Delta Labor Relations thread.

[townpete]

I'm not confused at all.

I would just like to hear/see/read once and for all if you have any direct experience being represented. If you have, great! I'd be interested to know in what capacity.

If you have not, then just type that out.

You either have or have not. It's not rocket science, and neither answer is wrong.

 
You already know the answer, you're just trying to be cute.

 

[Kev3188]

Nope.

Not sure why you're having trouble with this...

So, again; have you ever been represented? If so, please remind the site of your experience(s).

 

[WeAAsles]

I've never Bungee jumped. Why it so hard to say the word............. "NO"? :unsure:

 

[townpete]

I've never Bungee jumped. Why it so hard to say the word............. "NO"? :unsure:

 
It was easily implied. Bait boy was just baiting.

 

[Kev3188]

Nope.

Not baiting.

Also not interested in implying, inferences, or allusions.

I honestly didn't realize a straight answer would be so hard.

So, again; have you ever been represented, and if so, please share your experience(s).

If you have not, simply state that as well.

 

[WeAAsles]

 
It was easily implied. Bait boy was just baiting.

Implied is not a static response. Anyone can imply anything they want even if they are alluding to a particular position. Only you can give the response. If Kev assumes your response to be no and commits that you said it, your response in the future can easily be "Did I ever say that"

Would what you "implied" hold up in a court of Law or even in a disciplinary hearing?

 

[townpete]

Implied is not a static response. Anyone can imply anything they want even if they are alluding to a particular position. Only you can give the response. If Kev assumes your response to be no and commits that you said it, your response in the future can easily be "Did I ever say that"

Would what you "implied" hold up in a court of Law or even in a disciplinary hearing?

 
Figure it out.

 

[Kev3188]

Or you can remove all doubt and just give a clear response...

 

[townpete]

Or you can remove all doubt and just give a clear response...

 
Is there any doubt?

 

[Kev3188]

I just want to make sure. Can you help with that?

 

[WeAAsles]

Figure it out.

Not expressing your answer "implies" to me that you don't have faith in the position of that answer.

Have I ever had representation? YES.

Expanding on that answer is not required unless I wish to.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

What is ironic in this thread sequence is that the clear "weasel" is the person who refuses, as usual, to provide any clear answer.

It is understandable after having been so badly bruised and battered in all debates on every topic this weekend.

 

[700UW]

Who Really Committed Fraud?
 
Delta Flight Attendant’s IAM Union Vote Stolen
 
First a little background history of how an election for Union representation really works.
 
Feb 12, 2012, the National Mediation Board, which governs elections in the Airline and Railway Industries, changed the rule that in order to file for a vote for representation, the Union must submit 50% or greater cards of eligible employees. The previous rule was 35%. This change, which was mostly initiated by Delta Air Lines, made it much more difficult to file for an election. After a filing has been made, the company is responsible to submit 2 more files to the NMB. One is a list of employees eligible to vote, and the second is a list of signatures.
 
On Jan 13, 2015, the IAM filed for an election with about 60% of the flight attendant population. The filing constituted about 12,000 cards.
 
Jan 28, 2015, immediately after the IAM filed, Delta submitted a letter to the NMB stating that there were reports of “hundreds” of cards being forged. They submitted only 5 statements from f/a’s that said that their cards had been forged. There was never any proof that any of their cards were indeed forged. Delta also stated that because of this consideration, the NMB MUST scrutinize each and every card.
 
The company submitted a list of eligible voters to the NMB. They also submitted a copy of everyone’s signatures. But there is no requirement for the NMB on HOW OLD the signatures could be. Delta submitted the I-9 signatures which every person hired after Nov 6, 1986 was required to sign. The I-9 was the answer that Richard Anderson gave when asked what signatures were submitted.
 
The I-9 form is a required form required by the government for anyone employed by a US company. It was not required for anyone prior to Nov. 6 1986. So, as to the group hired before Nov. 6, 1986, there is no knowledge as to what signature was submitted.
 
Secondly, a new I-9 form was required for anyone hired after March 8, 2013. It was NOT necessary to update the old forms.
So, consider this, from Nov 6, 1986 until March 8, 2012 we have 12,602 flight attendants that are still under the OLD form of the I-9. That means that the signatures submitted to the NMB could be as old as 29 years. In that time many have had name changes or changed the way they sign official documents. According to the NMB, the variances would deem the card invalid.
It is not surprising that, after scrutinizing the signatures, the NMB was in line to find over 2000 cards whose signatures did not match those submitted by Delta Air Lines. By throwing out 2000 cards out of 12,000, it would put the number of cards below the threshold required to file for a vote, 50%. That would invalidate our filing.
 
The IAM determined that due to the severe scrutiny of the cards, it would be better to pull the filing than to allow the NMB to deem us “not enough interest” by not meeting the 50% threshold.
 
Additionally when flight attendants requested to view their own signatures that were on file that Delta supposedly submitted to the NMB, Delta refused to show them their own signatures. If Delta has nothing to hide, then show the individuals their own signatures. There is no “confidentiality” issue to see your own signature. But Delta continues to refuse to allow anyone to see the signature that was submitted to the NMB.
 
IAM has developed a new A-card with a verification process to help mitigate this issue. Please go to IAMDelta.net and get your A-card, or contact an activist.
 
Bottom line is that having IAM representing flight attendants would cost the company an unprecedented amount of money…..better work rules, health and safety protections, legal representative protections, education, better health and dental care, better prescription drug coverage, pay, over-sight, the list is endless.
With 60% of the flight attendant population having submitted cards, it was all but a done deal that we would have won the vote. The vote had to be stopped and it was very important to Delta that we never even reach the vote.
 
So you decide who committed fraud.
 

 

[Kev3188]

Hunh. Interesting.

 

[townpete]

 

Who Really Committed Fraud?
 
Delta Flight Attendant’s IAM Union Vote Stolen
 
First a little background history of how an election for Union representation really works.
 
Feb 12, 2012, the National Mediation Board, which governs elections in the Airline and Railway Industries, changed the rule that in order to file for a vote for representation, the Union must submit 50% or greater cards of eligible employees. The previous rule was 35%. This change, which was mostly initiated by Delta Air Lines, made it much more difficult to file for an election. After a filing has been made, the company is responsible to submit 2 more files to the NMB. One is a list of employees eligible to vote, and the second is a list of signatures.
 
On Jan 13, 2015, the IAM filed for an election with about 60% of the flight attendant population. The filing constituted about 12,000 cards.
 
Jan 28, 2015, immediately after the IAM filed, Delta submitted a letter to the NMB stating that there were reports of “hundreds” of cards being forged. They submitted only 5 statements from f/a’s that said that their cards had been forged. There was never any proof that any of their cards were indeed forged. Delta also stated that because of this consideration, the NMB MUST scrutinize each and every card.
 
The company submitted a list of eligible voters to the NMB. They also submitted a copy of everyone’s signatures. But there is no requirement for the NMB on HOW OLD the signatures could be. Delta submitted the I-9 signatures which every person hired after Nov 6, 1986 was required to sign. The I-9 was the answer that Richard Anderson gave when asked what signatures were submitted.
 
The I-9 form is a required form required by the government for anyone employed by a US company. It was not required for anyone prior to Nov. 6 1986. So, as to the group hired before Nov. 6, 1986, there is no knowledge as to what signature was submitted.
 
Secondly, a new I-9 form was required for anyone hired after March 8, 2013. It was NOT necessary to update the old forms.
So, consider this, from Nov 6, 1986 until March 8, 2012 we have 12,602 flight attendants that are still under the OLD form of the I-9. That means that the signatures submitted to the NMB could be as old as 29 years. In that time many have had name changes or changed the way they sign official documents. According to the NMB, the variances would deem the card invalid.
It is not surprising that, after scrutinizing the signatures, the NMB was in line to find over 2000 cards whose signatures did not match those submitted by Delta Air Lines. By throwing out 2000 cards out of 12,000, it would put the number of cards below the threshold required to file for a vote, 50%. That would invalidate our filing.
 
The IAM determined that due to the severe scrutiny of the cards, it would be better to pull the filing than to allow the NMB to deem us “not enough interest” by not meeting the 50% threshold.
 
Additionally when flight attendants requested to view their own signatures that were on file that Delta supposedly submitted to the NMB, Delta refused to show them their own signatures. If Delta has nothing to hide, then show the individuals their own signatures. There is no “confidentiality” issue to see your own signature. But Delta continues to refuse to allow anyone to see the signature that was submitted to the NMB.
 
IAM has developed a new A-card with a verification process to help mitigate this issue. Please go to IAMDelta.net and get your A-card, or contact an activist.
 
Bottom line is that having IAM representing flight attendants would cost the company an unprecedented amount of money…..better work rules, health and safety protections, legal representative protections, education, better health and dental care, better prescription drug coverage, pay, over-sight, the list is endless.
With 60% of the flight attendant population having submitted cards, it was all but a done deal that we would have won the vote. The vote had to be stopped and it was very important to Delta that we never even reach the vote.
 
So you decide who committed fraud.
 

 

 
More spin control from the repetitive card fraudsters IAM.
 
Is this the same canned reasoning for Boeing as well?