Union elections and the RLA....POLL!

[justanadd]

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....................

Great to see you can click and paste from Deltanet

 

[dapoes]

Great to see you can click and paste from Deltanet

Yeah? Look at the date and time I posted the article and link. The article hit the news wires on Oct 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM.

Please return to your TOOL shed.

 

[700UW]

Jim,

The NLRA has a decertification process, just put the same into the RLA.

 

[dapoes]

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

Couldn't have said it better myself. The unions as always want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[700UW]

Couldn't have said it better myself. The unions as always want to have their cake and eat it too.

That would be the company oh biased one.

 

[Kev3188]

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. 🙄

I'm not anti company at all. I very much want the "new" DL to succeed; I also want to be a part of it...

I realize this goes against a lot of the doctrinal thinking at DL, but it's absolutely possible to be both pro-labor & pro company.

 

[Dignity]

a "majority " is not truly a "majority"

The payment of dues is mandatory and a condition of employment. If you do not pay your dues and they have negotiated closed shop as a requirement, the way it is currently established for the Flight Attendant group at PMNW..and you become in arrears a process will begin, if you remain in a non-payment status and it continues.

(This will more than likely be a requirement for all PMDL Flight Attendants once a tentative agreement has been ratified for the combined group should representation become realized, the mandatory payment of dues), they, PMDL may also be required to pay an initiation fee.

if dues check off and closed shop is a reality going forward and a failure to pay dues to the Union occurs...what will happen,

The process to terminate you from your job will begin. This process can also happen should for whatever reason someone becomes one month in arrears and does not pay within a specific timeline.

(They will however send you a letter first informing of your non-payment status and pending termination as a convenience)

If a leave is taken for one month, you are still required to pay your dues for that month.. also if you are not active, you will still be required to pay dues for three months, or ninety days.

The election format that is eventually decided will need to show a majority of actual employees consent to put a union on the property if that is to be the case.. to maintain some level of labor peace going forward.

to me, It is very important the majority of actual employees agree and consent initially putting a union on any company property.

that is also why a 50 percent plus one is a good idea as,

There is no going around what the majority decides, because it is the "majority".

These are facts that need to be made aware to those unfamiliar with the process.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

The NLRA has a decertification process, just put the same into the RLA.

What? I thought you said that what's good enough for every elected offholder in the land should be good enough for workers under the RLA. That means elections every 2,4, or 6 years. Maybe we could even have term limits - it's good enough for the POTUS and most governors so we wouldn't want to shortchange workers under the RLA by having an "undemocratic" process now would we?

Jim

 

[dapoes]

That would be the company oh biased one.

That would be your opinion oh uninformed one.

 

[Dignity]

it appears to me they are either not fully understanding the request they are making, while at the same time making comparisons..

or

they actually do understand the request and are failing to address in totality how it should be defined.

(to change an election format initially, while keeping a decertification process the same is not a balanced request)

either it is all to be addressed or continue the format as it has been outlined.

is sort of how I am looking at it.

 

[Dignity]

I'm not anti company at all. I very much want the "new" DL to succeed; I also want to be a part of it...
it's absolutely possible to be both pro-labor & pro company.

if they already maintain a positive and cooperative working relationship with their employees who are currently non-union, why would that change if they continued to remain non-union?

that does not make any good business sense.

the same can be said if the group becomes unionized. why would they, Management change a positive working relationship that was previously in place in order to create conflict?

that does not make any good business sense either.

Management really has no other alternative.. but to keep and attempt a healthy relationship with all their employee groups going forward.. simply for the fact if they did not or do not, the tradition and reputation has changed and this idea of "culture" ceases to exist.

it is important not creating unnecessary and avoidable labor issues going forward.

I believe, it is possible to be both pro-company and pro-labor either way (for all involved), with or without representation at this particular company.

*it is very important for a company to be the exception rather than the norm today.

exception = a healthy positive working environment based on supportive and constructive business ideas implemented into all departments that enables success for all that benefits customer, communities and all employees.

but I am focused and somewhat concerned regarding the internal problems that are associated with our current union..past to present and of course the voting structure that is flawed.. including how they address leadership positions and of course making unilateral decisions that affect individual Flight Attendants absent of consent, (dues increases and a host of other issues ext.) and this idea that Management has a hidden agenda and is out to destroy our profession.. if we do not have a contract. because we may or may not have one and that does not mean there will be any radical changes either way, regarding how a positive working relationship would change that has already been established..

I have to be open minded regarding my state of mind and take into consideration it can be different if for some reason what we have known changes, realizing that change may be positive regardless of the outcome.

as I continue to research the history of this airline, it is clear the founders of DAL had a vision to create not only an airline based on safety as the highest priority but simultaneously customer service excellence that goes beyond a memorable flight experience..

that would be,

taking into consideration the internal customer who are the employees of DL, that is all employees from the highest executive office to the front line.. they, Management have a great responsibility to maintain that legacy including (all employees) as we are just the generation.. who are the caretakers of DAL and must maintain that integrity and highest standards to be passed onto the next.

the right thing must be done, either way.


the industry is watching this integration.

the industry is watching how Management and the airline will treat their new colleagues.


A positive working relationship that is established, must remain established.


or maybe in a way its just me, hoping that it can finally be done another way.. being associated with a company that

is the exception.

 

[700UW]

And how positive was it when DL Management did whatever they wanted to do to the employees in bankruptcy and the employees had no recourse?

Or how was it a few years ago when DL just took away your pensions and you had no say in it?

And why does the CEO and executives have contracts yet they dont want the rank and file to have one?

 

[Dignity]

And how positive was it when DL Management did whatever they wanted to do to the employees in bankruptcy and the employees had no recourse?

our Flight Attendant Contract at NW was abrogated during the bankruptcy process, we had no recourse at all.

Or how was it a few years ago when DL just took away your pensions

NW froze and did not terminate our pensions, for that, I am thankful.

 

[700UW]

Did you or did you not negotiate a new CBA with NW?

I know you did, they did not impose a CBA, unlike us with the IAM at US.

And I was talking about the DL employees, did I mention NW in the previous post? Nope, DL=Delta.

 

[Dignity]

Did you or did you not negotiate a new CBA with NW?

we had three Tentative Agreements and the last one was ratified.

I know you did, they did not impose a CBA, unlike us with the IAM at US.

we were working under our previous Teamsters Yellow Book. the PFAA negotiated a Tentative Agreement allowing excessive concessionary amounts (regarding valuations, ext). that was TA1 and was not ratified.

shortly thereafter the Bankruptcy court abrogated our Yellow Book and imposed that agreement onto our group.

AFA's Tentative Agreement 2 failed

(it was a revised version of PFAA's agreement with minor modification)..

had AFA's Tentative Agreement 3 not been ratified, (it barely passed) we may still be working under PFAA's Bankruptcy Court imposed contract going into this merger.

(if that was the case, unionization of the Flight Attendant group today, would probably be nil)

AFA's Tentative Agreement 3 however included a buyout, equity claim (that was not fully explained or a good half of the Flight Attendants were willing to throw 180 million out the window, personally thought that would have been a tragic mistake) and the reinstatement of the Flight Attendants who honored AMFA's strike.

And I was talking about the DL employees, did I mention NW in the previous post? Nope, DL=Delta.

NW is a part of DL so today, its all relevant.