The changing rules of union certification

[dapoes]

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'.

Wouldn't this episode prove that a CBA is useless?

Just sayin....

 

[Dignity]

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.

we were told during the representational campaigns how beneficial it would be to change in order
to have the experience and guidance going through the bankruptcy process.

what happened?

it was all up to the judge, he determined everything, the union wasnt able to do anything.

that was the first time I knew for a fact a contract is not an insurance policy!

I know there is no such thing as "iron clad" we changed language ourselves unintentionally going from one union to another and dues check off was deleted simply for a name changing!

some just need to be aware that!

yes a contract can be a good thing, and sometimes it keeps you locked into something not so good too!

but as long as people understand its not this insurance policy some think it is to be!

because its not!

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

we cannot possibly know that to be a fact.


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!


thats all a personal opinion!

Don't look now..your bias is showing!
Why is it a "personal opinion" when I mention DL may be using the political system but when it's AFA, you go on a rant?
As for all your other comments--you seem to live in a parallel universe so I don't know why I even bother.
I've wasted enough time; I got things to do!
Buh-bye.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

I am referring to the contract they secured.

Yes, that happened pretty quickly and kudos go to both the union (the MEC's on both sides) and company.

But that was only one piece of the puzzle, with seniority integration being the other. Until the seniority was worked out, that contract was nothing but a bunch of paper. Wasting no time getting the seniority worked out was partially due to having the same union representing both sides - none of this "When will we have the prepresentational election" problems - and partially due to both sides accepting the result of that union's seniority integration process.

One need look no further than US to see what can happen. The company dragged it's feet for nearly a year and a half before finally put a meaningful proposal on the table right - before the arbitrator handed down his decision. Then the East (original US) pilots didn't accept the combined seniority list and pulled out of negotiations. Eventually they kicked ALPA off the property, replacing it with USAPA which the East pilots voted in by sheer strength of numbers. USapa attempted to negotiate a contract with a different combined seniority list, which triggered a law suit by the West pilots, and in the courts it remains - over 4 years after the two companies merged and 2-1/2 years after the seniority issue should have been settled.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

Don't look now..your bias is showing!
Why is it a "personal opinion" when I mention DL may be using the political system but when it's AFA, you go on a rant?

its called observing exactly how it is playing out.

there is no bias when two elections proceed, ours is put on hold to change the rules.

As for all your other comments--you seem to live in a parallel universe so I don't know why I even bother.

I actually try to look at issues from every single angle and determine what is the best course based on the situation!

I've wasted enough time; I got things to do!
Buh-bye.

you just do not want to read anything that may contradict your personal opinion!

I believe that more than ever now!

The "wasted enough time" and "buh-bye" proves it.

(so much for that truce, it lasted what a week? a record for you indeed)

I have always appreciated everyone's comments even though its not always reflected back.


PS:

I dont always think I am right all the time, but just try and look at a situation from other perspectives.

try it sometimes.

:hugs:

 

[Dignity]

Yes, that happened pretty quickly and kudos go to both the union (the MEC's on both sides) and company.

But that was only one piece of the puzzle, with seniority integration being the other. Until the seniority was worked out, that contract was nothing but a bunch of paper.

seniority arbitration happens now when two sides cannot make a decision supported by law.

to me, both sides realized the importance of working together and addressing all issues.. to avoid a repeat of what is happening elsewhere I would imagine being one consideration.

Wasting no time getting the seniority worked out was partially due to having the same union representing both sides - none of this "When will we have the prepresentational election" problems - and partially due to both sides accepting the result of that union's seniority integration process.

arbitration is sort of final and binding.

One need look no further than US to see what can happen. The company dragged it's feet for nearly a year and a half before finally put a meaningful proposal on the table right - before the arbitrator handed down his decision. Then the East (original US) pilots didn't accept the combined seniority list and pulled out of negotiations. Eventually they kicked ALPA off the property, replacing it with USAPA which the East pilots voted in by sheer strength of numbers. USapa attempted to negotiate a contract with a different combined seniority list, which triggered a law suit by the West pilots, and in the courts it remains - over 4 years after the two companies merged and 2-1/2 years after the seniority issue should have been settled.

Jim

everyone needs to be on the same page, its not just one sides fault.

 

[2BlacknBlue]

Wouldn't this episode prove that a CBA is useless?

Just sayin....

Nope, everything else remained in place! Unlike NW, DL lost vacation weeks, sick-time, insurance premium increases, etc....and had absolutely NO SAY SO ON ANYTHING! The manager over hr stated that a new ppo option A has been provided by DL that mirrors the ppo option B that NW currently has. Why is the cost of the DL's ppo A $259 bucks while the NW ppo b $191 bucks if they mirror and are from the same healthcare provider United Healthcare??????? With the yearly savings, a NW employee could pay $50/month union dues and STILL pocket $200 dollars a year keeping the IAM on the property to negotiate benefits!

The facts are just sayin'....

 

[BoeingBoy]

seniority arbitration happens now when two sides cannot make a decision supported by law.

As it does under ALPA also, although the new law doesn't define "fair" so any mutually agreed upon solution or arbitrator's ruling is considered fair and thus "supported by law".

to me, both sides realized the importance of working together and addressing all issues.. to avoid a repeat of what is happening elsewhere I would imagine being one consideration.

And that's good - whether "both sides" is the union (as embodied by the two MEC's in the pilot's case) and management negotiating the contract or the two employee groups negotiating/arbitrating the seniority integration (although if it goes to arbitration the process is captive to the arbitrator's schedule)

arbitration is sort of final and binding

Yes, that's what both the law and ALPA say (don't know about AFA since their method is straight DOH). That didn't stop the manuevering by the East pilots at US to try to escape "final and binding" at US though.

everyone needs to be on the same page, its not just one sides fault.

The first part is very true, as long as being "on the same page" means both sides being reasonable, willing to engage in the give and take of negotiations (whether contract or seniority negotiations) or willing to accept the arbitrators seniority ruling if arbitration is necessary.

I'm not sure I agree that problems can never be just one sides fault. Take US again - if management han't dragged it's feet and a combined contract had been negotiated before the seniority ruling came out, the last 2-1/2 years of strife would have been avoided and the airline would likely be fully integrated now. If the East pilots had accepted the arbitrators seniority ruling, the strife of the last 2-12 years would have been avoided and the airline would likely be fully integrated now. So the company was at fault for one period of time and the pilots were at fault for another period of time - at no time was one of the parties or the other not at fault but at no time were both parties at fault.

Jim

 

[BABABOOY]

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.)

wait a minute.....STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!
isn't this blowing, the main argument of why we need the AFA, right out of the water????
What kind of insurance contract is that? SCOPE will mean nothing come SOC.....
all that dues money really paid for what? a perceived insurance plan that did not pay out
in the end? What will be interesting is what crews will fly what flights? After SOC they may still
have Delta crews fly out of DTW? I am sure we wont see PMNW crews on the 747 TLV or NRT flights
out of NYC.........shall be interesting huh?

 

[Dignity]

As it does under ALPA also, although the new law doesn't define "fair" so any mutually agreed upon solution or arbitrator's ruling is considered fair and thus "supported by law".

if two parties cannot come to agreement, fair will be whatever the arbitrator determines for "both" sides.

I think its just all the way around better.. to resolve those types of issues outside arbitration, while fully
appreciating that law is available.. should it become necessary for any group in the future.

And that's good - whether "both sides" is the union (as embodied by the two MEC's in the pilot's case) and management negotiating the contract or the two employee groups negotiating/arbitrating the seniority integration (although if it goes to arbitration the process is captive to the arbitrator's schedule)

well if it is turned over to the arbitrator its on their schedule?

so its best to come to agreement prior to handing it over!

Yes, that's what both the law and ALPA say (don't know about AFA since their method is straight DOH). That didn't stop the manuevering by the East pilots at US to try to escape "final and binding" at US though.
final and binding is final and binding!

changing Unions does not change,

final and binding.

The first part is very true, as long as being "on the same page" means both sides being reasonable, willing to engage in the give and take of negotiations (whether contract or seniority negotiations) or willing to accept the arbitrators seniority ruling if arbitration is necessary.

if it is turned over to someone else, you just have to accept the decision.

I'm not sure I agree that problems can never be just one sides fault.

everyone has to be on the same page, that seems to be an issue needing addressed throughout the industry.

Take US again - if management han't dragged it's feet and a combined contract had been negotiated before the seniority ruling came out, the last 2-1/2 years of strife would have been avoided and the airline would likely be fully integrated now. If the East pilots had accepted the arbitrators seniority ruling, the strife of the last 2-12 years would have been avoided and the airline would likely be fully integrated now. So the company was at fault for one period of time and the pilots were at fault for another period of time - at no time was one of the parties or the other not at fault but at no time were both parties at fault.

Jim

I am not so very familiar with all the issues at that airline.

but I do understand when an airline is heavily unionized, that means there are several unionized groups that
must have negotiation periods.

so!

for some it will always be "foot dragging" by Management, when in fact it just may be, they have to negotiate
with more than just "one" group.

 

[Dignity]

wait a minute.....STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!
isn't this blowing, the main argument of why we need the AFA, right out of the water????
What kind of insurance con What will be interesting is what crews will fly what flights? After SOC they may still
have Delta crews fly out of DTW? I am sure we wont see PMNW crews on the 747 TLV or NRT flights
out of NYC.........shall be interesting huh?

after the S.O.C. we are all Delta crews.

(just so some understand we are all DL Flight Attendants)

while our history may have been PMNW, that will no longer be our label going forward.

we have already gone through that "Red Tail, Green Tail" dysfunction and I hope that will not be a repeat
with some...

we cannot fly together without a combined seniority list,
and yes.. it will be very interesting how it plays out, since it has all been delayed up to the point of the S.O.C.

 

[BABABOOY]

after the S.O.C. we are all Delta crews.

(just so some understand we are all DL Flight Attendants)

while our history may have been PMNW, that will no longer be our label going forward.

we have already gone through that "Red Tail, Green Tail" dysfunction and I hope that will not be a repeat
with some...

we cannot fly together without a combined seniority list,
and yes.. it will be very interesting how it plays out, since it has all been delayed up to the point of the S.O.C.

Sorry, I disagree. We will not all be one until representation issues are finalized.
The PMNW/PMDL references will still be used after the SOC.
Also, like it or not, you may be referred to
as NW. Or have those call themselves as Former NW. Even after representation issues are finalized.
Just like those out there who still refer themselves at former North East, Western, and Pan Am.
no slight, it is what it is. Many are proud of where the came from. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[southwind]

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.

Well, when Delta starts pushing the "Vote Now and Vote No", don't start yer cryin' ! They're not "Circumventing"................just playing by your new rules !

 

[Dignity]

Sorry, I disagree. We will not all be one until representation issues are finalized.
The PMNW/PMDL references will still be used after the SOC.

but we are all DL Flight Attendants after the S.O.C.

Also, like it or not, you may be referred to
as NW.

I agree by some.

Or have those call themselves as Former NW. Even after representation issues are finalized.
Just like those out there who still refer themselves at former North East, Western, and Pan Am.
no slight, it is what it is. Many are proud of where the came from. I see nothing wrong with that.

I am proud of our history, obviously DL does too or they would have merged with someone else...

however just wish not to see a repeat of some trying to define us as not a part of Delta.

(as a very few are doing right now)

 

[Airlinelifer]

Well, when Delta starts pushing the "Vote Now and Vote No", don't start yer cryin' ! They're not "Circumventing"................just playing by your new rules !

You anti's STILL don't get it. Section 2, Fourth, of the Railway Labor Act is clear in its admonition:
"No carrier, its officers, or agents shall deny or in any way question the right of its employees to join, organize, or assist in organizing the labor organization of their choice, and it shall be UNLAWFUL for any carrier to interfere in any way with the organization of its employees...or to influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them TO join or remain or NOT to join or remain members of any labor organization."

So when Delta pushes ANYTHING, their breaking Federal labor laws. Every quote on DeltaNet or "new" campaign started by management will just give the majority of the NMB members more evidence of carrier interference.