The changing rules of union certification

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.
FYI, theres recent legal precedent ala 1999 USAIRWAYS vs NMB that negates that entirely.
 
have had their fill

is that why the election is being delayed?

so its not really about changing a format rather than collecting "quotes"?

something is just not right here.

and its starting to come together.


what happens when they find out its actually we, Flight Attendants who want to move forward?
 
I think Harry Hoglander and Linda Pachula have had their fill of Delta's interference.

Aren't they the same two NMB members that used "management's urging of employees to be more active in workplace issues" as justification for the rule change? Why would they be against DL management doing exactly that, then?

Jim
 
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.

So not only are Unions trying to change the voting rules, they can push their, "Vote now and Vote yes" agenda, hand out pamphlets, ON COMPANY PROPERTY, and sway people their way and the company can do nothing?

Sounds fair to me or that somebody's desperate ! :blink:
 
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.
Delta management may not be able to rally against unionization but delta employees can and we will be right beside the union people doing so. We will follow the same rules as prounion people. Fair is fair, right?
 
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.

No argument here...I agree.

changing Unions does not change final and binding.

Again, no argument here but most of the US "East" pilots felt differently. A federal judge in AZ told them otherwise - USAPA lost a DFR lawsuit over the issue - and now it's in the hand of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

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.

A little more explanation of the post-merger negotiations at US is in order. It wasn't the negotiating schedule that was the problem, it was that management wanted more concessions. This was after the PMUS pilots had taken approximately 40% compensation cuts and lost their pension in BK and the PMHP pilots were among the lowest compensated in the industry (they were scheduled for Section 6 negotiations when the merger was announced, but those negotiations were put on hold to negotiate a combined contract). So further concessions weren't going to fly. After 1-1/2 years management finally put an offer on the table that would have basically brought the PMUS pilots up to the PMHP pilot's level plus a small pay increase for everone, but that was just days before the arbitrators ruling which resulted in contract negotiations coming to a halt. "Foot dragging" was probably the wrong term to use for management's actions - unrealistic expectations would have been better.

Of course, after the arbitrator's ruling came out, the blame for lack of progress in contract negotiations falls entirely on the pilot's shoulders. First it was the PMUS pilots withdrawing from contract negotiations (a ratified contract under ALPA would have meant integrating the two pilot groups using the arbitrator's seniority award), then the representational election (by the PMUS side attempting to escape "final and binding"). Once the representational election was over negotiations resumed but USAPA wanted a different seniority list which began the legal battle (by the PMHP side to enforce "final and binding"). Currently USAPA is bound by a court injunction to include the arbitrator's seniority award in all contract negotiations, so even though negotiations are occuring USAPA is in no hurry to conclude them (hoping the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will throw out the injunction so USAPA's seniority list can be included in the contract).

Reference the discussion on your contract and "me too"language post-SOC, I'd suggest that it will be test of management's willingness to work with the FA group. Management will face a choice - follow the letter of the contract making the "me too" language meaningless since there won't be any NW pilots or follow the intent of the "me too" language and abide by the "me too" language by keeping PMNW FA's flying with PMNW pilots.

Having said that, I freely admit that there is a 3rd possibility - management could take the second course only because of the risk that the AFA would file a grievance and win if management took the first course of action.

Jim
 
No argument here...I agree.
OK

Again, no argument here but most of the US "East" pilots felt differently. A federal judge in AZ told them otherwise - USAPA lost a DFR lawsuit over the issue - and now it's in the hand of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
OK

A little more explanation of the post-merger negotiations at US is in order. It wasn't the negotiating schedule that was the problem, it was that management wanted more concessions.
wanted or needed concessions?

Jim, what do you want them to do once a company is bankrupt or near bankruptcy?

This was after the PMUS pilots had taken approximately 40% compensation cuts and lost their pension in BK and the PMHP pilots were among the lowest compensated in the industry (they were scheduled for Section 6 negotiations when the merger was announced, but those negotiations were put on hold to negotiate a combined contract). So further concessions weren't going to fly.
the interesting part in all of that, someone else would actually accept that wage if someone else would not.

Trying to be realistic but you know, non of us are irreplaceable.

After 1-1/2 years management finally put an offer on the table that would have basically brought the PMUS pilots up to the PMHP pilot's level plus a small pay increase for everone, but that was just days before the arbitrators ruling which resulted in contract negotiations coming to a halt.
doesnt a lot of that have to do with the financial situaton?

"Foot dragging" was probably the wrong term to use for management's actions - unrealistic expectations would have been better.
I actually get what you are saying but you know, once you are bankrupt...

its not so easy as pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Of course, after the arbitrator's ruling came out, the blame for lack of progress in contract negotiations falls entirely on the pilot's shoulders. First it was the PMUS pilots withdrawing from contract negotiations (a ratified contract under ALPA would have meant integrating the two pilot groups using the arbitrator's seniority award), then the representational election (by the PMUS side attempting to escape "final and binding"). Once the representational election was over negotiations resumed but USAPA wanted a different seniority list which began the legal battle (by the PMHP side to enforce "final and binding"). Currently USAPA is bound by a court injunction to include the arbitrator's seniority award in all contract negotiations, so even though negotiations are occuring USAPA is in no hurry to conclude them (hoping the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will throw out the injunction so USAPA's seniority list can be included in the contract).
it went to arbitration and a decision was made,

I dont know what else to say but move on.

really, seriously.

move on.

Reference the discussion on your contract and "me too"language post-SOC, I'd suggest that it will be test of management's willingness to work with the FA group. Management will face a choice - follow the letter of the contract making the "me too" language meaningless since there won't be any NW pilots or follow the intent of the "me too" language and abide by the "me too" language by keeping PMNW FA's flying with PMNW pilots.
we merged. its all about that language, got to keep that in mind!

one word changes everything.

Having said that, I freely admit that there is a 3rd possibility - management could take the second course only because of the risk that the AFA would file a grievance and win if management took the first course of action.

Jim
that just appears like more games!

can we just... please!

everyone run an airline already?
 
wanted or needed concessions?

Jim, what do you want them to do once a company is bankrupt or near bankruptcy?

This was post-BK and post-merger and the company was making profits...are you suggesting that employees should accept concessions in good times as well as bad?

the interesting part in all of that, someone else would actually accept that wage if someone else would not.

Trying to be realistic but you know, non of us are irreplaceable.

True - for almost every job at any wage level. Is the answer for everyone to work for what an illegal alien would accept? Or even the lowest wage a legal resident would take? Are you willing to work for the least anyone would accept to do your job - just trying to be realistic...

That's what negotiations are for - establishing compensation that the company is willing to pay and the employee is willing to accept. That's true for a CEO candidate negotiating with the BOD or a union negotiating for the FA's.


doesnt a lot of that have to do with the financial situaton?

As I said above, the company was profitable at the time. The interesting thing, relative to your question, is that the company is now losing money (like almost every other airline) and that offer is still on the table. Management hasn't said "We can no longer afford that so we're withdrawing the offer" or given any other indication that the offer is unrealistic or unaffordable. That may change depending on future events, but it's the situation now.

it went to arbitration and a decision was made,

I dont know what else to say but move on.

really, seriously.

move on.

As I said, I agree - the "moving on" should have happened back in 2007. You don't have to convince me. Unfortunately, the majority of PMUS pilots felt differently and here they are 2-1/2 years later still fighting the battle. At least some are convinced that the PMUS pilots will never vote to approve a contract that contains the arbitrator's seniority award, so the stalemate (and separate ops and existing contracts) could last a long time. What should have happened doesn't change what did and is happening. Hence my statement that the company is merely a bystander in the seniority battle watching events unfold - it's the pilots that are holding up progress in contract negotiations. While neither side should not be an impediment (the "same page" thing), one side can be an impediment to successfully completing negotiations.

we merged. its all about that language, got to keep that in mind!

one word changes everything.

If you're saying that management has no choice but to ignore the FA "me too" language after SOC, I strongly disagree. Unless, of course, AFA required management to ignore that language. Management always has the option of giving the employees more than the contract requires, they just can't give less. A simple example way back in the PI years was a Christmas bonus - the contract didn't require it but nobody complained about that crisp, new $100 bill when they received it. Currently US has a bonus program for achieving ops performance goals - be in the top 3 big carriers in on-time, mishandled baggage, or complaints and every employee gets $50 for each goal met. Not required by the contract but completely legal.

that just appears like more games!

can we just... please!

everyone run an airline already?

And it would be playing games if that happened. Hopefully, if management continues to acknowledge the intent of the "me too" language after SOC it'll be an honest attempt at showing good will. I was just covering all the possibilities/arguments because I could envision someone saying exactly what you did - they're just playing games to keep the union out.

Jim
 
This was post-BK and post-merger and the company was making profits...are you suggesting that employees should accept concessions in good times as well as bad?
Not really accept concessions but try to be realistic is how I look at the situation.

to me, I would rather have gradual increases that can be maintained long term.

True - for almost every job at any wage level. Is the answer for everyone to work for what an illegal alien would accept? Or even the lowest wage a legal resident would take? Are you willing to work for the least anyone would accept to do your job - just trying to be realistic...
I just know that someone else will come right behind me and do it for less money.

thats just the way it is

but!

they cannot pay legal citizens illegal wages!

That's what negotiations are for - establishing compensation that the company is willing to pay and the employee is willing to accept. That's true for a CEO candidate negotiating with the BOD or a union negotiating for the FA's.
have you seen our contract? :blink:

As I said above, the company was profitable at the time. The interesting thing, relative to your question, is that the company is now losing money (like almost every other airline) and that offer is still on the table. Management hasn't said "We can no longer afford that so we're withdrawing the offer" or given any other indication that the offer is unrealistic or unaffordable. That may change depending on future events, but it's the situation now.
just because a company is profitable doesn't always mean we are going to automatically get these huge jumps in pay.

they have to invest in technology, buy airplanes, fuel, and a host of other things besides payroll.

pay the bills so we keep a job..

just something to keep in mind!


its like this,

just because I get some extra money doesnt mean I always get to go on a shopping spree,

I have to buy groceries and pay the light bill and if I dont do that, I dont have any food and nothing is going on in that kitchen cause I cant see to cook.. cause the lights got turned off and the stove dont work cause the money didnt go on the bills!

know what I am sayin?

As I said, I agree - the "moving on" should have happened back in 2007. You don't have to convince me. Unfortunately, the majority of PMUS pilots felt differently and here they are 2-1/2 years later still fighting the battle. At least some are convinced that the PMUS pilots will never vote to approve a contract that contains the arbitrator's seniority award, so the stalemate (and separate ops and existing contracts) could last a long time. What should have happened doesn't change what did and is happening. Hence my statement that the company is merely a bystander in the seniority battle watching events unfold - it's the pilots that are holding up progress in contract negotiations. While neither side should not be an impediment (the "same page" thing), one side can be an impediment to successfully completing negotiations.
actually the moving on comment really wasnt directed to you rather than the entire situation is needing to move on,

like yesterday!

cause...

ya'll on the road to no where with that situation and need to get off that road at the next exit and pull out the map and figure out where to go and what to do!

*just dont get back on that road that is getting ya'll nowhere fast!

If you're saying that management has no choice but to ignore the FA "me too" language after SOC, I strongly disagree.
I dont think I said that and also,

I just dont think the criteria was satisfied especially at this point!

Unless, of course, AFA required management to ignore that language. Management always has the option of giving the employees more than the contract requires, they just can't give less. A simple example way back in the PI years was a Christmas bonus - the contract didn't require it but nobody complained about that crisp, new $100 bill when they received it. Currently US has a bonus program for achieving ops performance goals - be in the top 3 big carriers in on-time, mishandled baggage, or complaints and every employee gets $50 for each goal met. Not required by the contract but completely legal.
profit sharing payout, performance incentives, even commission, its all good.

And it would be playing games if that happened. Hopefully, if management continues to acknowledge the intent of the "me too" language after SOC it'll be an honest attempt at showing good will. I was just covering all the possibilities/arguments because I could envision someone saying exactly what you did - they're just playing games to keep the union out.

Jim
that clause was written at one company and we now work at another,

so I just dont see it happening,

but if so,

yay! for us.

however...

(I am not getting out the party hats just yet)
 
I really didn't mean to turn this into a US thread, but just use examples from what I know best...

Not really accept concessions but try to be realistic is how I look at the situation.

to me, I would rather have gradual increases that can be maintained long term.

So if you (PMNW FA's) were making less than PMDL FA's (or the other way around), it would be acceptable to take a number of years to equalize pay? Or vacation? Or the employee's cost for medical/dental? Or pension? Etc. Isn't the purpose of a combined contract to have everyone covered by the same contract? Why even have a combined contract is it only perpetuates the pre-merger differences - just remain under two separate contracts and equalize them "long term".

Of course, the answer is simple. Managing a single employee group (like FA's) with different work rules, benefits, etc carries a cost. Management can either incur that cost or eliminate it by having a single contract for the group. Eliminating that cost provides the money to improve the worst aspects of both contracts. (and before you correct me, I know that the PMDL FA's don't have a union negotiated contract but they do have a framework of rules/pay/benefit that they work under - a non-binding contract if you will)

have you seen our contract? :blink:

No, but I was talking about normal negotiations. Being a BK Judge's order away from having concessions forced on you creates a distinctly different negotiating environment.

just because a company is profitable doesn't always mean we are going to automatically get these huge jumps in pay.

Not automatically - that's what negotiations are for. The union's job is to get the best contract possible under the circumstances and management's job is to produce the product at the least cost under the circumstances. Whatever both sides agree on is by definition acceptable to both sides. (again, talking outside of BK)

The "me too" language - I was just saying that the issue might provide an early indication of how management/employee relations will be going forward. Not predicting one way or the other.

Jim
 
I really didn't mean to turn this into a US thread, but just use examples from what I know best...
and those examples are fascinating and interesting.

So if you (PMNW FA's) were making less than PMDL FA's (or the other way around), it would be acceptable to take a number of years to equalize pay? Or vacation? Or the employee's cost for medical/dental? Or pension? Etc.
did I say it would?

I said.. I prefer an idea of gradual increases instead of huge lump sums that may cause a company to go bankrupt when outside factors such as economy and fuel prices that affect the industry!

whats the point of getting all that money if its just going to be snatched right back in the bankruptcy court!

my idea is..pay the bills with some of the extra, stay out of bankruptcy.. allow an ability to keep a job in order to maintain pay long term instead of taking 100 steps backwards while gradually building responsibly so you keep what you have!

Isn't the purpose of a combined contract to have everyone covered by the same contract?
well sure, but first things first, the election.

Why even have a combined contract is it only perpetuates the pre-merger differences - just remain under two separate contracts and equalize them "long term".
what does a combined contract have to do with illegal alien pay?

Of course, the answer is simple. Managing a single employee group (like FA's) with different work rules, benefits, etc carries a cost. Management can either incur that cost or eliminate it by having a single contract for the group. Eliminating that cost provides the money to improve the worst aspects of both contracts. (and before you correct me, I know that the PMDL FA's don't have a union negotiated contract but they do have a framework of rules/pay/benefit that they work under - a non-binding contract if you will)
we are lagging behind them in pay with a contract, so we are sort of saving them money right?

No, but I was talking about normal negotiations. Being a BK Judge's order away from having concessions forced on you creates a distinctly different negotiating environment.
he abrogated our contract! it was 195 for TA1, TA2 and TA3.

that was the point I knew a contract really isnt an insurance policy when it really mattered!

Not automatically - that's what negotiations are for. The union's job is to get the best contract possible under the circumstances and management's job is to produce the product at the least cost under the circumstances. Whatever both sides agree on is by definition acceptable to both sides. (again, talking outside of BK)
the union's job is to maintain and protect while responsibly compromising, which appears did not happen.

The "me too" language - I was just saying that the issue might provide an early indication of how management/employee relations will be going forward. Not predicting one way or the other.

Jim
they have to follow language to the letter, if the criteria had been established enabling a me too clause,
it would have happened.