Anti-AFA Delta FA's On US 1549

[Dignity]

this is why I do not support not meeting for seniority integration.. a future precedent is being set..everything that happens today..can be the history another generation will look back to and may use as a guideline..

in this situation both groups apparently will agree..doing the right thing, respecting each groups accrued seniority including training credit.. as it should always be outlined..(that is my personal opinion)

however, a union is attempting to place an election ahead of seniority integration meetings(and that does not mean the list would be combined immediately...the situation would be resolved..and not go into effect until an SOC or contract ratification) there is no reason why we are not meeting together other than in my opinion, a very few individuals.. attempting to use that as leverage...why do I feel that way?

because I personally can only vote on the local level for individuals holding office and do not have the opportunity to vote for those who are holding positions at the executive level.. who are writing these letters (that small group makes those decisions on their own..) while I respect the author of that letter as a colleague.. I did not have an opportunity to vote in order for that individual to hold that executive level office and that is another issue that needs to be addressed.


solely focusing on seniority integration..and using our situation as an example..

a majority of pre-merger DL Flight Attendants are not necessary to secure representation(roughly 40 percent), so it appears 40 percent and of course at least a majority of pre-merger NW.....having an election prior to a seniority meeting could in fact.. silence the majority of a pre-merger group need to seek arbitration should they have found it to be necessary(at a point in the future)...if a minority number of a pre-merger group 40 percent(combined with another pre-merger group majority) silences the 60 percent and is forced to accept a policy of how seniority is to be integrated...

in this situation it is actually to both groups benefit..

however that may not be the case in the future for...another group...the precedent being set is my focus not the fact it appears fair for both groups at this time..

they are basically saying an election must come first, then resolve seniority.. with an arbitration law in 2009 and going forward...

no it does not..

and that is what I do not support.

on this issue alone,

I am beginning to firmly believe(especially after reading that letter) seniority integration and the meeting/resolution should be taken completely out of a unions hands all-together..and have actual Flight Attendant Seniority Integration teams resolve this on their own and then if there is need for resolution otherwise.. rely on the new law..

a wiliness to sit down and meet/discuss is the first step creating a unified group(that is imperative for future success)

 

[1Conehead]

this is why I support meeting for seniority integration.. a future precedent is being set..everything that happens today..can be the history another generation will look back to and may use as a guideline..



I did not have an opportunity to vote in order for that individual to hold that executive level office

having an election prior to a seniority meeting could in fact.. silence the majority of a pre-merger group

fair for both groups at this time..



and that is what I do support.

on this issue alone,

have actual Flight Attendant Seniority Integration teams resolve this on their own a wiliness to sit down and meet/discuss is the first step creating a unified group(that is imperative for future success)

The AMT seniority has been established.
How about a true vote.

 

[jalbalpa]

The AMT seniority has been established because AMFA has no chance of being certified.

 

[1Conehead]

The AMT seniority has been established because AMFA has no chance of being certified.

You would be surprised how many DAL AMTs still support AMFA.
The hard part now is getting an authorization for a vote (since a lot of us won't sign cards because they may become votes).

Contrary to popular belief I support a true vote for representation.

 

[Dignity]

The AMT seniority has been established.

so should the Flight Attendants..

How about a true vote.

I hope that will happen timely..or whenever..

 

[Dignity]

(since a lot of us won't sign cards because they may become votes).

I do not agree with simply signing a card and that is enough to put a union on the property, that is an open door to manipulation (regardless if I am pro-contract) it should not be so simple as to sign a card and 'presto' a union (there should be a process)..

also do not agree with a non vote counting as a 'No' in an election..someone should simply vote Yes or No and the majority rules, if someone chooses not to participate voting then they just simply have forfeited their vote..

um what else?...I dont agree with peanuts on the plane, um...if I can think of more....Ill be sure to let you know! Oh!... nearly 20 year old uniforms I have to wear another month....

 

[dapoes]

also do not agree with a non vote counting as a 'No' in an election..someone should simply vote Yes or No and the majority rules, if someone chooses not to participate voting then they just simply have forfeited their vote..

Realistically, when the group that is being asked to vote (prompted by an outside source), if being ask to do so in order to change the status quo. I don't think you should even have to vote NO at all. IF you want a union, you let your voice be heard. If you don't, then the status quo is satisfactory.

This is done, so that true democracy holds up. A flight attendant who truly wants representation will continue to vote for a union, but when someone who doesn't care about the union gets continually "hassled" by votes, then turnout decreases, making it unfair for one side.

A union preaches fairness, well then you can't get much more fair, and much more democratic than 50% + 1. If you are unable to stimulate a work group enough to get 50% +1, then are you honestly honoring the true word of the flight attendant base by finding ways to reach your numbers.

There's no forcing someone into a voting booth that is already pleased with their airline, their choice to not even give the process a moment of their time says NO loud enough for one to hear all the way over at the G.O.

In a true democracy, everyone has the opportunity to vote and have a voice. You cast a vote, your voice is heard. If you don't cast a vote, there shouldn't be a presumption of what you do want, the presumption is you agree with the status quo and a no vote is registered.

 

[Dignity]

Realistically, when the group that is being asked to vote (prompted by an outside source), if being ask to do so in order to change the status quo . I don't think you should even have to vote NO at all. IF you want a union, you let your voice be heard.

a vote should be either Yes.. you vote or No.. you vote not No you dont vote and it counts as a 'No'...
that is accomplished by an actual vote not just letting your voice be heard..

If you don't, then the status quo is satisfactory.

not necessarily..who deems that satisfactory, the one who does not bother to vote at all?

This is done, so that true democracy holds up.

a true democracy allows all to participate who choose to do so, not affording the same to an individual who outright forfeits

A flight attendant who truly wants representation will continue to vote for a union

not necessarily, that may depend on who is the representative, how effective they have been, if that individual is still willing to continue the same course or try something different, people change their minds, there is no such thing as automatic to continue anything..

but when someone who doesn't care about the union gets continually "hassled" by votes, then turnout decreases, making it unfair for one side.

that is actually irrelevant, if they didnt care to begin with they didnt care after the alledged "hassled" someone who could care less infact..could care less..unless they changed their mind? Nah! they dont care..

A union preaches fairness, well then you can't get much more fair, and much more democratic than 50% + 1.

I believe that is an archaic voting system however it is in place at this time..should be changed however..

If you are unable to stimulate a work group enough to get 50% +1, then are you honestly honoring the true word of the flight attendant base by finding ways to reach your numbers.

to be quite frank, its not human nature to just be a quitter, people just keep trying..regardless of any situation, people should not simply give up? would you not agree?

There's no forcing someone into a voting booth that is already pleased with their airline, their choice to not even give the process a moment of their time says NO loud enough for one to hear all the way over at the G.O.

personally do not believe anyone should be forced to vote, and those who choose not to participate should not have their votes counted at all.

In a true democracy, everyone has the opportunity to vote and have a voice.
You cast a vote, your voice is heard.

agreed

If you don't cast a vote, there shouldn't be a presumption of what you do want, the presumption is you agree with the status quo and a no vote is registered.

No way...(what is that line you have used) oh yeah..."it is what it is"

 

[BABABOOY]

When did it become democratic to require someone to vote one way or the other?

 

[Dignity]

When did it become democratic to require someone to vote one way or the other?

First of all the United States is a democratic republic, in this country we very rarely do anything as one. While it is not a requirement, personally would tend to feel we should take the opportunity to vote on any issue be it government..elections..even in the community..as there was once a time when people had no right to vote on anything, there are still countries today in 2009 some people cannot even speak their mind at all.

the beauty of our country is simply you may not be required but one should definitely appreciate what we have with the ability to actively participate..(it seems that is overlooked or taken for granted at times...)

 

[dapoes]

When did it become democratic to require someone to vote one way or the other?

Exactly!

The burden is upon the union to empower the majority to attain the required votes needed (50+1). It shouldn't be upon the company to defend the status quo against an outside entity only for them (AFA) to cry "interference" when they try to do so.

AFA knows exactly what they are doing with this. If they successfully get the RLA laws changed and the voting procedure the way they want, the process is now "gamed" to achieve victory for them much, much easier. Because if the company says "VOTE NO" then AFA will cry foul, interference etc.

 

[Dignity]

Exactly!

The burden is upon the union to empower the majority to attain the required votes needed (50+1). It shouldn't be upon the company to defend the status quo against an outside entity only for them (AFA) to cry "interference" when they try to do so.

AFA knows exactly what they are doing with this. If they successfully get the RLA laws changed and the voting procedure the way they want, the process is now "gamed" to achieve victory for them much, much easier. Because if the company says "VOTE NO" then AFA will cry foul, interference etc.

where is Dapoes? who are you?

 

[dapoes]

where is Dapoes? who are you?

:bleh:

 

[Dignity]

:bleh:

nevermind.....I should have known!...

I was actually thrilled to see a complete sentence in a post...(didnt last long...)

 

[jalbalpa]

You would be surprised how many DAL AMTs still support AMFA.
The hard part now is getting an authorization for a vote (since a lot of us won't sign cards because they may become votes).

I believe you are referring to the EFCA H.R. 800 or so called "card check" legislation. If so, I urge you to read it as it does not pertain to the airline and railroad industry that follow on the RLA. Only under elections under the NLRA which does not include the airlines and railroads. If you wan't a union sign the authorization card, it will not be counted as a vote...not in this industry anyways!

In a true democracy, everyone has the opportunity to vote and have a voice. You cast a vote, your voice is heard. If you don't cast a vote, there shouldn't be a presumption of what you do want, the presumption is you agree with the status quo and a no vote is registered.

Actually if you don't cast a vote then like you said there shouldn't be a presumption of what you do want therefore you should not presume they agree with the status quo.

This is done, so that true democracy holds up.

Maybe you should watch the hearing from last September again where EVERY member of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee disagreed with this voting method because there is no "democratic theory" that supports this method.

One member of Congress went as far as asking...

"Besides whoary, antiquity, and tradition can you think of any reason to justify this rather unusual and unique system?"

This goes to show you how un-democratic this system really is.

I sugges you watch the hearing again Dapoes, we know you just sit at home all day on your special assignement..."i'm flying" won't fly as an excuse!

http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/h...aspx?NewsID=753

I also invite all of you to view this hearing as it helps you familiarize with the election process under the RLA.