Unions dig in for Delta fight

[signals]

"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.

I see your points and actually can respect your comment. Unfortunately, the new union member is at the bottom of the union seniority. That may not make sense, but that is how it is done in my union and a former union I was a member of. Of course these scenarios may be null and void in the airline industry.

Here's another scenario that I will use as a FICTITIOUS example. Say a unionized fa has 10 years seniority. If the fa became a pilot and worked for the same airline, the former fa would be at the bottom of the pilot's union seniority list. That's how it would work in my union, where we have multiple unions in my industry.

Again there are many union and non-union Corporations where the combo works for them.

 

[signals]

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?

Straightening me out? About what? I have claimed time and time again that I don't know anything about the airline industry. Big deal! If you UNIONIZE you will find out how absurd what I claim is. Time of union entry rather than DOH may be a reality! Until then, I predict since the Deltoids outnumber NWA there is a good possibility of union busting. Again this is just my opinion...just like you everyone has one.

Reality...unless the unions are voted down...is going to be merciless!

 

[Dignity]

Signals,
In that scenario a Flight Attendant with 10 years seniority became a pilot with the same company would more than likely seldom happen(it is more realistic for a Flight Attendant to transfer to a Ground or Customer service position and visa/versa than to pilot within the same company). However, I do know Flight Attendants who successfully completed their flight training resigned their FA postion and were hired on with regional and then worked their way up to land a pilot position at another airline(so I know it can happen as it did in the past).
But you see they would still be subject to the bottom of the seniority list because they have changed job classifications. For example, an individual was hired on as a Customer Service Representative and worked that position for five years, openings came available for In flight and that individual successfully interviewed and was awarded a training position as Flight Attendant. Their company seniority is 5 years, however since they transferred to another department, their new seniority would be the first day of training at In flight. That individual 5 years of seniority accrual was in a ground position, they have zero seniority accrual until day one of training in the new department. For bidding purposes their new seniority for vacation, trips assignment/reserve and bidding on the aircraft is now reflected in the group of In flight. It would be unfair for that individual to claim 5 years seniority credit into a department they accrued in a different job classification
However they still should retain their company seniority for pass travel because pass travel involves all employees regardless of job classification (does that make sense?).
It all about how it is defined.. in a merger scenario when two companies are coming together the two groups(in this instance) In-flight should be integrated as equals as their 'job classification' is the same.
In a way it still does not make a lot of sense to me how seniority is handled at other unions outside the airline industry, but I understand different situations may result in different outcomes.
Thanks for your reply it a different approach and makes you think!
Have a nice weekend

 

[Kev3188]

From today's NewsWire (NWA employee daily news bulletin):



"Merger Rumor Control: How Will Seniority Be Worked Out?


After the transaction closes, regardless of the outcome of the union representation elections, fair and equitable seniority integration is not only promised by Delta but is also now required by federal law. Federal law enacted on December 26, 2007, requires that the integration of seniority lists for each craft or class of employees be fair and equitable.



Initially, representatives of each employee group at each carrier will meet and attempt to agree on how the groups should be integrated. In the event the representatives are unable to agree on an integrated seniority list, either party may invoke binding arbitration, and the issue will be submitted for resolution to a neutral arbitrator selected from a panel of arbitrators furnished by the National Mediation Board. An arbitrator is bound by the provisions of federal statute, which requires the arbitrator to integrate the two groups on the basis of the ‘fair and equitable’ standard. Employees cannot be 'stapled' to the bottom of the list. Further, the recent "3 for 1" rumor is just that – a rumor and not fact.



We expect the seniority integration process for the various non-pilot work groups to begin shortly after merger closure. As information becomes available it will be distributed to the affected employees."




Okay, so that's a start... The bigger question remains; what defines "fair and equitable?"

 

[BoeingBoy]

The bigger question remains; what defines "fair and equitable?"

Ultimately, an arbitrator is if it can't be decided between the two individual groups. The arbitrator's ruling (a combined seniority list) is final and binding on all parties.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

Kev3188,
You have to take into consideration many criteria when determining how to define fair/equitable.
One of the first items to take into consideration regarding 'equitable' is the duration(the time frame of how long the joint
combination is expected to remain as one entity) Are there any written agreements made prior that may
affect a promise made to one group that cannot be fulfilled due to contractual provisions in place.
One must also take into consideration the economic circumstance and the earning capacity of each separate group prior to a combination. Which company had the most assets, facilities, and performance standards(such as ontime arrivals) and as a stand alone would have the most reasonable expectation of sustained profitability *before* the combination.The contribution of technology and training that can show one group contribution in the area of performance, safety, reliability, customer service as compared to another.
That is just the short list...other factors to define would be the debts and liabilities of each separate companies(who needs who) the present value of the company and visa/versa. Then one must look at what is 'fair' is it fair to give one group an advantage when two groups perform the exact same job function, are expected to maintain the same levels of accountability and performance. If both parties are to be viewed as equals then they should also be combined as equals if both groups are not limited to one particular aspect of a job or aircraft. Pilots for the most part fly one specific type of aircraft(with different variation of series in that aircraft type) however a Flight Attendant can fly all aircraft type. When determining how to combine a list all criteria are taken into consideration, where they came from ,what they are bringing with them and how with they contribute after they are here.
Who defines that? it is an arbitrator. How do you define that? you have to ask the arbitrator.
What defines that? that depends on what the artibriator comes up with and feels ..what is "fair"..
their decision. It is difficult to define when you dont know what the other person who is coming up with the list is thinking or their view of fair/equitable.
That is why it is always important to sit down first(together as a group) and resolve an issue, in this case, seniority integration before its handed over to a "neutral party".

 

[cooper43]

Kev3188,
You have to take into consideration many criteria when determining how to define fair/equitable.
One of the first items to take into consideration regarding 'equitable' is the duration(the time frame of how long the joint
combination is expected to remain as one entity) Are there any written agreements made prior that may
affect a promise made to one group that cannot be fulfilled due to contractual provisions in place.
One must also take into consideration the economic circumstance and the earning capacity of each separate group prior to a combination. Which company had the most assets, facilities, and performance standards(such as ontime arrivals) and as a stand alone would have the most reasonable expectation of sustained profitability *before* the combination.The contribution of technology and training that can show one group contribution in the area of performance, safety, reliability, customer service as compared to another.
That is just the short list...other factors to define would be the debts and liabilities of each separate companies(who needs who) the present value of the company and visa/versa. Then one must look at what is 'fair' is it fair to give one group an advantage when two groups perform the exact same job function, are expected to maintain the same levels of accountability and performance. If both parties are to be viewed as equals then they should also be combined as equals if both groups are not limited to one particular aspect of a job or aircraft. Pilots for the most part fly one specific type of aircraft(with different variation of series in that aircraft type) however a Flight Attendant can fly all aircraft type. When determining how to combine a list all criteria are taken into consideration, where they came from ,what they are bringing with them and how with they contribute after they are here.
Who defines that? it is an arbitrator. How do you define that? you have to ask the arbitrator.
What defines that? that depends on what the artibriator comes up with and feels ..what is "fair"..
their decision. It is difficult to define when you dont know what the other person who is coming up with the list is thinking or their view of fair/equitable.
That is why it is always important to sit down first(together as a group) and resolve an issue, in this case, seniority integration before its handed over to a "neutral party".

I think that sounds reasonable and seems like a good discription of what should happen.

 

[Dignity]

Cooper43,
Keep in mind that post is an idea of definition.
I feel one of the most important issues to begin regarding integration is the process of seniority integration(the formal meeting sitting down together as one of the first priorities) however, a list and merging of operations post merger will happen in the long run not shortly after the close. I do not believe a combined list is even possible until both companies are operating under one certificate(which will take some time to achieve). They may be able to come up with how it will be handled but I dont know if it can actually take affect until both groups have been trained on each other aircraft(that process should take at minimum at least 18 months)

However , I agree the *process* should begin shortly after the close why? It should happen simply because its important to communicate, show mutual respect for both groups by sitting down together and discussing ideas, proposals as professionals. What that does are give both sides an opportunity to discuss before any election has taken place, so people do not feel excluded and their opinions/views have been taken into consideration. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sitting down,meeting and talking to each other with respect(even if that is all that is accomplished in the short term)

I hope you have a pleasant day.

 

[Kev3188]

Kev3188,
You have to take into consideration many criteria when determining how to define fair/equitable.

With all due respect, you are over thinking this one... Outside of the pilots, and their specific A/C types, everyone at NW/DL performs the same work. Sure each carrier may have different policies, or procedures, but at the end of the day, an F/A at DL has the same core function as one at NW. Same goes for Res, the ramp, ticket agents, dispatch, and so on...

As for career expectations, I would say we each had the equal "prospect" of survival, so that's equal too.

That's why DOH seniority and/or seniority in classification are the only equitable way. There's no need to "workshop" a seniority list when the answer is plain as day.

Who defines that? it is an arbitrator. How do you define that? you have to ask the arbitrator.
What defines that? that depends on what the artibriator comes up with and feels ..what is "fair"..
their decision. It is difficult to define when you dont know what the other person who is coming up with the list is thinking or their view of fair/equitable.
That is why it is always important to sit down first(together as a group) and resolve an issue, in this case, seniority integration before its handed over to a "neutral party".

Exactly. Sitting down together should take 5 minutes if everyone's intentions are true.

My bet is all groups go to arbitration, though...

 

[Dignity]

Kev3188,
you asked what defines fair/equitable, generally the person that can do that is the arbitrator by taking all aspects into consideration(everything). The company has an obligation to treat all employees equally, the employees have a responsibility to treat each other with respect and ad her to policy performing their jobs as expected, the arbitrator defines what is fair and equitable, That term is used when it is necessary to go outside both parties when there is no resolution, a company cannot promise a term when they are not the ones who will deal with the decision.
I support DOH (first day of training in a job classification) but you see that is my viewpoint when I stated in my post ... "If both parties are to be viewed as equals then they should also be combined as equals"... however, can fully take into account others will or may not feel the same way and would at least attempt to listen to their concern via a formal meeting discussing seniority integration. I could be open minded enough to listen to what they have to say(but this is just my opinion not a reflection of the group) its simply an attempt to
will it go to arbitration? I certainly hope that can be avoided but then ....well....it appears all bets may be on.
ovethink? I know... I know...it happens when you had to deal with being boarded 100 meals and you have 160 passengers(sometimes I am very thankful for the 'for sale' snack today in that regard), it happens when you may have not had the tools to do your job and then you have to "think" outside the box.(I believe some can relate) I guess Ive just been programmed to overthink, and didnt turn that button off!

Have a great day!

 

[1Conehead]

With all due respect, you are over thinking this one... Outside of the pilots, and their specific A/C types, everyone at NW/DL performs the same work. Sure each carrier may have different policies, or procedures, but at the end of the day, an F/A at DL has the same core function as one at NW. Same goes for Res, the ramp, ticket agents, dispatch, and so on...

As for career expectations, I would say we each had the equal "prospect" of survival, so that's equal too.

That's why DOH seniority and/or seniority in classification are the only equitable way. There's no need to "workshop" a seniority list when the answer is plain as day.



Exactly. Sitting down together should take 5 minutes if everyone's intentions are true.

My bet is all groups go to arbitration, though...

I can't believe i'm saying this but i agree with you Kev. Even though you left out AMTs.

 

[Kev3188]

I can't believe i'm saying this but i agree with you Kev.

Hey, stranger things have happened...

Even though you left out AMTs.

Sorry 'bout that... I'm so used to not counting NW's "orange sticker squad" when referring to honorable men/women that I forgot the great AMT's at DL...

 

[Kev3188]

Have a great day!

You do the same!

Look, I'm pretty sure we agree in principle. Here's how I think it should go:

DL person: "Hi, I'm XXXX"

NW counterpart: "Hola, I'm YYYY"

DL: "So...DOH work for you?"

NW: "You know it. How about you?"

DL: "Of course"

NW: "Great! This conference room is stuffy. Let's go get a (beer/iced tea/appletini/whatever)"

 

[Alice Cramden]

With all due respect, you are over thinking this one... Outside of the pilots, and their specific A/C types, everyone at NW/DL performs the same work. Sure each carrier may have different policies, or procedures, but at the end of the day, an F/A at DL has the same core function as one at NW. Same goes for Res, the ramp, ticket agents, dispatch, and so on...

As for career expectations, I would say we each had the equal "prospect" of survival, so that's equal too.

That's why DOH seniority and/or seniority in classification are the only equitable way. There's no need to "workshop" a seniority list when the answer is plain as day.



Exactly. Sitting down together should take 5 minutes if everyone's intentions are true.

My bet is all groups go to arbitration, though...

But at the end of the day, an F/A at DL has the same core function as one at NW. Same goes for Res, the ramp, ticket agents, dispatch, and so on...

True, but how many folks can you fit on the flight deck? It's seat and equipment. One can sure fit a bunch of folks behind the gate, on the ramp, ticket agents, etc. Airplane seats are a commodity, there are not that many to go around. You all can argue all you want. It will not be DOH so relax.

 

[Kev3188]

True, but how many folks can you fit on the flight deck? It's seat and equipment. One can sure fit a bunch of folks behind the gate, on the ramp, ticket agents, etc. Airplane seats are a commodity, there are not that many to go around.

I know.

What part of "outside of pilots and their specific A/C types" did you not get?

I'm talking about everyone else. The pilots already have their own deal in progress.

You all can argue all you want. It will not be DOH so relax.

Who's arguing? I'm making a case for all of us that don't drive to keep things not only fair, but simple.

Why would you be pushing for anything other than that?