Delta FAs File For AFA-CWA Election !

[justanadd]

What you don't factor in there is how many NW flight attendants now want AFA off the property, for instance, most of DTW.

Not true - there maybe a few unhappy with AFA but willing to give up union representation NO WAY!!

And that AFA gave up relocation costs in the last contract that they shoved down everyone's throats...

NOT True

Payment For Involuntary Transfer
25
26 The provisions of paragraph A.1., above, shall be applicable only in the event the Flight Attendant
27 actually moves to and establishes his/her permanent residence within a one hundred and fifty (150) mile
28 radius of the airport terminal at his/her new base within a period of one (1) year from the date of
29 involuntary transfer. This one (1) year period may be extended by mutual agreement between the Vice
30 President, Inflight Services, and the Union MEC President, or their designees.
31
32 g. Base Closure Provision
33
34 In the event of a base closure, the provisions of paragraph A.1., above, shall be applicable only in the
35 event the Flight Attendant actually moves to and establishes his/her permanent residence within a one
36 hundred fifty (150) mile radius of the airport terminal at his/her new base within a period of one (1) year
37 from the date of closure of his/her base. This one (1) year period may be extended by mutual agreement
38 between the Vice President, Inflight Services and the Union MEC President, or their designees.

So, when it comes down to a vote as to union or no union, don't be surprised if enough of the NWA flight attendants see through the AFA shroud and say that enough is enough. Time will tell

And give up our scope protections? Wishful thinking!!

 

[North by Northwest]

Automatic DOH...no ifs, maybes, or else.

 

[Nor'Easta]

Automatic DOH...no ifs, maybes, or else.

You and I know this...

But, Aislehopper can't comprehend it.

 

[aislehopper]

Hi Aislehopper,
I've noticed you've been lurking and not posting.

snipped

Aislehopper, I am willing to bury the hatchet and be civil but let's have a discussion on the merits and not on who is gaming who next, etc...
Let's operate from the point of casting this very important vote coming up.

I believe that different people can look at the same set of facts and come up with completely different answers based on their individual analysis of the facts. There are intelligent people on both sides of this issue. Those on this message board who are constantly using terms like "Kool -Aid" and "grow up" are either simply incurious or are letting other people do their thinking for them.

On the anti-afa side, it is easy to look at the afa's track record and the record of organized labor in general since 9-11 and come to a completely different conclusion about whether we need to be unionized. If you look at labor across the board in our country, it is shrinking. IIRC, less than 8% of the private sector is unionized, and where it is unionized, it tends to be clusters like in the transportation industry. I have OAL friends who I trust that are not at all happy with their afa representation and who say that electing the afa would be a mistake.

Now, I am not interested in opening a debate on all of the above issues. I mention these points solely to show that there is a set of facts out there that supports the decision that unionization is not in our best interest, and those who do not want a union can base it on something other than "Kool-Aid."

Sometimes it is best to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Nor'Easta]

using terms like "Kool -Aid"

and those who do not want a union

1. In your case, its Delta-Aid (Delta Management is whipping up a new batch for you)

2. Get ready to be at the bottom of the seniority list. BTW, the new law will not help you without a union.

 

[aislehopper]

[quote name='Nor'Easta' post='573636' date='Feb 17 2008, 10:31 PM']1. In your case, its Delta-Aid (Delta Management is whipping up a new batch for you)

2. Get ready to be at the bottom of the seniority list. BTW, the new law will not help you without a union. [/quote]


"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
~Martin Luther King Jr.~

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

I believe that different people can look at the same set of facts and come up with completely different answers based on their individual analysis of the facts. There are intelligent people on both sides of this issue. Those on this message board who are constantly using terms like "Kool -Aid" and "grow up" are either simply incurious or are letting other people do their thinking for them.

On the anti-afa side, it is easy to look at the afa's track record and the record of organized labor in general since 9-11 and come to a completely different conclusion about whether we need to be unionized. If you look at labor across the board in our country, it is shrinking. IIRC, less than 8% of the private sector is unionized, and where it is unionized, it tends to be clusters like in the transportation industry. I have OAL friends who I trust that are not at all happy with their afa representation and who say that electing the afa would be a mistake.

Now, I am not interested in opening a debate on all of the above issues. I mention these points solely to show that there is a set of facts out there that supports the decision that unionization is not in our best interest, and those who do not want a union can base it on something other than "Kool-Aid."

Sometimes it is best to agree to disagree and move on.

Actually, organized labor started declining in this country long before 9/11. But ever since Bush (Jr.) took over, we the people, have seen the gap between rich and poor grow wider and wider. We have seen CEO's pay incrase 500% while worker's salaries stayed flat.
This is not acceptable. And of course, is a much broader issue than Delta and its FA group voting on AFA.
However, the upcoming Pres. election/new Administration notwithstanding, I see a great need to return to worker's rights and collective bargaining.
I notice that you use "union" and AFA interchangeably. In other words, you fault AFA for being a weak, nonresponsive union yet from what I gather in your writings, you would not be for any union. It's like the protective father who doesn't like ANY young man his daughter brings home to meet him. It's just that this one young man, AFA to you, is the one she (the DL FA activist group) keeps bring by so that's the one you find the most fault with. Nothing "he" does would please you. And anything he proposes to you is worthless, ignorant, needless, etc...
You may never like AFA (the daughter's beau), but to say he is a loser all around is just prejudicial. I respect your decision to vote no, but I would respect it more, if you at least admitted that those who went before you, unionized f/a's in the 50s/60s/70s helped bring about the changes that you now take for granted in your career. Most of these f/a's were part of ALSSA (Airline Stewardess and Steward Assn., before it was renamed AFA). I guess what I dislike most about your postings and I think the reason you are labeled a KoolAid drinker is because you don't show any appreciation or respect for those who have fought for the very things you enjoy today...you only enjoy them because DL keeps them in place so you WILL vote NO. You also don't /won't admit that yes, some AFA negotiated items at other airlines are better than DL's policies (NW buyout/severance and stock emergence award)....again, I think that's why you're labeled a KoolAid drinker and mostly derided on these boards.
Finally, this thing that I read constantly about knowing OAL f/a's who want AFA out or think it's a mistake for DL to vote in AFA is, and you know it too, completely disingenuous. It's contemptuous of you to even assume that people who read this are that dumb. I'm sorry, but I know OAL f/a's and the REALITY (not the spin written on "I Believe In Our Delta" site) is that yes, they aren't all thrilled with AFA but every one of my friends would rather have AFA than no union at all. I haven't met one who think that in this day and time in the airline industry it's better off to be union free.
Finally, I know I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mind so I do agree with you there...it's best to agree to disagree.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Where do I start w/aislehopper ??

Well, over the years, I've come to eventually know her to be a civil..."Agree to Disagee" person, Who doesn't care for ANY union(not just APA).

As long as DL stayed just DL,...the NON-union status worked pretty well for her. (NO problem there)

But Now, aislehopper, I'm speaking directly to you now !

I just hope, that you fully realize, that "this" attempt at organizing DL, is DIFFERENT, because there are MANY more ramifications Involved.

If the current DL F/A group "shoots APA down again", then for the time being,...YOU "win again"

However, despite the larger number of DL F/a's than NW F/a's,...........Should the "losing" number of current DL F/A's be a sizable minority(say 40%),...................They, coupled with the current all PRO Union NW F/a's, result in ALL the "combined" F/A's becoming Unionized, which woulfd place the MOST senior DL F/a, just BELOW the most junior NW F/A !(because if NW is currently NOT AFA, then THE successfull Union, "could" be, the one that NW currently belongs to)
(Something SURELY to think about)

Then there is scenario "B".

IF after all is said and done(post consolidation), that the NEW combined group STAY non-union, then I "imagine" you've not lost anything.(NW f/a's, please correct me if I'm wrong)

SO aishopper, I guess it's a "sort of a crap shoot" this time !

My prediction is(and I've been wrong before) that enough current DL F/a's, though NOT being successful in organizing DL.."today", WILL have an IMPACT, coupled with the NW flight attendants come post consolidation time.

 

[NAPAUS]

Where do I start w/aislehopper ??

Well, over the years, I've come to eventually know her to be a civil..."Agree to Disagee" person, Who doesn't care for ANY union(not just APA).

As long as DL stayed just DL,...the NON-union status worked pretty well for her. (NO problem there)

But Now, aislehopper, I'm speaking directly to you now !

I just hope, that you fully realize, that "this" attempt at organizing DL, is DIFFERENT, because there are MANY more ramifications Involved.

If the current DL F/A group "shoots APA down again", then for the time being,...YOU "win again"

However, despite the larger number of DL F/a's than NW F/a's,...........Should the "losing" number of current DL F/A's be a sizable minority(say 40%),...................They, coupled with the current all PRO Union NW F/a's, result in ALL the "combined" F/A's becoming Unionized, which woulfd place the MOST senior DL F/a, just BELOW the most junior NW F/A !(because if NW is currently NOT AFA, then THE successfull Union, "could" be, the one that NW currently belongs to)
(Something SURELY to think about)

Then there is scenario "B".

IF after all is said and done(post consolidation), that the NEW combined group STAY non-union, then I "imagine" you've not lost anything.(NW f/a's, please correct me if I'm wrong)

SO aishopper, I guess it's a "sort of a crap shoot" this time !

My prediction is(and I've been wrong before) that enough current DL F/a's, though NOT being successful in organizing DL.."today", WILL have an IMPACT, coupled with the NW flight attendants come post consolidation time.

Just an FYI - It's AFA not APA.

 

[jimntx]

Bears, you are assuming that the unionized group will prevail if you have one group represented and the other not. You are also assuming that the management of the two companies will ignore the union issue and forge ahead with the merger/acquisition as was done at LCC.

Consider this scenario...
1. Management makes merger contingent upon successful resolution of union issue by majority vote of the total worker group--majority vote of all f/as from both companies, etc.
2. Majority of flight attendants vote NO.
3. F/As at merged company--like DL currently--are unrepresented.

Management can take this even further by making sure that represented or not, a combined seniority list is established BEFORE the merger goes through. That way all the "hotheads" who go around saying that they will NEVER give up a single digit of their seniority will have the opportunity to "clean out their lockers" before the combined operation starts.

The reality is that the union movement started going down the drain a few years ago the first time one union crossed another union's picket line. With the possible exception of pilots, there is not really a unionized group at most airlines that can not be replaced fairly easily--certainly not a problem with the flight attendants. As a flight attendant, I mean no disrespect to other flight attendants, but if you were to run an ad in any major newspaper announcing open interviews for flight attendant at a local hotel and that you were going to pay $15/hr to start, you would have a line of applicants out the door and across the parking lot on the morning of the interviews.

People still think that the flight attendant job is like in the movies where you travel all over the world, stay for days in fabulous hotels, etc. AND, you can not get it through people's heads the concept that the $15/hr is for 70-75 hours per month. All they see is $15/hr and they compare that to the $8-10/hr they are making now, and they think they will double their income.

Even with the mechanics, so many have lost their jobs in the past few years that there is a pool of experienced people out there who would be willing to work for an airline which is hiring.

I'm not saying that I like or approve of any of this, I just think it is reality. I doubt seriously that the management of any of the current merger candidates is the least bit concerned about the "labor issue." You know the old military tactic of "divide and conquer?" Go back and read some of the posts in this thread and realize that we do that nicely ourselves without management having to lift a finger. All the backbiting and namecalling is the reality, not union solidarity.

 

[757inthebarrel]

If the current DL F/A group "shoots APA down again", then for the time being,...YOU "win again"

However, despite the larger number of DL F/a's than NW F/a's,...........Should the "losing" number of current DL F/A's be a sizable minority(say 40%),...................They, coupled with the current all PRO Union NW F/a's, result in ALL the "combined" F/A's becoming Unionized, which woulfd place the MOST senior DL F/a, just BELOW the most junior NW F/A !(because if NW is currently NOT AFA, then THE successfull Union, "could" be, the one that NW currently belongs to)
(Something SURELY to think about)

Then there is scenario "B".

IF after all is said and done(post consolidation), that the NEW combined group STAY non-union, then I "imagine" you've not lost anything.(NW f/a's, please correct me if I'm wrong)

SO aishopper, I guess it's a "sort of a crap shoot" this time !

My prediction is(and I've been wrong before) that enough current DL F/a's, though NOT being successful in organizing DL.."today", WILL have an IMPACT, coupled with the NW flight attendants come post consolidation time.

I don't follow scenario A at all. If DL FA's go into the merger without a union there are several possibilities but none of them would involved being stapled below NW employees. The worst they could hope for in any situation would be DOH. The key here is that the surviving company will (it seems) be called Delta.

 

[jimntx]

I think I agree with 757inthebarrel. (I'm sure he/she will be able to sleep nights now. ) DL has managed to keep the f/as unrepresented all these years by taking care of them to the extent necessary to keep them voting NO. I remember a number of years ago a union was trying to organize the f/as. The union promised them something like a $3/hr raise. The company simply gave them a $4/hr raise. I don't think they even got enough signatures to force a vote.

Why would DL risk them organizing at this point by not taking care of them in a merger?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Consider this scenario...
1. Management makes merger contingent upon successful resolution of union issue by majority vote of the total worker group--majority vote of all f/as from both companies, etc.
2. Majority of flight attendants vote NO.
3. F/As at merged company--like DL currently--are unrepresented.

Your scenario falls apart at the first step.

The NMB controls a union representational vote not DAL or NWA management.

Additionally, that vote would never be called on a contigency basis.

"...Oh, they voted to become union? Sorry, mergers off..."

 

[justanadd]

Why would DL risk them organizing at this point by not taking care of them in a merger?

If they are not union then it will be a arbitrator NOT DL management will decide what is "fair and equitable"!

 

[jimntx]

Your scenario falls apart at the first step.

The NMB controls a union representational vote not DAL or NWA management.

Additionally, that vote would never be called on a contigency basis.

"...Oh, they voted to become union? Sorry, mergers off..."

First off, the two companies making a single union a contingency of the merger is wholly within their legal right to do. All it says is no unified workforce, no merger. It would be up to the work groups to call the elections.

Are you saying that the union can put contingencies on the merger, but not management? How many times have we heard, "We will not approve this merger unless the company restores [fill in the blank] which they took away during bk?"

P.S. You totally misread what I posted. I never said they would call off the merger if the work groups voted FOR a merger. I just said that they could establish a contingency that the issue had to be resolved one way or the other for the merger to go through. And, as I said before, DL has been pretty slick so far in getting their f/as to vote NO. You can't argue with success.

P.P.S Some of you are posting as if you think it is still the 1950's--i.e., in any dispute between union vs. non-union, the union will always win. The Federal government with a Republican administration and Federal courts that are stacked with Republican-appointed judges may have a different interpretation of the law from you. Our success rate in winning disputes with management--the disputes that count, pay and work rules--has been pretty poor the past few years with the courts tending to be on management's side. I wouldn't bet the rent money on any of this "NMB will control", "Arbitrator will decide" kind of stuff. Maybe, maybe not. The companies can pay their lawyers longer than the unions can pay theirs.