I'm glad things are different at NW then they were when I was an IAM-AW member.
What I was stating earlier was the perception a lot of folks have (not what is neccesarily true) about unions in todays workplace.
Why would you vote NO for a union?
- Thread starter jalbalpa
- Start date
I'm glad things are different at NW then they were when I was an IAM-AW member.
What I was stating earlier was the perception a lot of folks have (not what is neccesarily true) about unions in todays workplace.
what is interesting with perception is simply some will view that more important than actual fact or truth.
how someone perceives an idea or impression may actually form a concrete idea regardless..
it is really not done differently at NW, NW is a combination of several airlines and generation of Flight Attendant from a time when 747 service was hand run, to working minimum crew on a DC9 with a full meal service in First and hot dinner in coach with two Flight Attendants on top of the responsibility of crew duties.
"slacker" is not tolerated because it cannot be or simply the work ethic from prior generations(still flying today) will never allow that to happen. what is unique with our airline is the fact we are worked so often minimum crew, everyone must pull their weight or the job will not be done.
I do believe that level of professionalism exists throughout this industry regarding all flight crews, because with my general observations(traveling on different carriers) I see that level quite often if not predominately all the time...I have noticed in the past DAL flight crews and their service to be exemplary and especially the regional jet flight crew/Flight Attendant on many flights to my hometown and always acknowledged their service with a thank you because the single Flight Attendant in the cabin and their work ethic.
while I completely understand your reasoning Conehead, I tend to believe the majority have a strong work ethic in this industry and if there is any deviation from that... it is isolated to the individual and not a representative.
Airlinelifer
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 333
- Reaction score
- 142
I'm voting to keep the IAM. My union dues are worth paying, because I have a negotiated PENSION that NWA funds, the IAM National Pension Fund (iamnpf.org). Go to the website and look up the employers section and see some the 1700 companies that are funding it. You'll be surprised at the amount of the monthly pension benefit the IAM has negotiated for its members who's companies are participating.
Not to mention the other superior benefits Kev and others have mentioned in many other threads...
PS This question is for all the anti-union rhetoric that's been slung in these threads.
If being a member of a union equals laziness, whats the excuse for a non-union carrier having inferior DOT statistics to a union carrier?
35 years of union paying isn't working for this poor f/a very well or quickly.
Any opinions on how the union is working here?
http://www.twincities.com/ci_11352448
DEAL OFFERED, REJECTED
Courington doesn't know much about Supreme Court rulings or hearings before federal magistrates. She has never been charged with drunken driving — or any other crime, for that matter.
These days, she lives with her 32-year-old daughter and spends Fridays and Saturdays helping out at a friend's hair salon in downtown Minneapolis, answering phones and replacing towels. She's grateful for the hours. But after 36 years in the skies, this wasn't how she expected to wrap up her career.
Last year, she won a brief legal battle with Northwest Airlines to collect unemployment. Those benefits ran out in September. She was unsuccessful in her February arbitration hearing.
Courington said her history with the airline was unblemished before the alcohol screening. During her tenure, she received certificates recognizing 12 years of perfect attendance.
"She was probably one of the best flight attendants they'd ever had," said Scott Goodman, an attorney hired by the flight attendants union to represent Courington at her arbitration hearing. "She had a great record."
The beginning of the end came July 23, 2007, before a scheduled departure. She maintains the tester who handled her breath analysis had less than two months' experience.
A few days after her ordeal, Northwest offered her a way to avoid termination, provided she agreed to be evaluated by a substance abuse professional. She also would have to agree to be screened for alcohol up to six times a year for five years. (In a subsequent offer, the screening period was shortened to three years.)
She also would be placed on probation for the remainder of her career.
Courington smelled a rat.
"If they weren't going to change the testing procedure, then the same thing could easily happen all over again," she said. "It was a set-up. At that point, if I had gone back to work, if I had not dotted an I or crossed a T, I would have been fired, which happens when people sign that letter."
She refused to sign the agreement and was fired in September 2007.
She believes, however, she may have scored a small victory for her co-workers. During her arbitration hearing, she said an airline representative mentioned that the company no longer uses the same machines to screen employees for alcohol use. The Intoxilyzers had been replaced.
Any opinions on how the union is working here?
http://www.twincities.com/ci_11352448
DEAL OFFERED, REJECTED
Courington doesn't know much about Supreme Court rulings or hearings before federal magistrates. She has never been charged with drunken driving — or any other crime, for that matter.
These days, she lives with her 32-year-old daughter and spends Fridays and Saturdays helping out at a friend's hair salon in downtown Minneapolis, answering phones and replacing towels. She's grateful for the hours. But after 36 years in the skies, this wasn't how she expected to wrap up her career.
Last year, she won a brief legal battle with Northwest Airlines to collect unemployment. Those benefits ran out in September. She was unsuccessful in her February arbitration hearing.
Courington said her history with the airline was unblemished before the alcohol screening. During her tenure, she received certificates recognizing 12 years of perfect attendance.
"She was probably one of the best flight attendants they'd ever had," said Scott Goodman, an attorney hired by the flight attendants union to represent Courington at her arbitration hearing. "She had a great record."
The beginning of the end came July 23, 2007, before a scheduled departure. She maintains the tester who handled her breath analysis had less than two months' experience.
A few days after her ordeal, Northwest offered her a way to avoid termination, provided she agreed to be evaluated by a substance abuse professional. She also would have to agree to be screened for alcohol up to six times a year for five years. (In a subsequent offer, the screening period was shortened to three years.)
She also would be placed on probation for the remainder of her career.
Courington smelled a rat.
"If they weren't going to change the testing procedure, then the same thing could easily happen all over again," she said. "It was a set-up. At that point, if I had gone back to work, if I had not dotted an I or crossed a T, I would have been fired, which happens when people sign that letter."
She refused to sign the agreement and was fired in September 2007.
She believes, however, she may have scored a small victory for her co-workers. During her arbitration hearing, she said an airline representative mentioned that the company no longer uses the same machines to screen employees for alcohol use. The Intoxilyzers had been replaced.
To go back to what unions used to be would require employee dedication involvement in the workings of the organization. Today people are either to busy, cant be bothered or just don't give a crap. Look at how hard it is to get quality people to run for office or a simple majority of the membership to vote.
The question, why would someone vote No for a union? Because the union I was being asked to vote for I had no confidence in. I think that has been a good part of why the DAL FA's have failed to join a union up to this point. Put a strong employee oriented organization up for a vote and you might find a very different vote result.
bagboy
Advanced
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 6
I would vote no for a union because here at Delta we enjoy working with part time ratios above 50%. We also enjoy split shifts. If we were to have a union here I would have to come into work once daily for each shift scheduled. I don't think that is what is best for Delta.
what I find interesting is simply you state people cannot be bothered or simply do not care and then state with a very broad assumption the reason why they do not vote is simply no confidence? how is it that someone/majority does not care at the same time even consider confidence? would they simply just not care at all? how does one have confidence in anything for that matter, if they simply could care less?
The conclusion would have to be they have either lost confidence that one can help restore or simply concluded...they dont care at all..(I would hope that is not the case) however if you believe that a majority do not care, then it does not matter who the organization may be...
but then you stated it is what you believed to be the case..by stating "I had no confidence in", that is a personal opinion. fact of the matter we really do not know why people do what they do or the reasons. I would like to at least believe(for myself) that majority of people may feel it is not necessary than simply..."dont give a crap"....however that just may be the case and that is tragic, because personally I care!
I believe most people have a great deal of confidence in their crew and craft, the unfortunate reality regarding our industry is so many factors...fuel, economy, and so on..the devastating downturn in the industry, bankruptcies....plays such a significant part regarding the success of business and can sometimes be the deterrent to show meaningful gain in the short term..
This industry is cyclical, there is a much bigger picture.
Have a great day.
Kev3188
Veteran
This a common misconception, and I'm glad you brought it up. A couple of things: First, you have the RIGHT to union representation. If you choose to forgo it (and I would never recommend that), that's your choice. Second, being represented does not preclude you from talking to your manager/foreman/etc. about day to day issues.
These two items are a good start.
35 years of union paying isn't working for this poor f/a very well or quickly.
Any opinions on how the union is working here?
Let's see item one,
"She was probably one of the best flight attendants they'd ever had," said Scott Goodman, an attorney hired by the flight attendants union to represent Courington at her arbitration hearing. "She had a great record." , didn't do her much good as "She was unsuccessful in her February arbitration hearing." and then "Last year, she won a brief legal battle with Northwest Airlines to collect unemployment. Those benefits ran out in September."
Long time to be without any income.
Then item two,
She believes, however, she may have scored a small victory for her co-workers. During her arbitration hearing, she said an airline representative mentioned that the company no longer uses the same machines to screen employees for alcohol use. The Intoxilyzers had been replaced. That's nice if she wants to be a martyr, but then there is this; But after 36 years in the skies, this wasn't how she expected to wrap up her career.
I don't know Kev if these "two items were a good start" or not. You know as well as me that she lost everything by not retiring from her 36 year career. This has been going on for two years. With all the feet dragging and if this were me, and the union got my job back it would be too late, I'd be ruined by now. jmo
Don Smith
Veteran
17 years with nwa. North of $8,000 paid in union dues. Bounced to the street because my own ethics prevented me from crossing a picket line (in hindsight, I'm grateful). I'm not the poster child for unionism although I've had to defend my union many times in many threads on these forums.
There are lots of factors to consider in voting for union representation and given some of the things that are shaking out at Delta I have to say, vote yes for the union representation. It doesn't matter what working group you are from, you need it. Read this article from Aviation Week:
http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.j...mp;channel=comm
Doug Steenland now on the Delta Board. Richard Anderson is your CEO. Many other nwa upper nwa management given jobs with Delta. You people are heading for lower wages, tighter work rules, more decisions from the ivory towers at Delta that directly will affect your happiness. Don't believe for a minute when management comes (and they will come to you) telling you that "hard" decisions must be made, "Tough" choices have to be made and they have the employees best interest at heart. This is not truth. There is one guiding principle in the management at nwa and now at Delta...a constantly increasing balance sheet meaning more money for the investors and board members. Then you find yourselves out of a job with a large number of your co-workers. I'm not saying it won't happen if you have a union but if there is a contract, then you have at least a warning and a few months to prepare.
Happy New Year to all of my friends on the US Aviation message boards. I'm still reading.
There are lots of factors to consider in voting for union representation and given some of the things that are shaking out at Delta I have to say, vote yes for the union representation. It doesn't matter what working group you are from, you need it. Read this article from Aviation Week:
http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.j...mp;channel=comm
Doug Steenland now on the Delta Board. Richard Anderson is your CEO. Many other nwa upper nwa management given jobs with Delta. You people are heading for lower wages, tighter work rules, more decisions from the ivory towers at Delta that directly will affect your happiness. Don't believe for a minute when management comes (and they will come to you) telling you that "hard" decisions must be made, "Tough" choices have to be made and they have the employees best interest at heart. This is not truth. There is one guiding principle in the management at nwa and now at Delta...a constantly increasing balance sheet meaning more money for the investors and board members. Then you find yourselves out of a job with a large number of your co-workers. I'm not saying it won't happen if you have a union but if there is a contract, then you have at least a warning and a few months to prepare.
Happy New Year to all of my friends on the US Aviation message boards. I'm still reading.
2BlacknBlue
Senior
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 327
- Reaction score
- 47
Amen Don...and I love your avatar pic.
And with your avatar pic, let's move along those same lines. Did anyone notice how, and it didn't really matter which redesign, that Delta always included the red and blue within the widget? Blue for the complacent and apathetic and the red for the awareness of what's really going on around you. Most DL employees seem to opt for the blue. Didja' notice that the new Delta widget contains all red (from the NWA moniker) and presents a new reality for the DL workers. Didja' notice how both contain a MR. ANDERSON?
sometimes in life things happen and we just dont know why? you can be a fair and honest person, try to do the right thing and then it seems the rug is pulled out from under you and there is no explanation why? why does these things happen to good people? it is because there is a purpose for everything that happens to each and every one of us, regardless if we eventually or never fully understand why...
I did not know this woman's story and after reading this article.. I am very proud of her.
I am proud of her because she said....No...No I am not going to sign that paper..(and her excellent work record is probably the only reason why there was any deal on the table at all)...she believes she is right, she understands the consequences of standing up for what she believes to be the right thing to do...and with all that had to be considered she still stood her ground and said. No.
what I learned from her story is simply,
she is not pointing fingers and blaming someone else, she is not trying to hold someone else accountable for her decision, she is not going to allow someone/anyone to intimidate her and agree to something she obviously feels is not right. she is going to be strong and not settle for anything less..and stand by her decision and continue to fight for what she believes in..
she is a very strong woman.
when you are faced with a decision in your life and once it is made, you stand by it, you dont blame someone else, dont point your finger and attempt to shuffle the burden on someone else because they may or may have not supported you, you do not allow someone to intimidate you for standing your ground even if they feel they are right and you..are wrong. do not allow your personal honor to be taken away and attempt to blame someone else for standing and believing what you feel to be true... even if the outcome seems unfair to you...
there are many valuable lessons that can be learned from her story, and I am sure it is not completely over for her..
she stood her ground and she is going to be fine, whatever higher power above is going to make sure of that, if she is right, she is going to be ok.
May be true now but when i was called in for running (pretty silly if you ask me ,but a safety issue) my foreman and IAM-AW rep. both said the rep. had to be there.
Had one of them let me have the choice I would have went alone (I don't need a witness for my spankin').
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Like some others, I've worked where there was a union and where there wasn't, although the nonunion outfit was small. As some others have also said, I wouldn't want to work in this industry without union representation.
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.
In the second case, there could be those who would like union representation but for whatever reason don't want the specific union shown on the ballot to be that representative - at least for now. For instance, many DL F/A's might like union representation but don't want the AFA because of it's strict DOH merger policy. They may see no representation as the better choice for the short term as it insures the merging of F/A lists by negotiation and arbitration if necessary, with an election in a couple of years bringing the AFA in. [I used the DL F/A's as an example only since I have no idea how a DOH integration would affect them]
Jim
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.
In the second case, there could be those who would like union representation but for whatever reason don't want the specific union shown on the ballot to be that representative - at least for now. For instance, many DL F/A's might like union representation but don't want the AFA because of it's strict DOH merger policy. They may see no representation as the better choice for the short term as it insures the merging of F/A lists by negotiation and arbitration if necessary, with an election in a couple of years bringing the AFA in. [I used the DL F/A's as an example only since I have no idea how a DOH integration would affect them]
Jim
if 50 percent plus 1 is needed for representation, that simply means a majority of one group and a "minority" of another combined will satisfy the necessary criteria to reach that number.
a majority number of one pre-merger group, and a minority number of another pre-merger group combined.. actually silences the majority of the group who may indeed request arbitration by allowing the minority of that same group to override the ...majority wishes.
its like this..
80 percent of one pre merger group opts for representation and DOH policy...40 percent of the other pre merger group opts for representation and DOH policy, 60 percent of that same group considers however still maintain the right to arbitration if needed..the law allows both pre merger groups the right to arbitration, how is it that 40 percent minority and those numbers make the final determination, if the actual majority (60 percent) differs or at minimum does not support the policy?
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.
