Why would you vote NO for a union?

[dapoes]

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!!!

Really? You mean AFA really doesnt want the $6.4 mill in annual dues to fill their coffers after all? Outstanding! Sounds good to me!

 

[Dignity]

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

but they would need at least 50 percent plus 1 of the total numbers to actually secure representation...so if there are 8000 employees, and 4000 plus 1..(4001) is necessary for successful representation and certification, how does 2000 employees satisfy that? unless you are referring to two seperate groups combining 50 percent plus 1... instead of one sole group? sorta of like 20000 employees combining and needing 10000 plus 1, but it does not require 50 percent participation on one side as long as the total combination of numbers equals at least 10001?

 

[Dignity]

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!!!

That is a personal opinion.. what you meant to say is "you could care less"..?....I personally do not think this is any reflection as a whole of an association/airline employee group, but more so.. an isolated opinion from someone who has retaliatory views/comments because of a button campaign regarding not to support a previous merger attempt and posted by an associated individual?

 

[Dignity]

Sounds good to me!

Oh the cake receipe, and you if dont want to make it you can always pick up one at the grocery deli/bakery..yum!

 

[BoeingBoy]

but they would need at least 50 percent plus 1 of the total numbers to actually secure representation...so if there are 8000 employees, and 4000 plus 1..(4001) is necessary for successful representation and certification, how does 2000 employees satisfy that?

My mistake - I was thinking of the US pilot's situation where two unions were on the ballot. In the case of two unions competing, one could win the election with 25%+1 of eligible voters selecting it.

You're basically correct when only one union is on the ballot - the NMB rules state that a majority of eligible voters must vote for representation (the 50%+1). That could include write-in votes for representation by individuals or organizations not on the ballot, so the winning union doesn't have to get all 50 %+1 votes to win but only needs the majority of votes.

In theory a union could still win by getting the vote of only a little over 25% of eligible voters even when it was the only union listed on the ballot, but that would mean 25% of eligible voters wrote in another choice for representation - not very likely.

To quote from the NMB's representational manual:

If there is a majority of votes for representation generally, the organization or individual receiving a majority of votes cast for representation will be certified as the representative even if that individual or organization did not receive votes from a majority of the craft or class.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

You're basically correct when only one union is on the ballot - the NMB rules state that a majority of eligible voters must vote for representation (the 50%+1). That could include write-in votes for representation by individuals or organizations not on the ballot, so the winning union doesn't have to get all 50 %+1 votes to win but only needs the majority of votes.



Jim

but the total number would still have to be 50 percent plus 1 of the group in order for an intitial election or a combination of two pre-merger groups in order to successfully certify?

now if the group wanted to vote for another association at another time(after successful representation) they could then opt to transfer to another association by a majority vote with duel names on the ballot/write in and that number could be 25 percent reflecting the majority in that case?

 

[BoeingBoy]

but the total number would still have to be 50 percent plus 1 of the group in order for an intitial election or a combination of two pre-merger groups in order to successfully certify?

No, not really although in a practical sense it would be basically true. Using your earlier number of 8,000 eligible voters, 4,001 would have to vote for representation - any representation. So if only 2 of the 4,001 voters wrote in another union (IAM for a wild choice) and 3,999 voted for AFA, AFA would win even though they got less than 50%+1 of the group to vote for them.

For a wildly unlikely scenerio, take the above but this time split the 4,001 votes into 2,000 write-ins for a union other than the AFA and 2,001 for the AFA. AFA would win by virtue of getting the majority of votes for representation even though they got only 25% + 1 of the eligible voters to vote for them. So in theory it's possible for a union to win a representational election with the votes of only 25% + 1 of eligible voters even when that union is the only one on the ballot - it's just highly unlikely.

now if the group wanted to vote for another association at another time(after successful representation) they could then opt to transfer to another association by a majority vote with duel names on the ballot/write in and that number could be 25 percent reflecting the majority in that case?

That was the case with the US pilots - ALPA and USAPA were both on the ballot so a majority of votes for representation determined the winner - as few as 25% + 1 of eligible voters. In the US case, it wasn't that close - there was something like 500 votes difference between ALPA and USAPA - but it's possible for one vote to affect the outcome.

Jim

 

[Dignity]

No, not really although in a practical sense it would be basically true. Using your earlier number of 8,000 eligible voters, 4,001 would have to vote for representation - any representation. So if only 2 of the 4,001 voters wrote in another union (IAM for a wild choice) and 3,999 voted for AFA, AFA would win even though they got less than 50%+1 of the group to vote for them.

For a wildly unlikely scenerio, take the above but this time split the 4,001 votes into 2,000 write-ins for a union other than the AFA and 2,001 for the AFA. AFA would win by virtue of getting the majority of votes for representation even though they got only 25% + 1 of the eligible voters to vote for them. So in theory it's possible for a union to win a representational election with the votes of only 25% + 1 of eligible voters even when that union is the only one on the ballot - it's just highly unlikely.


Jim

that is a very interesting way to look at it...I was under the impression that in order to call an election 35 percent plus 1 cards was necessary?.. and in order to certify the election by the NMB it was required to have 50 percent plus 1 not necessarily from all eligible voters but 50 percent plus 1 in favor of a particular association.
to me it seems if less than 49 percent voted for one, 1 percent wrote in and 50 percent did not participate at all (basically No) no one would be certified because the 50 percent plus one requirement was never satisfied as no one would have received the number needed.

so an association can be officially certified with 49 percent as long as 50 percent plus 1 participates actually casting a vote..

thank you for the information.

however, but for seniority integration purposes and the newly enacted law/asking for arbitration, to me it would seem if 49 percent supported the association/policy that would not be the majority of the total number of the group, and still allowing 51 percent the right arbitration(if they so choose) being the actual majority (which is the issue I am seeking clarification) while appreciating all information acquired along the way..

 

[BoeingBoy]

that is a very interesting way to look at it...I was under the impression that in order to call an election 35 percent plus 1 cards was necessary?.. and in order to certify the election by the NMB it was required to have 50 percent plus 1 not necessarily from all eligible voters but 50 percent plus 1 in favor of a particular association.

The number of authorization cards depends on the situation - if the group is already represented it takes 50% + 1 I think (the US ALPA vs USAPA case). In all other cases, it's the 35% - that was the case when AFA got the pre-merger election at DL. Where representation is different for the two groups in a merger, I'm not sure but think it's 35%. I know that one craft/class in the US/HP merger was represented by the IAM on the US side and someone else on the HP side - may have been the rampers. IIRC, the IAM initially asked to be certified CBA because it represented more than 50% of the combined members of the craft/class but seems like the NMB required an election.

I believe that if less than 50% + 1 of eligible voters actually cast a ballot, there is no CBA elected - basically, the majority has said that they don't want representation by not casting a ballot. So the first step is crossing the 50% + 1 of eligible voters casting a vote threshold. Next, 50% + 1 of eligible voters must vote for representation - it doesn't have to be the union listed on the ballot since write-ins are allowed. If 60% of eligible voters cast a ballot but 1/4 the votes are for no representation (leaving only 45% of eligible voters voting for representation), there is no CBA elected. Assuming that threshold is crossed, it just requires the majority of votes cast to determine the CBA (with runoff elections possible when multiple unions are on the ballot and none get the majority).

Of course, this is all subject to change if the law working it's way through Congress passes. It would eliminate the secret ballot and just use the authorization cards to determine the outcome. To me, that seems a bad way to go - either the union seeking to be the CBA, the company, or both could attempt to "rig" the process by getting employees to fill out cards in the presence of a union official or company manager.

Jim

 

[Guinness767]

Just a question for the afa rah-rah's: How are the prior PanAm, Northeast, and Western f/a's figured into a date of hire merger of the lists? Do they get their original hire dates with their old companies or do they get their hire dates with dal? Makes a dig difference in where they sit does it not?

 

[dapoes]

Just a question for the afa rah-rah's: How are the prior PanAm, Northeast, and Western f/a's figured into a date of hire merger of the lists? Do they get their original hire dates with their old companies or do they get their hire dates with dal? Makes a dig difference in where they sit does it not?

I would be inclined to think that whatever DOH they currently have would be the one used. I don't think DOH would be retroactive to prior carriers. Maybe someone else can clarify as well.

ps "AFA rah-rah's"...now that's funny!

 

[Guinness767]

I would be inclined to think that whatever DOH they currently have would be the one used. I don't think DOH would be retroactive to prior carriers. Maybe someone else can clarify as well.

ps "AFA rah-rah's"...now that's funny!

Since they were not merged by doh previously how would it be done? If say a pan am f/a got hired by dal in 91 but was merged with dal in a ratio what happens when afa wants to put everyone by date of hire? Do ALL pan am f/a's become dec 91 hires on the new list? How do you merge a ratio list with a date of hire list all by date of hire? I don't see how you can merge dal with nwa by date of hire without hosing the previously acquired groups.

 

[dapoes]

Do ALL pan am f/a's become dec 91 hires on the new list?

Yes I believe that in your example it would remain the same. They would be merged into the same numerical DOH or dec 91.

 

[Dignity]

Since they were not merged by doh previously how would it be done? If say a pan am f/a got hired by dal in 91 but was merged with dal in a ratio what happens when afa wants to put everyone by date of hire? Do ALL pan am f/a's become dec 91 hires on the new list? How do you merge a ratio list with a date of hire list all by date of hire? I don't see how you can merge dal with nwa by date of hire without hosing the previously acquired groups.

well....I stand corrected but I believe...
there actually was a time when government guaranteed labor protections were in place from the early 1930's through 1985(it was also considered Period 1) the government protection for airline workers goes back to the "New Deal era" as the time went by airlines were regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Act to petition the right to merge with other airlines. a part of that approval process LPP began enforcement...they are "Labor Protective Provisions"...I believe it was in the early 1960's the United-Capital merger further enhanced this..and then was further refined in the Allegheny-Mohawk case.

after the 1970's the term "Standard LPP" and "Allegheny-Mohawk LPP" one part of the Standard LPP that guarantee that seniority lists would be combined in a fair and equitable manner, the right to health benefits if someone was furloughed, ext.. LPP's were enforced a little over 40 times and they applied to all operational transactions be it..mergers..acquisition or asset sales...

then the industry was deregulated in 1978...but some LPP were continued to be enforced after deregulation..in the Hughes-Air west and Continental-Texas International in the early 1980's during Period 2 and that is roughly the years 1985-2001 that is when privatizing and eliminating Labor Protection by the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act..it basically dissolved workers rights during airlines mergers in a deregulated environment..and in 1985 Elizabeth Dole, the then DOT Secretary she intervened and upheld managments position withholding LPP in the Midway-Air Florida, the United-Pan Am asset transfer and I believe Southwest-Muse? even though the DOT refusal to grant and enforce LPP after 1985, the majority of transactions still continued to abeit by "fairness and equitability" those mergers were TWA-Ozark, NWA-RAL, DAL-WAL in the 80's, and then the United-Pan Am Pacific route purchase and DAL-Pan Am Atlantic route purchase, and they were handled by either DOH or slotted by a neutral arbitrator...

So Guinness, prior to 1978 the government handled integration, and in Period 2 specifically DAL-WAL, DAL-Pan Am were decided by an arbitrator, so you tell me who is going to fix that? its all binding. and that is why it was so important to have as much protection in writing especially during Period 2 when the industry was deregulated..

Period 3 is now 2001-present and that is now the return of government protection specifically the Omnibus bill that recently became law because of exactly what happened with the AA-TWA Flight Attendant staple...

this is just a brief summary....and no one at nwa hosed anyone or wants too...and if it was up to me everyone would have their original hire date, as most of us are good people.

Have a nice evening.

 

[tech2101]

???