Union elections and the RLA....POLL!

[dapoes]

Flying the Union Skies-Labor tries an end run around the law to organize Delta.

Excerpt:

No trucks from Mexico, no new trade agreements, a sweet deal for the United Auto Workers at GM and Chrysler, tariffs on Chinese tires, and now Big Labor has another demand of the Obama Administration: Overturn 75 years of labor policy to sandbag Delta Airlines and unionize transportation workers. Will it get that too?

The latest looming political favor features the National Mediation Board, the federal agency established in 1934 under the Railway Labor Act to oversee labor relations in the air and rail industries. A department of the AFL-CIO last month sent a letter demanding that the board tear up longstanding rules requiring that a majority of all airline or rail workers vote in favor of union representation to win union certification.

The AFL-CIO instead wants a "minority rule," requiring only a majority of the employees who actually vote. Under current rules, if an airline has 10,000 nonunion flight attendants, 5,001 must vote yes to unionize. Under the union proposal if only 2,000 of 10,000 vote, and 1,001 vote yes, all 10,000 become subject to unionization.

The timing here is nakedly opportunistic. Two of Delta's unions—the Association of Flight Attendants and the International Association of Machinists—have elections pending in front of the Mediation Board as a result of last year's Delta acquisition of Northwest Airlines. Northwest was largely unionized but Delta wasn't. The Delta flight attendants tried to unionize last year but lost that election, and now the AFL-CIO wants the White House to stack the deck in their favor. Beyond Delta, the new rules would make it easier to unionize JetBlue, Continental, FedEx and short-line railroads, among others.

The skids may be greased because President Obama has already remade the three-person Mediation Board with a union-friendly majority. Harry Hoglander, once president of a pilots union, was confirmed in July to another term. The new chairman is Linda Puchala, who was formerly president of . . . the Association of Flight Attendants. A 2-to-1 vote will carry the day.

The union says it merely wants an election governed by the same rules that apply to nontransport industries under the National Labor Relations Act. But the Railway Labor Act was written because the government viewed transportation as economically vital, and one of the law's purposes is to avoid damaging strikes. Every Mediation Board since 1934 has upheld the majority rule, on grounds that "certification based upon majority participation promotes harmonious labor relations. A union without majority support cannot be as effective in negotiations as a union selected by a process which assures that a majority of employees desire representation."

The Railway Labor Act also offers no direct way for workers to decertify a union once it is in place, which is why the law provides the initial safeguard of a majority vote. The Supreme Court has twice upheld the majority rule, and the Mediation Board has four times rejected requests to change it, as recently as last year. The majority rule has been used in more than 1,850 elections, and unions have won more than 65% of the time. At least one Board (under the Carter Presidency, note) bluntly said that only Congress could change the voting rules.

Speaking of Congress, we'd note that Democrats are conveniently silent on this proposal.
It was only a year ago that Reps. Jim Oberstar and George Miller and Sen. Ted Kennedy sent an outraged letter to the Board (then dominated by Bush appointees) over its proposal to change certain rules in the middle of the Delta-Northwest merger. Mr. Hoglander, still on the Board, complained then that any policy revision in the middle of the merger would "strengthen the perception of bias and sow distrust and suspicion."

The administrative reversal of precedent being sought in the Delta case would invite a legal challenge, and courts look skeptically on agencies that put capricious politicking ahead of statute and decades of case law.

The airline industry is already in enough financial trouble without being strong-armed to bear the additional costs of greater unionization. If unions want to organize Delta, they have every right to do so by persuading a majority of workers. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration's willingness to twist the law to help its union allies is unlike anything Washington and business have seen in a very long time.

 

[Kev3188]

Wow... A pro-business op-ed piece from the Rupert Murdoch/Newsgroup owned WSJ...

I'm shocked, just shocked. 🙄


What's the over/under on this article appearing on DLNet?

 

[dapoes]

Wow... A pro-business op-ed piece from the Rupert Murdoch/Newsgroup owned WSJ...

I'm shocked, just shocked. 🙄


What's the over/under on this article appearing on DLNet?

And is it not true dear Kev?

The Supreme Court has twice upheld the majority rule, and the Mediation Board has four times rejected requests to change it, as recently as last year. The majority rule has been used in more than 1,850 elections, and unions have won more than 65% of the time. At least one Board (under the Carter Presidency, note) bluntly said that only Congress could change the voting rules.

Yet even though the AFL-CIO is demanding that different voting rules be applied to employees affected by the same merger, and even though it would appear the current Board is holding up the two Delta elections until it has time to push a rule-change through (the Board has allowed other elections to proceed),

Speaking of Congress, we'd note that Democrats are conveniently silent on this proposal. It was only a year ago that Reps. Jim Oberstar and George Miller and Sen. Ted Kennedy sent an outraged letter to the Board (then dominated by Bush appointees) over its proposal to change certain rules in the middle of the Delta-Northwest merger. Mr. Hoglander, still on the Board, complained then that any policy revision in the middle of the merger would "strengthen the perception of bias and sow distrust and suspicion."

 

[SkyguyB727]

I don't understand how the AFL-CIO proposal is so unfair and will result in "minority rule." I am an election official in the city where I live. Let's say there is an election with a referendum question on the ballot. When people come in to cast their ballot, they have the option of voting yes or no or they can abstain from voting on the referendum all together. If they fail to vote on it, then their ballot is counted as neither a yes nor a no on the referendum. If someone fails to cast a ballot in the election, they are not deemed to have automatically voted against the referendum. Once again, it is neither a yes nor a no vote.

Using my example of a referendum question on a ballot, if we have only a 15-20% voter turnout (which is common in lesser elections), and the majority of voters who vote on the referendum vote yes, then the referendum passes. It's a basic tenet of our democracy. Why should the union election be any different? I don't understand how this is perceived to be "minority rule" when this is how every election in the United States of America is, and has always been conducted.

Please explain what I'm missing here. If someone fails to cast a ballot in a union election, why is it assumed that they intended to vote no, and why is it fair to make that assumption?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't understand how this is perceived to be "minority rule" when this is how every election in the United States of America is, and has always been conducted.

Without getting into the pros and cons it can be perceived to be "minority rule" because, as in your example, all eligible voters don't vote and a minority of eligible voters may determine the outcome.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

this election is happening not necessarily because 35 percent or 50 percent plus one (a majority) of the Flight Attendants have opted to sign a card to join a union, rather than it is happening because a merger occurred.

had this been a situation where there was already an established group of 20,000 Flight Attendants, and thirty five percent of those signed a card expressing their wish to join a union by prompting an election, and they had secured at least 50 percent plus one or higher,

signed cards.

then it would show at least a majority are interested in a union prompting a representational election.

but that is not the case..

this election is happening because it is necessary to determine how the majority wishes to proceed

because of a merger

the pre-merger group satisfy at least 35 percent that would actually prompt an election. this does not imply those individuals pre-merger all wish to continue the relationship with the bargaining agent going forward.

it is being assumed they all do.

(as there have been so many changes with the PMNW group...retirements, multiple buyouts...new hiring ..ext) at this this time, it is undetermined what the premerger group wishes may be.

therefore..

since there are not necessarily at least a majority of signed cards.

this election needs to establish at least the majority of the combined group wishes to join a union.

they need to show at least 50 percent plus one..(the overall majority) to put a union on the property.

if..

IF they remotely want to maintain labor peace.

if they change the rules for this particular election and a minority number puts a union on the property it is going to cause nothing but problems for the perception it was not done fairly.

some have gotten so side tracked focusing solely on getting a union on the property and are not looking at the big picture.

the problem with having a minority number putting a union on the property while a majority number either opted NO or did not even bother to vote..

they have just effectively shown the company...the group is divided and you have no leverage.

the union is more than likely looking at this from a perspective they want to remain the bargaining agent having the ability to collect dues to do what they have to do...

but..

I am looking at this from the perspective, if a minority number puts that union on the property, being stuck in the middle of a host of problems.. because a majority number did not put them on the property while at the same time being limited to voting (outside a TA) issues at the base.


they need to establish a majority number of the combined group wants to have a union

for the combined group.

in this particular situation..

 

[GSEMAN]

Wow... A pro-business op-ed piece from the Rupert Murdoch/Newsgroup owned WSJ...

I'm shocked, just shocked. 🙄


What's the over/under on this article appearing on DLNet?

No different than the anti-company oppinion of yours. It is another healthy viewpoint which disagrees with your viewpoint. No doubt you are anti-business/pro-union judging from your post. 🙄

 

[GSEMAN]

this election is happening not necessarily because 35 percent or 50 percent plus one (a majority) of the Flight Attendants have opted to sign a card to join a union, rather than it is happening because a merger occurred.

had this been a situation where there was already an established group of 20,000 Flight Attendants, and thirty five percent of those signed a card expressing their wish to join a union by prompting an election, and they had secured at least 50 percent plus one or higher,

signed cards.

then it would show at least a majority are interested in a union prompting a representational election.

but that is not the case..

this election is happening because it is necessary to determine how the majority wishes to proceed

because of a merger

the pre-merger group satisfy at least 35 percent that would actually prompt an election. this does not imply those individuals pre-merger all wish to continue the relationship with the bargaining agent going forward.

it is being assumed they all do.

(as there have been so many changes with the PMNW group...retirements, multiple buyouts...new hiring ..ext) at this this time, it is undetermined what the premerger group wishes may be.

therefore..

since there are not necessarily at least a majority of signed cards.

this election needs to establish at least the majority of the combined group wishes to join a union.

they need to show at least 50 percent plus one..(the overall majority) to put a union on the property.

if..

IF they remotely want to maintain labor peace.

if they change the rules for this particular election and a minority number puts a union on the property it is going to cause nothing but problems for the perception it was not done fairly.

some have gotten so side tracked focusing solely on getting a union on the property and are not looking at the big picture.

the problem with having a minority number putting a union on the property while a majority number either opted NO or did not even bother to vote..

they have just effectively shown the company...the group is divided and you have no leverage.

the union is more than likely looking at this from a perspective they want to remain the bargaining agent having the ability to collect dues to do what they have to do...

but..

I am looking at this from the perspective, if a minority number puts that union on the property, being stuck in the middle of a host of problems.. because a majority number did not put them on the property while at the same time being limited to voting (outside a TA) issues at the base.


they need to establish a majority number of the combined group wants to have a union

for the combined group.

in this particular situation..

If 50% plus 1 don't show to vote and a union is voted in then the system has failed. The system has to assume or prove what the no-shows want. What is your suggestion on that scenario?

 

[SkyguyB727]

I just don't see how making an assumption about how someone might have voted had they cast a ballot is fair. If someone fails to cast a ballot, it should be neither a vote for nor against the union.

 

[GSEMAN]

I just don't see how making an assumption about how someone might have voted had they cast a ballot is fair. If someone fails to cast a ballot, it should be neither a vote for nor against the union.

The "majority rules" idea can't be accepted unless the majority votes. Even though your view makes sense in one area, a "majority " is not truly a "majority" unless a majority votes.

 

[libertybell]

Counting a vote for non voting is nuts. Who ever dreamed up this screwed up idea pol pot? How totally unfair unjust and damn unamerican.

 

[700UW]

If those of you who think 50%+1 is fair then lets change all the laws in the land to have EVERY ELECTION for political office the same as it is for workers under the RLA.

Lets see how fair that would be!

And no one would be elected to any office and the country would come to a stand still!

 

[BoeingBoy]

And no one would be elected to any office and the country would come to a stand still!

Which is why the founding fathers set the electoral process up the way they did - it's necessary to elect a President, Representatives, Senatore, Governors, even city councilpersons (although some might argue that the country would be better off without some of those people).

The country won't come to a stand still if DL becomes more unionized or not (same goes for any company). So it comes down to preference - some are ardent union supporters, some anti-union with the same zeal. Most are somewhere in between the two extremes.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Jim,

My point is if it is ok for every political office and workers under the NLRA, why isnt it good enough for workers under the RLA?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

My point is if it is ok for every political office and workers under the NLRA, why isnt it good enough for workers under the RLA?

How about elections every 2-4-6 years with the majority of votes cast determining the outcome then - if it's good enough for every political office why isn't it good enough for workers under the RLA?

My point is that union supporters want to change the rules to make it easier to get the union in but don't want to change the rules to get the union out or change unions. Those that are against unionization want to keep the rules the way they are, making it harder for a union to win a representational election. Human nature comes to the forefront, not fairness.

Jim