Delta FAs File For AFA-CWA Election !

[yoyodyne]

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.

All you have to do is ask the Air Traffic Controllers !!!

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

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.

And I stand by my post. What you proposed was this.....

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 first point cant happen, period.

The NMB contols all representational elections covered under the RLA. Not NWA or DAL managements.

The question decided by a representational vote (Union vs Non-Union) can't be taken as a contigency, the merger must be consumated first.


P.S. This statement of yours, "... I wouldn't bet the rent money on any of this "NMB will control", "Arbitrator will decide" kind of stuff...." clearly shows you have little knowledge on the subject of union elections under the RLA.

 

[jimntx]

And I stand by my post. What you proposed was this.....




Your first point cant happen, period.

The NMB contols all representational elections covered under the RLA. Not NWA or DAL managements.

The question decided by a representational vote (Union vs Non-Union) can't be taken as a contigency, the merger must be consumated first.


P.S. This statement of yours, "... I wouldn't bet the rent money on any of this "NMB will control", "Arbitrator will decide" kind of stuff...." clearly shows you have little knowledge on the subject of union elections under the RLA.

Re-read again please. I never said that the companies would require the unions to do a friggin thing. What I said was that the two companies would agree that if the unions did not get their acts together the merger would be off. That in no way infringes upon the precious prerogatives of the unions or the NMB. All I said was the companies (management) can agree among themselves to call off the deal if certain conditions are not met--whoever, wherever, however would be of no consequence. No agreement between the unions? We don't need that kind of grief. Deal off.

The unions can choose to sit on their hands, do nothing, and kill the deal--if they think that is a wise thing to do for and to their members.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

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.

This is completely untrue. Where do you people get this stuff?? The only organizational attempts were by the AFA in the mid to late 1990s resulting in the Feb 2002 vote and some slight activity by the TWU during that same time period. NEITHER union EVER promised any specific monetary raise and the company absolutely did NOT give us a $4 raise in 2002.
You people who know absolutely nothing about our FA group should remember the old saying "It's better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than open it and prove it."

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Re-read again please. I never said that the companies would require the unions to do a friggin thing. What I said was that the two companies would agree that if the unions did not get their acts together the merger would be off. That in no way infringes upon the precious prerogatives of the unions or the NMB. All I said was the companies (management) can agree among themselves to call off the deal if certain conditions are not met--whoever, wherever, however would be of no consequence. No agreement between the unions? We don't need that kind of grief. Deal off.

The unions can choose to sit on their hands, do nothing, and kill the deal--if they think that is a wise thing to do for and to their members.

I have re-read it, and it reads the same as it did before and its still wrong.

You most certainly did say the unions would have to do something, you said a "majority vote", remember? That vote DOES NOT take place until AFTER the merger occurs.

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.

I took the liberty of highlighting your post to emphasize the error you continue to cling to.

Understand this, the National Mediation Board (NMB) controls representational elections for those covered under the RLA.

NWA and DAL would FIRST have to merge for the NMB to step in and conduct a representational election. This is NOT something the unions or management do on their own. As your original assertions centered on the Union vs Non-Union question, and DAL managements obvious desires to remain Non-Union, a representational election is all but certain.

Its clear with statements like this one, you don't know what you're talking about.

"... I wouldn't bet the rent money on any of this "NMB will control", "Arbitrator will decide" kind of stuff...."

In the event of a merger, no one but the NMB will control the eventual representational election.

 

[Nor'Easta]

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

Is that all you got, taking an American Icon's quote? The quote does fit you well!

 

[jimntx]

I have re-read it, and it reads the same as it did before and its still wrong.

You most certainly did say the unions would have to do something, you said a "majority vote", remember? That vote DOES NOT take place until AFTER the merger occurs.

I took the liberty of highlighting your post to emphasize the error you continue to cling to.

In the event of a merger, no one but the NMB will control the eventual representational election.

Ok, you're absolutely correct. Though, lord knows with your superior legal knowledge why you are working for an airline. Just consider this possible paragraph...

"Until the workgroups from each party to the merger have successfully merged, or come to an agreement on merger, the parties to the merger will continue operating as separate entities. If the said workgroups do not come to agreement within 12 months of the official merger date, the merger is null and void."

Remember the debacle of the AOL-Time-Warner merger? Granted, it was not a union issue. But, having seen the mess created by having to undo a merger after the cake had been cut and the rice thrown, most companies going in to this sort of thing (LCC excepted) try to make sure that at some point all loose ends are tied up or there is a way out of the merger.

If you work for DL or NW, you had better hope there is a way out. Do you want an LCC-type situation where almost nothing is settled 2+ years after the merger?

BTW, Luke. I have a dear friend who has been a flight attendant at DL for over 40 years. I'll have to tell her that she has been lying all these years about various organizing attempts that never got off the ground because the company did an end-around on the union. But, then I'm sure you've been around longer and would know.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Ok, you're absolutely correct. Though, lord knows with your superior legal knowledge why you are working for an airline. Just consider this possible paragraph...

"Until the workgroups from each party to the merger have successfully merged, or come to an agreement on merger, the parties to the merger will continue operating as separate entities. If the said workgroups do not come to agreement within 12 months of the official merger date, the merger is null and void."

Spare me your sarcasm.(I don't work in aviation any longer besides)

I simply pointed out the flaw in your original scenario. I agree that it would no doubt be more productive if things could work along the lines you've suggested but that isn't how mergers work with respect to unions.

If you're woefully uninformed about the process that's set to unfold, thats your own fault.

 

[aislehopper]

The only organizational attempts were by the AFA in the mid to late 1990s resulting in the Feb 2002 vote and some slight activity by the TWU during that same time period.

Luke is pretty much correct on this one. However, David Borer placed the starting point of the campaign in 1992 with afa cards circulating in 1993. See Investigation explained

If you follow that link, there are links to the actual NMB determination.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

BTW, Luke. I have a dear friend who has been a flight attendant at DL for over 40 years. I'll have to tell her that she has been lying all these years about various organizing attempts that never got off the ground because the company did an end-around on the union. But, then I'm sure you've been around longer and would know.

Jim, you can talk to your friend all you want and be as sarcastic as you deem necessary but it does not change the facts. And the facts are as they were laid out. Seniority/length of time at the company does not equate to knowledge of various union drives at Delta. And you're correct, I would know as I was here during that time frame and attended one of the very first organizational meetings in 1994. I certainly don't mean to be personal but after your exposed lack of knowledge with Third Seat Hero and now with me, don't you think you should retract and regroup for a while?

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Luke is pretty much correct on this one. However, David Borer placed the starting point of the campaign in 1992 with afa cards circulating in 1993. See Investigation explained

If you follow that link, there are links to the actual NMB determination.

Aislehopper, thank you so much for the confirmation and thanks even more for the link to that delightful site. Don't you think someone (you?) should clean the cobwebs off a bit? Is it looking a little rancid because the former Texas- based FA retired? Or is she still here and just busy with her commute? I'm sure you're familiar with the"virulent" message board there...most specifically the copy and paste of NW's buyout package listed under topic "The Middle Guys." (I don't know why an anti-afa site posted an article extolling the more-superior buyout plan of NW.) Please compare that to DL's last buyout offer. I posed this to you a month or so ago but you did not reply.

 

[jimntx]

For those of you who thought that the only issue was the F/A groups...


Pilot dispute may cancel DL/NW merger