The changing rules of union certification

[Dignity]

I have never written anything stating I was anti-Contract and furthermore I am not necessarily anti-Union either.

I believe Unions are necessary in some situations but not a requirement for every single one.

Also, we were watching what happened with the last election held at DL and only 39 percent opted to choose
representation, that said a lot.

It said to me, that there is not a pressing need for a Union simply for
the fact if the working environment was as bad as some have made it out to be,

the group would have Unionized at that time.

sorry but that is just the way it is.

these statements about being apathetic are just nonsense and really insulting.

We are not having an election (when it ever happens) because DL Flight Attendants have just realized the
need for a Union, we will have one based solely on the fact.

a merger occurred.

thats it.

Had the group opted for a Union in 2008 it may have made the situation seem necessary, but that is not what
happened and a matter of fact, it is exactly what did not happen two times.

all I know someone is not telling the whole story at DL, it is either fine to work there or its just a bad situation.

I tend to believe facts, the facts say its fine to work there because

the group, the majority who has actually worked there has basically said,

No thank you to a Union twice.

I would be the first person supporting an effective Union if there actually was an immediate need, but I am not going
to just automatically dismiss what the actual majority at DL feels and certainly do not buy the idea,

this will be the only time to secure a Union only for this particular election.


had a merger not occurred,

there would not even be an Union election happening at all.


If the group does opt to put a Union on the property, will support that choice as always and pay dues,

however.

I am telling you right here and now...

do not be surprised when we dont see half the things some thought we were going to get and promised,

never happen.

 

[dapoes]

I am telling you right here and now...

do not be surprised when we dont see half the things some thought we were going to get and promised,

never happen.

You already did as with the recent failure of AFA and the LOA 35.

 

[Dignity]

You already did as with the recent failure of AFA and the LOA 35.

I did not think we were going to get the me too clause satisfied at all after the fact.

they said it was cost neutral..

but to me it seemed as though the pilots resolved all their issues
prior and the "improvements" or adjustments were involving DL pilots going forward not necessarily NW pilots,

that our me too clause was tied to.

our language states NW.

in a month or so there is not going to be any "NW" pilots after the S.O.C.

so how does a "me too" clause become satisfied when there are no longer "NW" pilots as they are all "DL" pilots?

it appears, that we actually had to be in the process of negotiating a contract prior to the S.O.C.
when there were still technically "NW" pilots.

after the SOC.. well?

I think delaying the representational election prior to the S.O.C. was a big mistake!

(for negotiating purposes)

it will also be interesting if the S.O.C. is awarded and we still have not resolved representation and our Scope clause that is tied to "NW" pilots when they are all considered officially "DL".

we lost language in our Yellow book contract by changing names from Teamsters to PFAA, so its going to be interesting.

 

[2BlacknBlue]

Still waiting on a semi intelligent response regarding the LOA 35 failure that impacted you directly. Or is AFA CBA failure something that doesn't concern you anymore?

Dapoes.
Didn't management agree to the verbage of LOA 35? Aren't these the same people running DL? Wouldn't this episode deem management's non-compliance as a reason NOT to trust anything they say? Or sign? Wouldn't this illustrate what the PMNW employees have had to endure under the Steenland and Anderson types?

Just askin'.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Still waiting on a semi intelligent response regarding the LOA 35 failure that impacted you directly. Or is AFA CBA failure something that doesn't concern you anymore?

I'm going to do this once so I don't have to continually address someone who calls a barely one- year-into-office President a failure (as opposed to GW Bush who in 8 years PROVED it) and who superimposes Pat Friend's head on a brutal regime's henchman's (Baghdad Bob) body. Not to mention that you pretend to be a Delta f/a when, in fact, most of the online community knows otherwise.
HOW DOES THE LOA 35 IMPACT ME DIRECTLY????
I AM A PMDL F/A!!!! I think that's been well-established. Did it impact YOU directly?? (Oh, of course not, you're not a PMDL f/a.)

NOW....why didn't you address the article I inserted above?? I guess you can't refute it.
So we're even. Case closed.

 

[Dignity]

this is what I wrote in 2008! (doesnt the time just go by so fast!)

actually it appears the pilots were very smart securing a contract prior to a merger and of course
prior to any other group unionizing after the merger. Had that group waited until after the merger they could have possibly not been the only group negotiating for a contract, instead of taking a chance in having compensation delayed or divided among other employee groups(who happen to unionize) they got their compensation issues settled..before...when there was no other employee group management had to negotiate a contract. While I believe it was necessary to a significant degree making the transaction process proceed smoother it also was to their benefit..
by resolving the contract prior, those who more than likely voted in support were...long term focused on the future ..thinking clearly to get this done now. in that regard securing significant compensation for their group in writing... It was a brilliant move on their part(to resolve it now than later).

the pilots secured an agreement prior to the merger and it was a brillant move on their part doing so at that time.

(for DL pilots)

OK.

this agreement was for "DL" pilots our me too clause is tied to NW pilots.

the agreement for the pilots was made prior to the approval, and that agreement was for "DL" pilots
after the merger.

we could not have latched onto "improvements" for DL pilots when our agreement "me too" is NW.

to me,

the NW pilot agreement was not improved because it was not, a complete new agreement covering "DL" was..

therefore the "me too" would not have been satisfied.

Didnt anyone in the Union understand that?

furthermore, DL Flight Attendants have been receiving raises the whole time minus "getting something in writing" while we are still locked into a contract that keeps us behind.

If the Union was so concerned about having "something in writing" to gain improvments for us,

they should have and would have filed for...

an election as soon as possible!

(prior to the economy and globally financial crisis)

instead they have delayed it all the way up to the point of the S.O.C.!

that was a poor move on their part!

and what is now appearing to be the priority?

making sure the rules are changed in order to collect $.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

these statements about being apathetic are just nonsense and really insulting.

Then, if that's the case, Delta Mgt. should have no problem with a change in the rules that requires the NO voters to actually---that's right---VOTE NO!!!
This whole thing is actually two sides of the same coin. Each side believes that there are out-of-touch f/a's who are separated from the company (long-term leave), don't fly much or yes...eeegads! apathetic! (see below)
So, again, both sides know that this disconnect exists. Delta management won't admit to it because they want to seem like the good guys (despite trying to circumvent proper procedures last Jan). And I'm sorry...the Emperor has no clothes! There ARE apathetic, f/a's (I'm talking about those who fly regular hours)--I work with them all the time. They don't read their emails, they don't take the time to understand their pension (and how it was frozen and the SS offset), and most don't understand what's going on right now with the NMB and the vote! They only do what is required of them. I'm not saying they are the majority because they're not...but they are here and I'm sure they are at NW also. So let's stop pretending that these people don't exist.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

this is what I wrote in 2008! (doesnt the time just go by so fast!)



the pilots secured an agreement prior to the merger and it was a brillant move on their part doing so at that time.

(for DL pilots)

OK.

this agreement was for "DL" pilots our me too clause is tied to NW pilots.

the agreement for the pilots was made prior to the approval, and that agreement was for "DL" pilots
after the merger.

we could not have latched onto "improvements" for DL pilots when our agreement "me too" is NW.

to me,

the NW pilot agreement was not improved because it was not, a complete new agreement covering "DL" was..

therefore the "me too" would not have been satisfied.

Didnt anyone in the Union understand that?

This makes total sense, Dig.
Also, I think you are onto something about your Scope clause basically being ineffectual once the SOC is issued as there really won't be any more NW pilots. They will all be DL pilots.
This will be a lesson, perhaps, in how Scope is written. I bet when it was written and voted on, no one expected a situation like this one---where the Pilot issues were settled before the FAs (and others) AND a SOC was issued. Maybe someone from NWAFA can come on here and correct me, but I believe the language states NW f/a's will fly a/c flown by NW pilots and again, by next month and the SOC, there won't be anymore NW pilots.
In essence, it means that we will be able to fly each other's a/c after AQ is completed (May 1), but just not fly together (unless the vote is held and AFA is voted out.)

 

[Dignity]

This makes total sense, Dig.
Also, I think you are onto something about your Scope clause basically being ineffectual once the SOC is issued as there really won't be any more NW pilots. They will all be DL pilots.

I really believe we needed to be in the process of negotiating a contract prior to the SOC while "NW" pilots are
still "NW" pilots in regard to our scope clause even though successors is mentioned.

I know what happened when we changed a "name" in our Yellow book and how a complete section was deleted.

(even though some Union activists at that time were basically saying... "no problem!")

time will tell!

This will be a lesson, perhaps, in how Scope is written. I bet when it was written and voted on, no one expected a situation like this one---where the Pilot issues were settled before the FAs (and others) AND a SOC was issued. Maybe someone from NWAFA can come on here and correct me, but I believe the language states NW f/a's will fly a/c flown by NW pilots and again, by next month and the SOC, there won't be anymore NW pilots.

they did something very interesting and well.. very beneficial for the whole merger.

they resolved their issues and settled prior to an actual approval of a merger!

who would have thought?

In essence, it means that we will be able to fly each other's a/c after AQ is completed (May 1), but just not fly together (unless the vote is held and AFA is voted out.)

I really think we are going to be able to fly all equipment as announced, just not able to fly together until
a combined seniority list.

 

[BoeingBoy]

this is what I wrote in 2008! (doesnt the time just go by so fast!)



the pilots secured an agreement prior to the merger and it was a brillant move on their part doing so at that time.

To be fair, both pilot groups had the same union and accepted the arbitration panel ruling on the seniority integration, so that helped them get everything done quicker. Your overall point is still right as far as I'm concerned - dragging things out doesn't help move things along - although I have no clue as to you specific point about the me too clause in the PMNW FA contract.

Jim

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

I really believe we needed to be in the process of negotiating a contract prior to the SOC while "NW" pilots are
still "NW" pilots in regard to our scope clause even though successors is mentioned.

I know what happened when we changed a "name" in our Yellow book and how a complete section was deleted.

(even though some Union activists at that time were basically saying... "no problem!")

time will tell!


I really think we are going to be able to fly all equipment as announced, just not able to fly together until
a combined seniority list.

The 800 lb. gorilla in the room though is POLITICS. Had John McCain been elected Pres, we would have an answer right now (either negotiating a contract or no union). Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, DL and NW chose to go into this marriage during an election year and with a strong Democratic candidate who, obviously, won. With Obama's win, the AFA knew there would be a Dem-appt. NMB member, turning it to a pro-labor board and thus, a chance at changing the antiquated long-standing interpretation of the RLA's voting procedures. This is also why Delta wanted to attach the NMB's SCD for the pilots onto the other employee groups because they wanted elections to be held BEFORE Obama had a chance to make the new appt to the NMB (Puchala). Remember, NW's darling Van de Water was a hold over until Puchala was named and confirmed which took several months.
So again, BOTH sides played the political angle in all of this and why not? It is naive (although perhaps more noble) to think otherwise.

 

[Dignity]

To be fair, both pilot groups had the same union and accepted the arbitration panel ruling on the seniority integration, so that helped them get everything done quicker. Your overall point is still right as far as I'm concerned - dragging things out doesn't help move things along - although I have no clue as to you specific point about the me too clause in the PMNW FA contract.

Jim

Jim,

I am referring to the contract they secured.

they secured a contract prior to approval for the combined group going forward.

and

resolved seniority integration.

 

[Dignity]

The 800 lb. gorilla in the room though is POLITICS. Had John McCain been elected Pres, we would have an answer right now (either negotiating a contract or no union).

we cannot possibly know that to be a fact.

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, DL and NW chose to go into this marriage during an election year and with a strong Democratic candidate who, obviously, won. With Obama's win, the AFA knew there would be a Dem-appt. NMB member, turning it to a pro-labor board and thus, a chance at changing the antiquated long-standing interpretation of the RLA's voting procedures.

so basically you are saying this just gives the AFA an edge.

(what about us, the Flight Attendants who want to move forward? an afterthought?)

its supposed to be about us not them!

This is also why Delta wanted to attach the NMB's SCD for the pilots onto the other employee groups because they wanted elections to be held BEFORE Obama had a chance to make the new appt to the NMB (Puchala). Remember, NW's darling Van de Water was a hold over until Puchala was named and confirmed which took several months.
So again, BOTH sides played the political angle in all of this and why not? It is naive (although perhaps more noble) to think otherwise.

thats all a personal opinion!

 

[Dignity]

There ARE apathetic, f/a's (I'm talking about those who fly regular hours)--I work with them all the time. They don't read their emails, they don't take the time to understand their pension (and how it was frozen and the SS offset), and most don't understand what's going on right now with the NMB and the vote! They only do what is required of them. I'm not saying they are the majority because they're not...but they are here and I'm sure they are at NW also. So let's stop pretending that these people don't exist.

I think most people can appreciate different opinions and even respect someone's choice regarding how
the ballot should be addressed.

I actually believe there are necessary changes needed for a YES/NO ballot,

but not these one sided ideas.. I have been hearing where some want to just change one part of the process.

they need to address all of it or simply leave it alone!

I do not think our election needs to be placed on hold while we wait for this either.. while a 50 percent plus one election commences at two airlines.. at the same time ours was put on the shelf!

these apathetic comments are just unnecessary!

just because they lost twice following a format that secured a Union at two airlines just recently....(ahem)

I dont think some need to come across sour grapes!


there was just no justification for the "apathetic" comment someone from the same Union that fully expects
these "apathetic" people to pay them dues!

its sort of like..they are saying..

"you are apathetic and you dont care!...oh yeah...where is my fourty three bucks!"

do you not agree that comes across sort of silly?


I am faily confident about 99.9 percent of Flight Attendants care about their careers, just because they may not always
agree with a "Union" does not mean they do not care at all,

or "apathetic".

 

[dapoes]

I'm going to do this once so I don't have to continually address someone who calls a barely one- year-into-office President a failure (as opposed to GW Bush who in 8 years PROVED it) and who superimposes Pat Friend's head on a brutal regime's henchman's (Baghdad Bob) body. Not to mention that you pretend to be a Delta f/a when, in fact, most of the online community knows otherwise.
HOW DOES THE LOA 35 IMPACT ME DIRECTLY????
I AM A PMDL F/A!!!! I think that's been well-established. Did it impact YOU directly?? (Oh, of course not, you're not a PMDL f/a.)

NOW....why didn't you address the article I inserted above?? I guess you can't refute it.
So we're even. Case closed.

Cheer up poopy, I forgot you where PMDL, I swore you where PMNW, my bad. :huh:

Glad you got all that other stuff off your chest. Feel better now?

Anyway...its very telling you seem to simply gloss over an event that should tell you how a supposed iron clad rah, rah CBA failed NW FA's.

But hey lets not let the facts stand in the way.

What happen to that union as an insurance policy?