Why would you vote NO for a union?

you know I have seen this before..that "Senior vs. Junior" or "Junior vs. Senior" and that perception or rivalry that exist to some.. but not to others at all.

It is that idea that a new hire looks at a 30 year employee and thinks, they just cannot understand what I am going through being on the bottom of the list, and then the 30 year employee thinking, well I had to go through what you are going through so its nothing new...or why does that base get all the good flying, while our base doesn't, and so on..

its not even about unions its that perception or that generation gap/vast difference in seniority/one toward the top of a list while one is toward the bottom/one at one base some at another..while one thinking "they get all the good stuff and everything is about them"...and the other thinking..."just deal with it, I had to do the same thing that you are going through"...

how to change that is simply, we want to make sure than what ever someone went through at an earlier time does not necessarily need to be repeated....meaning just because I had to do something, maybe in the future that can be addressed and changed so someone else doesn't have to..basically making it better...do you know who that falls on ultimately...the ones who the majority put in place to be their leaders. real change comes from those..(in leadership positions) that are truly intent on making it better for all, instead of focusing on a personal agenda or simply may not be the most effective(but have good intent..)

it is so important when voting for anyone that you "mix it up"...if a group continually votes the same people in over and over the same ideas from the past will more than likely stay in place. consider new faces and fresh ideas with new leaders, in that regard maybe a more balanced plan will become an alternative.

I think the key is to have a mix of experienced/new people with new ideas in leadership positions, because unless someone tries something different you end up with the same ole same ole...you know?

but regardless...that idea of rivalry may still exist(even with positive change)...that is an individual perception that does not necessarily go away even with these changes.. because one may still view a situation as simply, not being able to strive for something or obtain because the situation is always to someone else advantage.

my idea is to vote for effective leaders who may have a real idea/vision how that make real changes(that benefit all) a possibility.. as a start?
 
Dignity, you are absolutely right!

Unfortunately, just like in a democracy, the people running for office will tell all groups what they want to hear in order to get elected and then once voted in will ultimately cast their vote in favor of the majority who are likely to keep them in office or vote "yes" for a contract. No, the system is far from perfect and not always fair.

The key is to weight the alternative and that is letting the company decide what is best. Will the company only have the senior membership in mind? Or will they be more interested in fairness that stretches across the board?

The problem is we never know what the company offers. Throughout a negotiating process, we are never told what the company has on the table until our union puts the final contract to a vote. So we have nothing to compare it to.

For example, let's say the company says to the union negotiators -- we can afford a 10 percent across the board pay raise for all FAs, but we would have to take away international pay. As a junior member who wouldn't be able to hold int. lines for another 20 years, I would be in favor of this. But I would never see this on a contract because the union would come back and say no to the company. The union instead decides to offer the company a 5 percent across the board pay raise and keep international pay. That is what we finally vote on, never knowing the other offer.

By the way, a union can say whatever it wants about the company during negotiations, but by law the company can't say a thing in response. All you here from the company's side is "we are confident that we can come to an agreement" or to that sorts.

In our case, we do have a junior reserve union rep, but their voice is lost against the stronger voice of the majority senior representatives.
 
I guess for Delta, your group has to ask -- has the company made decisions in the past that benefited all employees fairly, across the board, as a group? Or did they favor one group over another? Is your company even fair at all?

Because, like I said, once you have a union it's majority rules. Next, you have to determine who makes makes up your majority and where do you fall in your group? Every airline is different.

Also, just because we have issues with our AFA, doesn't mean you would have the same issues with your AFA. There are plenty of groups that are happy with their union. I'm sure our senior members love our AFA or at least consider them necessary. All airlines are unique.
 
PHLFlyer,

I completely understand what you are saying..

first of all I absolutely agree that reserve reform is necessary in this industry. I have mixed feelings regarding reserve, first of all, I do not personally feel anyone should be on reserve for decades, but then I do not agree with someone being awarded a line(right out of training) with limited reserve either...

if straight reserve is going to 10 years up to... 20 years..(O.M.G.) and only a few numbers seperate someone from holding a line and being on reserve for decades... someone a few numbers senior may hold a line for a decade plus while someone a few numbers junior is constantly on straight reserve that same decade! that is not fair if that is the situation.. at all! there has to be the "attempt" to change because that is just not right..to me...but anyway..

survey people ask them what they would consider, what they actually would seriously consider and what they absolutely would not consider!

I am certainly not stating it should be done this way, but some examples off the top of my head would be..

first of all I believe a new hire on initial probation(or their first year should be flying straight reserve) why? the employee does not have a history of known dependability. a line should be an award just what it implies and "awarded" to someone after successful completion of probation or after their first year. because then one will have an idea of exactly how dependable a person really is being on call(a history is then established)...into the second year maybe an award of some trips and a little less reserve and so on...if a company has an idea how dependable someone actually is..maybe the requirement of straight reserve can be relaxed to a degree(of course taking into consideration operational needs and/or higher demand times of the year)

maybe a job sharing program... where two employees share a line...and maybe a situation such as each flying one trip credit at least 25 hour credit(or a combination of trips that equal 25 hours) and reserve obligation of 10 hours (which maybe only a few days) shared between two people, so there would be a situation of 50 hours and 20 hours of line/reserve between two people, and offer that in seniority order, because that could possibly be only 6 actual days for the month(total obligation) and that may be a very desirable to Flight Attendants who want to fly but not necessarily maximum lines and pay a little more of their insurance if they choose?

maybe a part-time reserve program of only having to fly 30 hours a month (with 30 hours being the total obligation for the month) with the ability to pick up open time/trip trades off the board if they choose.. offered in seniority order?

or pay a premium to those who may voluntarily subject themselves to a reserve status for a certain number of days in the month offered in seniority order..sort of like a holiday pay program or an additional bonus..of time in a half or more?

it just doesn't have to be straight reserve period(end of story) there are a host of different ways to at least consider and discuss! put ideas out there and see what may and may not work or be considered, because someone may actually subject themself to an oncall period (being senior if they are paying them double time for a few days of the month...)

maybe brainstorm instead of focusing on one group and then just letting another group follow through with.."how it always has been done"...ya know?

the bottom line regardless is simply... the idea is to not necessarily subject someone to something that was "always done this way" the goal is to make sure there is coverage while still considering quality of life and making it better for those in the future..

I did notice that you stated your group did not have a Purser program(or something along those lines) for international flights and that should be an absolute necessary item to have! people are needed who want to work that position when dealing with a premium product/first class/business class internationally (it is almost imperative that is done in this competitve industry on worldwide flights) just an opinion!

Thanks for your viewpoints, its interesting to read other perspectives.
 
A side letter took away a percentage of our East (original US) profit sharing and made us share it with the West (old AWA). Now I don't mind sharing but where was the vote? The deal was brokered in exchange for no fences around West bases (only helped East senior FAs).

AFA could implement a rotating reserve system but won't because senior, majority members will never vote in favor of it. How about a side-letter for that?

No fences around the west bases? So? when the contract is settled, you cant transfer in? Why?
You're telling me ONLY senior F/A's commute from the west coast?

Rotating Reserve? so, after working here for decades, the senior F/A's should TAKE ANOTHER CONCESSION because you came here at a time of no growth, no hiring and an airline struggling to survive? Simply: Give up a line after they gave huge concessions to their contract, vacation reduced by almost HALF. Pension terminated. Pay reduced. Page after page RIPPED from the contract. Trip improving reduced.
NONE OF THOSE SENIOR F/A's were guaranteed a limit on the amount of RESERVE TIME they would serve. Unfortunately, FOR YOU, that applies to you too!!!!
Not only is Mr Flores, right. he's a smart man. He weighs the benefits of all, but keeps in mind, not to lose the benefits of the majority!