Great news!

[Dignity]

Answer what I posted, your all grasping at straws, the prounion people will say yes the anti-union people will say no.

Actually she was because she can influence decisions, so anyone can say anyone is a conflict, but since she was a lobbyist, that is where I take issue with it being a conflict.

But you keep spinning it the way you want, ok?

so we have to wait on an election, to replace someone who was never a conflict for the sole reason.. someone was concerned she may influence a decision.. who may not support their choice..

 

[700UW]

To the victor goes the spoils, and it boils down to under the Bush Administration the board was totally against labor, just look at the cases and you will see that.

Its time for payback.

The election process under the RLA and NMB is biased against labor anyhow, the law was written in like 1926 and only been amended to add transportation workers into.

The law was written to protect interstate commerce, not employee rights.

 

[Dignity]

Its time for payback.

so much for fairness..

I feel the majority want a fair election so it is determined what the group truly desires going forward, not this idea that some feel they are back owed because of the Bush Administration that has nothing to do with DAL..

read what you wrote..

 

[700UW]

Is anything in life fair? It's called equaling the playing field.

 

[Dignity]

It's called equaling the playing field.

you mean pay back..

 

[700UW]

There is no such thing as a fair election under the RLA, it always favors management.

 

[Dignity]

The election process under the RLA and NMB is biased against labor anyhow, the law was written in like 1926 and only been amended to add transportation workers into.

ok so 10 years later airlines were added in 1936.. the election process is set up that allows those who actually want a union to show their intent by actively participating they have the burden not those who choose not to participate, do I feel that should be changed to a laker ballot, yes, but not by an individual who was a former President of an association in this particular election at a later time..

The law was written to protect interstate commerce, not employee rights.

The law and the issue conflict of interest are two separate issues in this thread..

so if the law was written in a specific way and will not be changing in the immediate future, why are we waiting for an election?

 

[Dignity]

There is no such thing as a fair election under the RLA, it always favors management.

management has zero to do with this election.. it is decided by employees, if the employees accept representation it is because of their decision, if they do not.. it is again because of their decision..(probably because of a history of being treated right from the beginning)..

management however can influence an outcome of an election based on their management style..and how they treat their people..

determined by the majority during the actual voting process..

 

[700UW]

Your kidding right?

Closed door meetings, threats of closures, mailings to the house, if management has nothing to do with the election then why are they involved in the process, they have to submit names, address and signatures to the NMB, they inflate the lists all the time.

That is why they spend millions to fight a union being elected to represent the employees, right? Cause they are not involved, lol.

You really need to educate yourself, cause apparently you have no idea.

Read a book called "confessions of a union buster" by Mary Levit, you will see how much a company is involved and to what lengths they go to to stop unions.

And an election under the RLA is not a simple majority it has to be 50%+1 of all total eligble voters, not just a simple majority.

 

[Dignity]

Your kidding right?

Closed door meetings, threats of closures, mailings to the house, if management has nothing to do with the election then why are they involved in the process, they have to submit names, address and signatures to the NMB, they inflate the lists all the time.

That is why they spend millions to fight a union being elected to represent the employees, right? Cause they are not involved, lol.

You really need to educate yourself, cause apparently you have no idea.


Read a book called "confessions of a union buster" by Mary Levit, you will see how much a company is involved and to what lengths they go to to stop unions.

And an election under the RLA is not a simple majority it has to be 50%+1 of all total eligble voters, not just a simple majority.

is this style of writing, an example of how you would negotiate?

 

[700UW]

Nope, all ready negotiated, CBAs, and dealt with US' labor unrelations department.

Also won a $15 million grievance against them, so I put my track record up against anyone.

I was trained by the man who organized the IAM at US Airways, (all american aviation) back in 1949 and negotiated every single contract except the last two.

Also was assigned to Continental Airlines Flight Attendants negotiations back in 2005, and gee they are the highest paid in the industry, now arent they?

 

[Dignity]

You really need to educate yourself, cause apparently you have no idea.


And an election under the RLA is not a simple majority it has to be 50%+1 of all total eligble voters, not just a simple majority.

sorta like this?

securing a 50 percent plus 1

you know.. you are just reading what you want, and I do have an idea..

Thank you for the debate..

Have a nice evening.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

management has zero to do with this election.. it is decided by employees, if the employees accept representation it is because of their decision, if they do not.. it is again because of their decision..(probably because of a history of being treated right from the beginning)..

management however can influence an outcome of an election based on their management style..and how they treat their people..

determined by the majority during the actual voting process..

I'm sorry, Dignity but you're naivetee is showing. That's why I said earlier you haven't actually been through a representational election other than changing unions. There is a lot more at stake and management will do whatever they can to make sure there is not a FA union at Delta Air Lines by trying to influence the undecided (fence sitters). It's in their best interest. The only difference now as opposed to 2002 and 2008 is who resides in the White House and on the NMB.

 

[Kev3188]

Well correct me if im wrong, but an unintended consequence is an unexpected result from an activity/idea that was intended to be positive. Furthermore, how can that be a "two way" street?

Are you confusing "unintended consequence" with "irony"?

(chuckle)

No, I'm not... But it'd be nice to hear your take on this "ironic" twist, too.

Read a book called "confessions of a union buster" by Mary Levit, you will see how much a company is involved and to what lengths they go to to stop unions.

Confessions of a union buster is a fantastic read. I HIGHLY recommend it.... I think I read it in 2 days. It's also chillingly accurate. Kinda sad to see the anti worker playbook hasn't changed much in the last several years...

 

[dapoes]

(chuckle)

No, I'm not... But it'd be nice to hear your take on this "ironic" twist, too.

Oh I see....you were just being Giddy I guess.

Confessions of a union buster is a fantastic read. I HIGHLY recommend it.... I think I read it in 2 days. It's also chillingly accurate. Kinda sad to see the anti worker playbook hasn't changed much in the last several years...

Kinda sad that the union decimated the auto industry as well. Just like they did with the steel industry.

An even better read: