants to fly desirable International routes, they can enroll and successfully complete either a Purser or L.O.D. position if their seniority could not hold International trips. Why should a senior Flight Attendant be penalized regarding seniority on the "remaining bid positions" after Purser and L.O.D. positions are satisfied by super-seniority for some? Give em D.O.H. call it a day..
I feel most will never support anything other than D.O.H(inflight training date). simply because it will always be the right way to handle a merger when the employees from the airline being integrated are not re-applying for their same jobs. Its the right thing to do when 1 + 1 = 3...
I feel the proposed merger will be absolutely the best in the industry that is of course(every one is treated with respect from the beginning without causing an initial feeling of mis-trust by the attempt of trying to handle seniority integration any other way than D.O.H.(job classification date).

 

[DLSam]

I was just informed by a NW f/a that their DOH is based on the literal date they were hired, before training ever occurs. Most DL f/a's have a DOH which came after the training, except for the new hires that were hired this year.

The same NW f/a also told me that in-flight lay-offs are based on what base they are in, instead of system-wide seniority and that's why they have fences in their contract?! Can anyone clarify that?

With foreign nationals, Lod's, company transfers, different hiring patterns etc, this year truly is the calm before the storm.

Also wondering why the purser program would be a factor when it comes to seniority intergration? The DL Flight Leader program is also based on training (which anyone can do) then bid by seniority . It would not and has not stopped anyone from getting furloughed at least at DL.

 

[Dignity]

Seniority is not based on the actual date of a job offer.. DOH implies the actual date of training commensed. If the policy has changed recently for the actual seniority date being the first day of training why would a tentative Delta Flight Attendant be subjected to seniority loss from first date of training to the last? If the policy remained that DOH was the last date of training and continued to stay in effect at the time of the approval of the merger
there is a valid arguement.. however, there is no arguement to penalize a newly integrated FA seniority as the "policy" of DOH is actually is in effect and supercedes what was done previously..that is the new guideline going forward(DOH first date of training by your own management). Furloughs are handled first by a buyout, offering leaves and then a voluntary furlough then reverse system seniority. The fences in the contract are used exclusively for the purpose Mr. Campbell has already posted.

 

[Dignity]

Cooper43, I like your attitude regarding this comment ...

"Now If thru this negotiation process it is agreed that DOH is the best way to go and both committees agree to that, I totally support what they come to terms with. I am still in favor of going thru this process so we all can sit down and make sure what the most "fair" integration will be."

I believe that is the right attitude to have, sitting down together and working at resolution as professional Flight Attendants respecting each others contribution to the whole integration, at the same time realizing we can "support" each other in the process.

 

[Dignity]

quote: "Also wondering why the purser program would be a factor when it comes to seniority intergration?"

DLSam, in regard to that comment(it was a reference to arbitration), an arbitrator is going to take into consideration what is fair for the group especially when one group is asking for DOH and another is asking for something *else*... while the purser program may not necessary be a factor when it comes to seniority integration from the flight attendant perspective, with someone else compiling a list who is completely outside the two groups, may see it completely differently and everything is taken into consideraton, Purser/Flight leader programs, L.O.D. program which group has more senior FAs than the other when compiling a new senority list. Lets just hope if there is an approval to this merger, arbitration will not be necessary, because anything goes and its binding.

 

[robbedagain]

now if you think that decertifying a union is good..... its not Another Lorenzo, maybe worse, would certainly come right up to the plate and hit a he!! of a grandslam byt outsourcing more cities. A union is very much needed at DL and especially as the employees go thru the merger process.
a no union would spell disaster for the employee and one he!! of a happy bunch of brainless mgmt running the airline. Just look at USAIR in 1992 when fleet service didnt have a union.....they were promised this that this that and guess what, they got zapped severely big time. yet while they suffered, mechanics pilots f/as and the inside agents got raises. that came from several folks I work with who have been with USAIR since the 1980s and 1990s.

 

[700UW]

We did not get raises in 1992, all unionized workers took cuts in 92, and we the IAM M&R went on strike for five days, we all took concessions.

 

[Dignity]

The early 90's was the time of the Gulf War when all airlines were suffering financially. USair was in the process of securing 2.5 billion in labor concessions with their labor unions over a 5 year period. I also recall a friend was a Flight Attendant at that time with USAir and remember discussing the 1992 lawsuit that resulted in the elimination of the weight restrictions/limits(they settled a claim with a number of Flight Attendants who were denied being hired based solely on their weight) and also if I am remembering correcting FA layoffs and wage concessions were in place by that year( I stand corrected!)
Maybe someone from the usairways board could clarify?

 

[signals]

Actually if you read the facts, it was the unions that did Eastern in not Lorenzo. But that is niether here nor there. Now let me pretend that this was my union, let's see what would happen. BTW I am following closely this NWA union vs. Deltoid non-union merger.

You say 'seniority' and this would be a loss for the Deltoids if it was my union. My seniority is already established and Delta would be new members whose seniority began on the date they joined the union. Then it would be by the initial of their last name since they all joined at the same time.

Another scenario is to say that their seniority goes back to their actual date of hire. Imagine if you were at the top and suddenly closer to the bottom.

If it goes up for a vote whether to unionize, Delta has almost twice as many employees as NWA. They might like where they are at without a union. Unions seem to be becoming a hard sell in a world where jobs are scarce and being outsourced. Just my opinion.

To those who commented, let me enlighten. I am not in the airline industry. And yes I could be totally wrong. If my union company were to merge with a non-union company, BY RIGHTS, since I've been paying my dues longest, I will have seniority over NEW-Comers. That is not to say that ALL unions operate in this way.

The "FAIR" (sorry I couldn't keep a straight face because in life NOTHING is fair) thing to do would be if all unionize, their sceniority would be the DOH with the company. This might mean I slip down the totem-pole by a lot!

On the other hand, some companies work fine with both union and non-union, because in case of a strike...well, fill in the blank!

Another point I was trying to make is that I may have been union for 25 years and couldn't see working without one, but then the non-union workers may feel they get a better deal without a union. In another thread, a non-union member made erroneous statements such as giving 10-15% of your paycheck to a union, and that is just false.

I hope whatever you negotiate works out well for all of you.

 

[Dignity]

"If my union company were to merge with a non-union company, BY RIGHTS, since I've been paying my dues longest, I will have seniority over NEW-Comers. "

But you see that doesnt make any sense at all! The company is who you work for but the union is a representative. You draw a paycheck from your employer you pay the union to represent you. That is any workers right to have "union" but that doesnt mean that right can displace another worker who merges with-in with a company when the "company" has purchased another. Did the union purchase the company being merged? If they did not they do not have a say in who is entitled to seniority unless there is specific contract language the "company" has agreed to prior. just because an employee has paid dues longer does not mean that a merged employee's length of service is null and void for the simple fact, they were working at another company non-unionized.

 

[dapoes]

If my union company were to merge with a non-union company, BY RIGHTS, since I've been paying my dues longest, I will have seniority over NEW-Comers.

Talk about absurdity! :blink:

 

[cooper43]

"If my union company were to merge with a non-union company, BY RIGHTS, since I've been paying my dues longest, I will have seniority over NEW-Comers. "

But you see that doesnt make any sense at all! The company is who you work for but the union is a representative. You draw a paycheck from your employer you pay the union to represent you. That is any workers right to have "union" but that doesnt mean that right can displace another worker who merges with-in with a company when the "company" has purchased another. Did the union purchase the company being merged? If they did not they do not have a say in who is entitled to seniority unless there is specific contract language the "company" has agreed to prior. just because an employee has paid dues longer does not mean that a merged employee's length of service is null and void for the simple fact, they were working at another company non-unionized.

Thanks Dignity for straightening Signals out. He certainly seems to not know much about the airline industry. It is absurd to think if Delta is aquireing or for that matter any company is buying another that the company being purchased, their union could dictate, throwing all of the employees of the purchaser under the bus because they have decided to remain non-union. The 2 companys will merge and then the decision to vote in a union or not will be made.

My question is once the merger is done and a vote taken if and only IF the vote went against unionization would Delta be required to uphold any of NWA unions rules or bi-laws? I really do not know. Also another hypothetical what happens in the mean time if the merger is approved and a union campaign is ongoing, then a vote comes and AFA is voted in. At that time I guess we still are operating seperately, do we work seperately until their is a contract that covers both groups? So AFA would start negotiating for Delta and NWA trying to hammer out a contract that is ok with both groups and then negotiate that contract with Delta?

 

[Kev3188]

My question is once the merger is done and a vote taken if and only IF the vote went against unionization would Delta be required to uphold any of NWA unions rules or bi-laws? I really do not know.

No. If a representational vote fails (at any of the workgroups), then DL policies/procedures are in effect.

 

[Dignity]

Should the merger be approved,the company will be required(tentatively pending) to keep the union contract active until there is a union representation election. Should the vote be in favor of representation, immediately a clause in the contract will put a wall up between the two Flight Attendant groups(You cannot fly their aircraft or transfer into their bases, they cannot fly your aircraft or transfer into your bases) its called a fence agreement it protects both groups flying until a mutually agreed tentative agreement(representing the entire group) is in place for the Flight Attendants to consider for ratification. During the negotiation process, a group of negotiators from both sides will meet with management attempting to bring the best of both groups(contract language and policy manuals) into one agreement(including the industry leading scope and labor protection provisions and the language that limits foreign nationals flying). Once a tentative agreement is reached, that agreement will then be considered for ratification by the Flight Attendant and will only take into effect if the Flight Attendant consents. Upon approval, the group would then have a Legal and binding written contract that cannot be changed unless the Flight Attendant *consents*(you have to ask the Flight Attendant first ...)
I wish we could take bits and pieces of the contract and put them away for safe keeping no matter what happens with representation and one of the most important would be the written-legal binding- contract language that protects US Flight Attendants job from outsourcing and limits the use of foreign nationals(a verbal agreement they will not use foreign nationals on US flights or expanding their ability to increase utilizing on point to point or intra flying is not going to be good enough for a lot of people, especially when taking into consideration the ceo has stated its a merger of addition not subtraction)
Should the Flight Attendant become the only other union represented group they will find themselves in a very unique position because management will only have to negotiate with that one group(because the pilots have a mutually agreed contract with the company) the potential for improvement under that type of situation is actually very advantageous

 

[Dignity]

Cooper43,
It is understandable why so many want the ability to sit down with an elected group of their peers at the table discussing seniority integration, having that say in your future, our futures combined as a group is very important and respectful(to both groups). I believe both groups should sit down and discuss seniority, I feel it is that important to do just that... formally meeting together.
Right now there are to many "what ifs" "what could happen" so of course that may give an uneasy feel to jump into something a group is not use to. All I can say in that regard is what ever the outcome the professionalism will rule the day because we are people first before Flight Attendants and people(human nature) is to try..attempt...to do the right thing.