Why would you vote NO for a union?

[LukeAisleWalker]

I personally believe that representation and seniority are separate issues and I wish that question would ultimately be put to rest or at least make this absolutely clear so people decide with an informed decision.

hopefully that will be resolved prior to any vote, actual clarification.

I am inclined to agree with you except that I believe the DOH policy affects how some (at least on the Delta side) will vote. Also, I'm not clear about something that you alluded to and I actually hadn't thought of before--even if AFA wins the election, can one side (Delta) hypothetically request arbitration? In other words, do the AFA Const/Bylaws supercede the request for arbitration or not?

 

[jalbalpa]

Why would you want arbitration?

Instead of making your decision based on rumors, have you looked at the seniority list?

The NW seniority list is readily available, even by DL f/a's.

There is no golden parachute, there is no 5 to 1 ratio. No chance! Are you really that greedy to even think about that option?

Delta and NW f/a seniority is actually very balanced, most DL f/a's would gain from 0.5% to 2.0%. Some in the 9000s seniority would lose up to 2%. This is actually a benefit for the DL folks, if the ratio system is used...most DL f/a's will have 200+ NW f/a's junior to them leap over them!

Get the facts!

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Why would you want arbitration?

Instead of making your decision based on rumors, have you looked at the seniority list?

The NW seniority list is readily available, even by DL f/a's.

There is no golden parachute, there is no 5 to 1 ratio. No chance! Are you really that greedy to even think about that option?

Delta and NW f/a seniority is actually very balanced, most DL f/a's would gain from 0.5% to 2.0%. Some in the 9000s seniority would lose up to 2%. This is actually a benefit for the DL folks, if the ratio system is used...most DL f/a's will have 200+ NW f/a's junior to them leap over them!

Get the facts!

It was just a question. I don't want arbitration. If you haven't noticed, I am a supporter of representation.
Don't fall prey to what DL management salivates over during these elections (I know because I will admit here that I have occassionally fallen to it before)--and that's over-emotionalism. Being passionate is great. Seeing wolves in the forest when there are none and constantly being on the attack is not. Mgt. will turn this around and use it against the campaign.
I think it's important to stay calm, clear-headed and calculating this time in order to achieve success. Undue pressure, ridicule, playing loose with the facts ,as in last year's campaign flyer entitled "W2s Don't Lie" ( when there was a beautiful AFA contract -Alaska's- that could have been held up as an example instead), won't win this election.
I enjoy reading your contributions to the board. Just remember, I am not your enemy---let's stay united.

 

[Dignity]

It was just a question. I don't want arbitration. If you haven't noticed, I am a supporter of representation.
Don't fall prey to what DL management salivates over during these elections (I know because I will admit here that I have occassionally fallen to it before)--and that's over-emotionalism. Being passionate is great. Seeing wolves in the forest when there are none and constantly being on the attack is not. Mgt. will turn this around and use it against the campaign.
I think it's important to stay calm, clear-headed and calculating this time in order to achieve success. Undue pressure, ridicule, playing loose with the facts as in last year's campaign flyer entitled "W2s Don't Lie" ( when there was a beautiful AFA contract -Alaska's- that could have been held up as an example instead) won't win this election.
I enjoy reading your contributions to the board. Just remember, I am not your enemy---let's stay united.

this simply is one chapter in the history of aviation...

who would have ever thought the icons..the great airlines of the past would be no more(or absorbed partially into another operation today).

with that said, what is happening today will set a precedent for future mergers or at least a guideline of how it is to be handled. who is to say that a small upstart today/the not so distant past....or an airline that has not even been established...may actually be the dominate carrier 20 years from now... and while we are working at the largest airline in the world today may in fact be struggling to keep seniority in the future, if a "policy" once again overrides this newly enacted law. who is to say a future organization policy will be DOH? who is to even say the same organization will even be in place? we all know this industry changes dramatically from decade to decade, sometimes in 5 years or less! do you personally want a written policy to override a law? because someone in the future may look back and hold us all to that same decision made today...and it might not be in our best interest in the future..(that is really what my point is..)

just because we work at the largest today, does not mean it will always be that way, because it has happened just that way already...that is why it is important these decisions made today is fully thought out or at least considered how this can/may effect your future.

its important to think here and now, but certainly need to also focus on the future!

what if...we are held to someone else's policy in the future and when we say.."wait a minute!", they come back and say..."this is what you did before"... you know?

while I fully support the idea of representation, we all must keep in mind these decisions made today are probably more important if not for ourselves, but also! the future generation of Flight Attendant who will absolutely fall back on, we want to make sure not only ourselves are protected, but their interest(next generation) are too!

is really all Im saying!

 

[Dignity]

Why would you want arbitration?

Instead of making your decision based on rumors, have you looked at the seniority list?

The NW seniority list is readily available, even by DL f/a's.

There is no golden parachute, there is no 5 to 1 ratio. No chance! Are you really that greedy to even think about that option?

Delta and NW f/a seniority is actually very balanced, most DL f/a's would gain from 0.5% to 2.0%. Some in the 9000s seniority would lose up to 2%. This is actually a benefit for the DL folks, if the ratio system is used...most DL f/a's will have 200+ NW f/a's junior to them leap over them!

Get the facts!

personally in this situation I do not want to see arbitration, because I can see one huge mess.(and it probably would end up DOH regardless) but the division the process may cause may hamper unity that is imperative for future success!

my view is simply both sides views and voices are heard and...respected. it is not just "my way" and its not just "their way"...that is why I personally wish seniority was attempted to be resolved in order to focus solely on the election, because we all know that some will absolutely not participate simply because of that policy(even though they support the idea of representation) but also considering at the same time not to dismiss the need for arbitration should a "majority" of a pre-merger group separate of representation(and this is not necessary exclusive today) but considering the future mergers..which will happen with other carriers at some point decades down the road... desires additional meetings..they would at least have that right.

and this is just an opinion!

 

[dapoes]

personally in this situation I do not want to see arbitration, because I can see one huge mess.(and it probably would end up DOH regardless) but the division the process may cause may hamper unity that is imperative for future success!

my view is simply both sides views and voices are heard and...respected. it is not just "my way" and its not just "their way"...that is why I personally wish seniority was attempted to be resolved in order to focus solely on the election, because we all know that some will absolutely not participate simply because of that policy(even though they support the idea of representation) but also considering at the same time not to dismiss the need for arbitration should a "majority" of a pre-merger group separate of representation(and this is not necessary exclusive today) but considering the future mergers..which will happen with other carriers at some point decades down the road... desires additional meetings..they would at least have that right.

and this is just an opinion!

Good point, however it seems AFA wants arbitration via the knee-jerk reaction with lawsuit. Rather then come to the table and discuss/participate they take the hard line immediately only shows they aren't interested in any discussion. Its either their way or no way. They could have looked at what was being discussed, then agreed/disagreed with how things were progressing. They would have looked more well informed rather then the stance they have now. Right now its AFA DOH-Cram-Down or nothing at all. Looks very poor upon AFA.

 

[Dignity]

Good point, however it seems AFA wants arbitration via the knee-jerk reaction with lawsuit. Rather then come to the table and discuss/participate they take the hard line immediately only shows they aren't interested in any discussion. Its either their way or no way. They could have looked at what was being discussed, then agreed/disagreed with how things were progressing. They would have looked more well informed rather then the stance they have now. Right now its AFA DOH-Cram-Down or nothing at all. Looks very poor upon AFA.

it appears mistakes may be happening on both sides in my perspective.

I firmly believe the integration meetings should be proceeding if anything.. the attempt to sit down and come to some sort of conclusion how the list is to be merged(if simply the meetings over a period of time are discussions).. in my opinion it is a mistake not to be doing this today..as I believe seniority is a separate issue..

also regarding representation, another mistake can be.. should management take to their campaign against the same organization the pre-merger Flight Attendants are already affiliated... as you see they are a representative, the actual Flight Attendant makes up the body and the decisions separate from the organization...(in essence what they really will be doing is simply going after the Flight Attendant and not an organization)...should representation be successful the creation of labor problems may arise simply because of that attempt to initially stay out of the process did not happen...and its justified to many they are not fair, and that will absolutely happen to some (regarding their view point) the third time around it is imperative the process just flow..smoothly..and let the majority simply decide what the course will be, either yes, or not at this time..

I think the best situation would be let the process happen without distractions, but of course I doubt that is going to happen...(but I hope it would happen) .

 

[BoeingBoy]

if 50 percent plus 1...

I agree completely - as long as a SOC ruling has been received from the NMB. And it would be nice if representational elections and seniority integration were completely severed. All to often, it seems that the union, company, or both try to stack the deck in their favor and the interests of the affected workers gets lost.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

I agree completely - as long as a SOC ruling has been received from the NMB. And it would be nice if representational elections and seniority integration were completely severed. All to often, it seems, the union, company, or both try to stack the deck in their favor and the interests of the affected workers gets lost.

Jim

Jim,
I think you are exactly right.

 

[1Conehead]

However, there are really two questions posed by the thread title - one hypothetical and one very specific.

- the hypothetical is basically asking whether anyone would vote NO for generic union representation. As we've seen, there are some who would for various reasons.

- the specific question is the one that would actually be voted on - do you (the individual member of a work group) want to be represented by a specific union or not. The specific union might be the AFA for F/A's, IAM for mechanics/ramp, etc.

A bunch of AMTs (including ATL hangar) were pro AMFA until we saw what happened at NW.
We would like a craft union to represent us.But don't agree with general representation.
(my opinion and what i percieve from other AMTs)

 

[Kev3188]

A bunch of AMTs (including ATL hangar) were pro AMFA until we saw what happened at NW.
We would like a craft union to represent us.But don't agree with general representation.
(my opinion and what i percieve from other AMTs)

How would you (in a general sense) combine a craft union's benefits with the strength in numbers of larger unions?

With AMFA not being an option for you guys right now, who would you (you personally) pick and why?

 

[2BlacknBlue]

How would you (in a general sense) combine a craft union's benefits with the strength in numbers of larger unions?

With AMFA not being an option for you guys right now, who would you (you personally) pick and why?

Ditto! Besides AMFA, what other arline has a class and craft organizational body representing them? How much strength do you think that they would have in your field in negotiations with battle-tested RA and Steenland?

IMHO, and considering the players, "no representation" will not be a pallatable option. The Teamsters seem to be the most viable choice. Worked in management with them for 10 years.

2BnB

 

[Dignity]

Const/Bylaws supercede the request for arbitration or not?

mind you please this is only an opinion/question..

had your group voted for representation prior....the majority of 50 percent plus 1 would have accepted the policy and that would satisfy "majority" because that is the only way a successful representation could have occurred...but...that did not happen, the majority opted "not at this time". right now the majority has not accepted representation/policy.

moving forward..

now lets hypothetically say, the majority of your group does not accept representation the third time, but the combined group does satisfy 50 percent plus 1 for representational purposes (both pre-merger groups voting), however, the 40 percent (minority) was the number your group satisfied 50 percent plus 1.. but it was not a majority of your group...if that number stayed less than majority, I tend to believe the majority..if they so choose could challenge or request additional meetings based on that new law enacting arbitration for seniority purposes only (if they asked for it) or they should be able to...that is what I question?

while it appears it is beneficial for your group to accept DOH, I am thinking more along the lines the precedent that will be established that may actually be to the disadvantage of another group another time in the future, allowing a minority number to override the majority even though the majority request arbitration with successful representation/policy.

the precedent is my focus..

the law enabled both groups the right to arbitration based on the omnibus bill that was made law...what my question would be...can a "minority" number in the same group override the "majority" number wishes for additional meetings if so desired? my first thought would be No, according to the new law, or at minimum the right would still be there?

 

[BoeingBoy]

A bunch of AMTs (including ATL hangar) were pro AMFA until we saw what happened at NW.
We would like a craft union to represent us.But don't agree with general representation.
(my opinion and what i percieve from other AMTs)

If I understand correctly, you'd prefer a union that represents only your craft - somewhat rare these days other than the in-house unions. AFA & ALPA are the only multi-carrier unions that come to mind, although there may well be others.

Except for that one twist, I think we're saying basically the same thing. If your choice was the AMFA or no union, you'd probably think about the choice a little more than if your choice was a generic single-craft union (representing only your craft) or no union.

Jim

 

[1Conehead]

If I understand correctly, you'd prefer a union that represents only your craft - somewhat rare these days other than the in-house unions. AFA & ALPA are the only multi-carrier unions that come to mind, although there may well be others.

Except for that one twist, I think we're saying basically the same thing. If your choice was the AMFA or no union, you'd probably think about the choice a little more than if your choice was a generic single-craft union (representing only your craft) or no union.

Jim

Yes, the FAs have their own union,the pilots have their own union,the AMTs would like their own.
No offense to anyone but every group has there own concerns.
There are a lot of folks that think a union that is mostly worried about how many folks that are set up to load an AC will not see their problem of having helpers do their job.