Why would you vote NO for a union?

[1Conehead]

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?

In my opinion AMFA had a great idea,they just couldn't get everyone together at the same time.

As to your 2nd question you know ( from my prev posts) how I feel about the IAM.
The TWU in my opinion is for truckers/frieght people.
I am open to others please give me info and i may help start a card drive.
As for the Teamsters I put them in the same cat. as the TWU.

 

[tech2101]

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?

It does not matter what name, label, you put on the the union. If you have pitiful turnout in elections (like has been the case in all recent AMT related cases), you might as well put the union dues into your pocket for a rainy day fund. (It is raining now)

You and I both know, until there is some new blood to take over these failed unions, workers will continue their backward slide. Eight years of anti-union political party antics, along with the specializing of corporate greed, have created a perfect storm against which unions must fight.

When you have guys like Southwind, who follow the code of "at least I have a job", you have a tough task...

 

[UAL_TECH]

It does not matter what name, label, you put on the the union. If you have pitiful turnout in elections (like has been the case in all recent AMT related cases), you might as well put the union dues into your pocket for a rainy day fund. (It is raining now)

You and I both know, until there is some new blood to take over these failed unions, workers will continue their backward slide. Eight years of anti-union political party antics, along with the specializing of corporate greed, have created a perfect storm against which unions must fight.

When you have guys like Southwind, who follow the code of "at least I have a job", you have a tough task...

Well said! If you get a union and do not participate, it will not matter which union you get (although I think the IBT would be ‘the’ worst way to go).
When I was handing out flyers (in my AMFA days) for a Labor Day rally in SFO, I had an IAM Shop Steward complain that we should not have a rally on a holiday…??? The rally was on ‘Labor Day’!

IMHO, it will take a further regression of pay and benefits of all workers before they wake up and realize that the ‘corporation’ does not care about them. When people are back to 80 hour work weeks, no vacation, sick time, no OJI, and making dirt, then they may care, but I doubt it.

B) xUT

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'll second both of you - it's the members that make the union and not the union that makes the members, no matter what the union's name is.

I suspect that in today's environment (not the economy but the "Your airline's suffering is my airline's, and thus my, gain" mentality of too many employees) an in-house union would have the best chance of member participation and the added benefit of only answering to one employee group.

Jim

 

[LCC_#1]

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.

The AFA DOH policy is by the National AFA, which makes up ALL the airlines represented by AFA. The policy would have to be changed by the vote of the various airlines in AFA. THAT, my friend WILL NOT HAPPEN!! This is a policy representing the viewpoint of it's membership and the majority is FOR DOH!!! Lil ole DAL will fall big on this one. If you don't like the policy, don't vote for AFA, but there isn't a f/a in AFA that will side with DAL. It IS our way or nothing, It has worked wonderfully for the many merged carriers with few problems. You call it looking poor on AFA. I call it looking poor on the DAL f/a's who somehow think they are special. Those are the terms, like it or not.

 

[dapoes]

This is where you are wrong. The AFA DOH policy is by the National AFA, which makes up ALL the airlines represented by AFA. The policy would have to be changed by the vote of the various airlines in AFA. THAT, my friend WILL NOT HAPPEN!! This is a policy representing the viewpoint of it's membership and the majority is FOR DOH!!! Lil ole DAL will fall big on this one. The AWA f/a's attempted to change it when they felt they were getting screwed and the AFA shot them down FAST!! If you don't like the policy, don't vote for AFA, but there isn't a f/a in AFA that will side with DAL. It IS our way or nothing, It has worked wonderfully for the many merged carriers with few problems. You call it looking poor on AFA. I call it looking poor on the DAL f/a's who somehow think they are special. Those are the terms, like it or not.

Interesting, so if the AFA is made up of FA's, then those FA's that are to be affected, have no choice ala cram-down? Sounds contradictory to the rhetoric they have been spewing in the past. Any policy's should be made from the group that is affected, not the entire body as a whole. Isn't that what the AFA always say (lies) to us? WE get to decide?

 

[Dignity]

It IS our way or nothing

that is exactly what the Omnibus Bill is supposed to prevent...a "policy" regardless if I agree with it or not will ultimately determine the final word without any recourse to arbitration should a pre-merger group "majority" (that was not represented and held to a policy) feel the need for additional meetings are necessary..

keep in mind the majority at DAL have never agreed to representation or that policy. now had they opted for representation on their own by a majority (50 percent plus 1)..but it did not happen.... or if a majority of their group (solely their group) opts for representation during the combined representing election, this may be not an issue as the majority(on both sides) have spoken....but!... if a minority opts for representation(50 percent less 1) and the combined group successfully gains representation only by the combination of numbers(majority of one pre-merger group and minority number of another). I believe by simply not having the majority.. number, the right to arbitration is still a recourse(if so desired and especially if the representative and agreement of a policy was not in force prior to an election)...now if the majority of one group and the majority of the other group(both groups numbers each 50 percent plus 1) satisfying majority for both...this is not an issue.

its really not about this issue soley, its the bigger picture, allowing a policy to once again supercede it all...and that does not always mean DOH or could be... and it could also show some others can write what they feel is in their best interest and then have that policy upheld by a precedent set.. at some time in the future.

hey I get it, I probably would agree on most issues, but this one(based on the new law) it may need some further clarification(especially if a minority number of a pre-merger group opts for representation), and furthermore, we never want to be so arrogant to even believe its only one way, because that is just not the way life operates in general..

I actually understand what you are writing and appreciate it, and you know I am not even saying what I have written is anything other than just a simple opinion on a message forum, or simply just another way to look at a situation from a different perspective..

Have a great day.

 

[Dignity]

have no choice ala cram-down?

in life we all have choices, this situation is no exception.

 

[dapoes]

in life we all have choices, this situation is no exception.

Huh? I think you are missing my point Dig. They (AFA) says that we the FA's, have a voice to make the rules that affect us. However now they say different. So which is it? We do or we don't?

 

[Dignity]

We do or we don't?

well its like this Dapoes..

in life I can choose to get up at at 0600, put the dog on the leash and go for a run in the cool brisk morning and fit into my uniform...or I can make a choice to eat a piece of that decadent rich delicious chocolate cake, with a rich and delicious topping and then go back and finish the rest of it(even though I will be sick for three days and will not fit in my uniform at...all) I make those choices, and sometimes they are good and some times they could be better, but in the end I choose them all...choices.

as in life..same rule applies in this situation.

I have never once felt required to have anything forced upon me with a contract or representation. I have not only the ability to say yes or no, I also will and do question decisions, and if I do or do not agree will make that choice according...choices.

when I say that this situation is no different it is because of exactly that...

by the way,
!!!OMG that cake was g-o-o-o-o-o-o-d.

 

[dapoes]

well its like this Dapoes..

in life I can choose to get up at at 0600, put the dog on the leash and go for a run in the cool brisk morning and fit into my uniform...or I can make a choice to eat a piece of that decadent rich delicious chocolate cake, with a rich and delicious topping and then go back and finish the rest of it(even though I will be sick for three days and will not fit in my uniform at...all) I make those choices, and sometimes they are good and some times they could be better, but in the end I choose them all...choices.

as in life..same rule applies in this situation.

I have never once felt required to have anything forced upon me with a contract or representation. I have not only the ability to say yes or no, I also will and do question decisions, and if I do or do not agree will make that choice according...choices .

when I say that this situation is no different it is because of exactly that...

by the way,
!!!OMG that cake was g-o-o-o-o-o-o-d.

Thats great Dig, but you are still missing the point. They (AFA) say the biggest benefit of why we need them is that "we" have the power to make the "rules". But then there seems to be some "rules" that are decided by others irregardless of what the FA group has to say about it. Seems a bit contradictory.

 

[Dignity]

Thats great Dig, but you are still missing the point. They say the biggest benefit of why we need them is that "we" have the power to make the "rules". But then there seems to be some "rules" that are decided by others irregardless of what the FA group has to say about it. Seems a bit contradictory.

my personal opinion is the ability to have an actual voice and actively participate in the process.. far outweighs any perception. I feel there is a need for clarification on some issues.

all I can do is share how I perceive this situation and to be quite honest your opinion is entirely yours, you can make the decision for yourself when the time comes should you feel there is a need or not.

I will say honestly state.. I have a choice and feel part of the processes while maintaining good work relationships with my colleagues and my manager and still have the protection of having it all in writing (for the betterment of the group and our chosen profession) and look forward to meeting and working side by side with my new co-workers at the world's largest airline.

now, excuse me while I go run with the dog to the park for the rest of the day into the week!

do you want me to send you the recipe for the cake?

 

[BoeingBoy]

that is exactly what the Omnibus Bill is supposed to prevent...a "policy" regardless if I agree with it or not will ultimately determine the final word without any recourse to arbitration should a pre-merger group "majority" (that was not represented and held to a policy) feel the need for additional meetings are necessary..

A while back in another thread I raised the possibility that the DL/NW merger could end up being the test cast that fleshed out the parameters of when the new law governs seniority integrations. As nothing but a layman with absolutely no legal training, it seems to me that the "covered transaction" (the law doesn't use the term merger) has already occurred so the law has already been triggered. It appears that the AFA (and possibly other unions) disagree, and it may be a judge that decides who's right.

FWIW, a union doesn't need the votes of 50%+1 of the members of a craft/class to win a representational election. As long as 50%+1 of eligible voters cast a valid ballot (either for or against the union) a simple majority of votes cast determines the outcome. So it's possible that a union could win the representational election based on the vote of just over 25% of eligible voters.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

a judge that decides who's right.

Jim

you are probably correct, that is exactly how it will more than likely eventually be settled.

 

[LCC_#1]

Listen guys, spin it all you want to make yourself feel better. The majority of AFA member out on the line could care less if DAL or the NEW DAL EVER joins AFA. We have spent way TOO much money trying to bring you into the fold. If you think for one moment ANYONE will listen to your self serving pleas to change the DOH policy ESPECIALLY after being rejected, what 3 times...you are fooling yourself. Infact, you will go down HARD and be laughed right out of the AFA offices. You would be the new kids on the block and will have NO POWER! You made your bed. Now lay in it. My advice is to NOT vote for AFA and continue to sponge off of the work AFA does in Congress and continue to get your increases when unions threaten to come on the property! The crumbs have worked before. Why not now? This AFA member doesn't want you. PLEASE vote NO. Keep AFA OUR AFA!!!