Delta Flight Attendants set to Vote!

[LukeAisleWalker]

And I have......to be brief, both your's and Danny's thought-out statements gave me more insight. For
one, I will take NXNW suggestion and NOT rip up my ballot. Its obvious (because its 430am) that this
issue is now affecting my sleep. Both of you gave me great reason to pause. Luke, your examples of
past "atrocities" especially Yasko's (sp) situation in PDX was a great reminder of the ugly side of Delta.
Again I would like to thank you both. I will post more at a later date, however for now, I need to get some sleep.

BOOY--Thanks for taking the time to read everything and keeping an open mind. I really commend you.
BTW, Yasuko was one of the people maligned in the drug-testing scandal but my story was actually about someone else. I'm just glad that that lab was shut down/retooled, thanks to ALPA.

 

[700UW]

Two flights attendants unions have taken up the case of a non-unionised flight attendant at Delta Air Lines who was fired after the airline alleged she provided a `substitute` urine sample during a random drug test.

Yasuko Ishikawa has denied the allegation, saying that she was mostly vegetarian, weighed less than 100 pounds and had drunk a lot of water before the sample, which she maintains was legitimate. Ishikawa also said that a test
she got done privately after the incident was also `dilute,` (showed low levels of creatinine, the metabolite found in urine) like the one taken by Delta Air Lines and did not show any signs of drugs.

Ishikawa`s case has now been taken up by both the Association of Flight Attendants and the Transport Workers Union of America, which are each trying to organise the carrier`s 20,000 flight attendants. Both unions claim
Ishikawa`s plight highlights the vulnerability of non-union employees, and point to a similar case at another airline where the worker was able to resume work after submitting another sample.

Delta Air Lines has said that the carrier had to take a strong line on the issue in order to ensure passenger safety, but admitted that Ishikawa had not been given an opportunity to resubmit, nor was the sample actually tested for drugs.

 

[USAir757]

If that is the litmus test for how "fair" the company is, then why do ALL of the executive management have their own legal contract? Richard Anderson has a GREAT contract. Why does he insist on having one?

You are comparing the positions of line Flight Attendant to Fortune 500 CEO? Talk about apples & oranges! Suffice to say, it is much easier for a company to replace the former than the latter.

Danny--On behalf of DL FAs, THANK YOU so very much for being a voice of reason and clarity on these message boards. Also, from these boards Bababooy seems like a rational, nice guy/gal. Although caught up in Delta's obfucation about all things union, I think he/she will read your comments and hopefully, take them to heart.

Luke, I agree that Danny's post was informative, but it was completely one-sided.... how can you possibly consider it a "voice of reason and clarity"? Simply because it supports your argument? How funny, that when somebody displays a similar viewpoint to your own it's "THANK YOU so very much", but when a "voice of reason" presents an opposing argument, your profound gratitude is a'gonner, and the person is obviously "caught up in Delta's [obfuscation] about all things union..."

BOOY--Thanks for taking the time to read everything and keeping an open mind. I really commend you.

Case & point.

The truth is, most union supporters and organizers aren't interested in the well-being of Delta employees, they're interested in their own causes, their own union strength (and union strength in general), and promoting the "Us vs. them" atmosphere that has destroyed airlines (and other companies). They operate with the assumption that we should organize now, figure out why later. They put the cart before the horse. Often they distort real "facts" to suit their own arguments, then claim that the opposing arguments are "FALSE or grossly misleading". Don't you Delta F/A's reading this board find it peculiar that the NWA people here who only a short time ago were ready to chew you up and spit you out, are now reaching to you with their "voices of reason", putting their energy into the well-being and welfare of your employment, and life in general? Don't you question their motivation? I certainly do! :blink:

Regards,
757

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

You are comparing the positions of line Flight Attendant to Fortune 500 CEO? Talk about apples & oranges! Suffice to say, it is much easier for a company to replace the former than the latter.



Luke, I agree that Danny's post was informative, but it was completely one-sided.... how can you possibly consider it a "voice of reason and clarity"? Simply because it supports your argument? How funny, that when somebody displays a similar viewpoint to your own it's "THANK YOU so very much", but when a "voice of reason" presents an opposing argument, your profound gratitude is a'gonner, and the person is obviously "caught up in Delta's [obfuscation] about all things union..."



Case & point.

The truth is, most union supporters and organizers aren't interested in the well-being of Delta employees, they're interested in their own causes, their own union strength (and union strength in general), and promoting the "Us vs. them" atmosphere that has destroyed airlines (and other companies). They operate with the assumption that we should organize now, figure out why later. They put the cart before the horse. Often they distort real "facts" to suit their own arguments, then claim that the opposing arguments are "FALSE or grossly misleading". Don't you Delta F/A's reading this board find it peculiar that the NWA people here who only a short time ago were ready to chew you up and spit you out, are now reaching to you with their "voices of reason", putting their energy into the well-being and welfare of your employment, and life in general? Don't you question their motivation? I certainly do! :blink:

Regards,
757

757, the exact same things you said regarding myself could be attributed to you, only on the other side of the argument. That's human nature.
The problem with people like you who come out of the woodwork is I don't know who you are, where you work, or what your level of exposure is to AFA, NW, or Delta Inflight. I've read here, I believe, that you work for USAIRways . If that's the case, then you really have no credentials to be discussing our work life at Delta. You can certainly discuss AFA as it relates to collective bargaining WITH USAIRWAYS MGT., but nowhere else. Have you experienced working without a contract, at a nonunion carrier? I know Booy has so as far as I'm concerned his views hold water. Yours, if you don't work here, do not. Danny on the other hand, while he has not worked at Delta, is a "voice of reason" as juxtaposed to some of the falsities that DL Mgt. is putting out. I'm not saying AFA is the cure-all but it's all that's being offered in the way of rules in writing and accountability. We have none of that now and I'm getting too long in the tooth to wait around for DL FAs to do more than just 'talk about' starting our own union.
The other difference between yourself and I is I have CHOSEN a position in order to exact change. All you do is trash organized labor but have absolutely NO ideas for how to change things that negatively impact work/life issues. Oh wait...let me guess...you're probably one of the passive/agressive ones who is going to retort: "don't like it, leave."
Oh, and PS: Who are these NW people that you claim have come on this board and threated to "chew us up and spit us out"? Names, please. If you're talking about NxNW, if you've followed his threads, his venom is NOT directed at DL FAs but rather NW Mgt/BOD/Hedgefunders. He has expressed support for DL FAs. Danny C. is new here...you can see in his profile that he has only posted 3 times.
So just who are these people??

 

[Danny Campbell]

USAir757:

Believe it or not, there are those of us in the industry that DO (very much) care about what happens to other carriers. More so than any other industry, the airlines are deeply entrenched in what is called "pattern bargaining". What that means is that once an airline succeeds at a new concept, that quickly spreads like a virulent virus across the industry and it affects us all.

I'll give you a few examples. When American Airlines introduced the B-scale concept, within 5 years it was at almost every carrier in the U.S. When the Air Transport Association decided that it wanted to reduce "lost time" (sick calls), the entire industry began to see increased scrutiny and discipline for FAs that were ill. Simularly, when NWA attempted to outsource 75% of our international flights to low-paid foreign workers, several other carriers lined up behind (providing "Americus" briefs) hoping it would succeed. Only because AFA fought that effort on Capitol Hill did we not see it ravish the FA profession.

These are just a few examples of how 'pattern bargaining' impacts us all. But, I think it is important that we recognize how 'subtle' these initiatives are -- and how they are most often introduced in the industry at non-union carriers. For example, Delta first introduced the concept of "PPT" and a sick leave system that does NOT provide for 'roll over' of sick bank credit. What is the reaon for this, you might ask? Well, Delta will [proudly'] say it is because they allow you to take "personal time off". But, what it is really designed for - is to restrict FAs from being able to build a LARGE bank of sick time, so that you have a smaller "safety net" to fall into when you are struck by a major illness. They would prefer you have a Short Term Disability, which only pays 60% of base pay, because it puts a heavier financial strain on you -- forcing you to come back to work in order to maintain your financial obligations. Concepts like these are deliberate - and when the ATA (management's union) meets every year, trust me, they purposely introduce them at carriers where they will get no resistance.

Luke is right - AFA is not a "cure all". However, when we (as FAs) work together, we have the ability to see these over-reaching strategies for what they really are. We don't always win -- but we do put up a good fight and we do have our share of success.

AFA is seen as a major player in the halls of Congress and management knows when they have to go to the bargaining table with us that AFA members, staff and lawyers know the industry very well. In most cases, the experience on OUR side of the table outweighs that of the management staff on the other side -- especially when the management is inexperienced in collective bargaining. But, I think that management has a great deal of respect for that experience and in MANY CASES, they actually rely on us to help them problem-solve initiatives that they don't necessarily know how to implement. A good example of this happened at NWA 2 years ago, when our executives leaned on AFA to explain to them exactly HOW an early out retirement plan should be calculated. Management's figures were wrong - because they had no FIRST-HAND experience with the plan. AFA could clearly show them the seniority ranges that historically took the "out" at other AFA carriers and this helped our management costs out what the plan would save them.

I know this was a LONG ONE...but I thought it was important to respond to.

 

[Nor'Easta]

Hey Danny,

No matter what you tell USAir757, it will not change their mind on unions. USAir757 is an Eastern SCAB!!!!

 

[USAir757]

Luke & Danny,

I appreciate both of your responses. I can respect that the anonymity that this board provides in itself detracts from an individual's credibility from the get go. I also respect enormously each individual's decision with regard to organization, but I feel strongly that both sides to the equation should be presented in a fair & equitable manner. Threads like this are good for discussion on the pro's & cons of these types of decisions, because you can get an inside look at how these different principles apply and play out in other people's minds. Perhaps I am out of place by commenting here, and if so, I apologize. My motivation is solely to provide an alternative argument... I seek not to make enemies, make people angry, or mislead.

That being said, thanks for clearing up some motivation with regard to pattern bargaining. I can certainly understand your reasoning as to how it effects the industry at large. However, you said "I think it is important that we recognize how 'subtle' these initiatives are -- and how they are most often introduced in the industry at non-union carriers." Do these initiatives, by being implemented at a major [non-union] carrier like Delta, naturally then become more viable at other carriers? Presumably, you at NWA still have the protection of AFA to prevent and protect you from any initiative you aren't in favor of, regardless of its heritage.

I understand that AFA (and others) aren't all bad, and Luke certainly has every right to argue and urge his co-workers to vote in favor of union. But I also think that unions need to remain a responsive strategy towards combatting poor management choices with regard to employee relations, and from what I understand, Delta management has yet to display these kinds of behavior patterns. Surely others will disagree, I am just going by what my friends at Delta who work with you have said, and by what I've read here on this board. I think people need to be informed of the kind of cultural changes that will occur as a result a yes vote. Anyway, if I can at least provide a rational argument to the contrary, I feel like I am helping, not hurting the decision process. I admit, I stand to gain nothing personally from your decision, as I've hung up my bus driver hat. But I do care for my friends, and by extension, the rest of you.

Thanks again,
757

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

Luke & Danny,

I appreciate both of your responses. I can respect that the anonymity that this board provides in itself detracts from an individual's credibility from the get go. I also respect enormously each individual's decision with regard to organization, but I feel strongly that both sides to the equation should be presented in a fair & equitable manner. Threads like this are good for discussion on the pro's & cons of these types of decisions, because you can get an inside look at how these different principles apply and play out in other people's minds. Perhaps I am out of place by commenting here, and if so, I apologize. My motivation is solely to provide an alternative argument... I seek not to make enemies, make people angry, or mislead.

That being said, thanks for clearing up some motivation with regard to pattern bargaining. I can certainly understand your reasoning as to how it effects the industry at large. However, you said "I think it is important that we recognize how 'subtle' these initiatives are -- and how they are most often introduced in the industry at non-union carriers." Do these initiatives, by being implemented at a major [non-union] carrier like Delta, naturally then become more viable at other carriers? Presumably, you at NWA still have the protection of AFA to prevent and protect you from any initiative you aren't in favor of, regardless of its heritage.

I understand that AFA (and others) aren't all bad, and Luke certainly has every right to argue and urge his co-workers to vote in favor of union. But I also think that unions need to remain a responsive strategy towards combatting poor management choices with regard to employee relations, and from what I understand, Delta management has yet to display these kinds of behavior patterns. Surely others will disagree, I am just going by what my friends at Delta who work with you have said, and by what I've read here on this board. I think people need to be informed of the kind of cultural changes that will occur as a result a yes vote. Anyway, if I can at least provide a rational argument to the contrary, I feel like I am helping, not hurting the decision process. I admit, I stand to gain nothing personally from your decision, as I've hung up my bus driver hat. But I do care for my friends, and by extension, the rest of you.

Thanks again,
757

757--Your thoughtful, civil reply is really appreciated. Let's look at something you wrote: "unions need to remain a responsive strategy towards combatting poor management choices with regard to employee relations, and from what I understand, Delta management has yet to display these kinds of behavior patterns....I am just going by what my friends at Delta..have said and by what I've read here on this board."

Regarding [poor] mgt decisions w/ regard to employee relations: I listed a couple of examples earlier including the drug testing wrongful termination of a few years ago and Delta's disciplinary hearing structure (no one allowed into the meeting with you.) or the fact that DL has the lowest unit costs per FA than any other major airline or the myriad of items Danny posted including the inability to bank a large sick bank in the event of catastrophic illness.
What I'm interested in here are the friends you have at Delta who are fine with the status quo. What I am coming to realize is that the majority of FAs who are not going to vote in favor of AFA representation generally, meaning more often than not, fall into a demographic that includes one or more of the follwing:
1. They tend to live in lower-cost-of -living areas and/or bought housing many years ago so that the ratio of their income to mortgage is the standard of 30% or below (it's up to 50%for some since the housing bubble.)
2. They are not the main breadwinners in their family...usually meaning their spouse has a high-paying job.
3. Because of financial ability, they are able to bid and fly low hours or drop to low hours.
4. They are steeped in the southern tradition that "union" is a dirty word.
5. In spite of the fact that their very job entails constant change, they, ironically, are resistant to change. Maintaining the status quo is more comfortable for them. They are frightened by the unknown (unionization).

Of course, not all FAs who won't vote in favor of the union fall into these 5 categories, but again, just from probing a little, I have found that many do. And many of them aren't actually rabid anti-union people (we do have some of those and they occassionally visit this site), but rather they are generally apathetic and have no passion one way or the other. (Remember, only 50% of the eligible population votes in Presedential elections!!)
So all I'm saying is you often have to consider the source when determining where a particular FA stands on this topic.

 

[North by Northwest]

You are comparing the positions of line Flight Attendant to Fortune 500 CEO? Talk about apples & oranges! Suffice to say, it is much easier for a company to replace the former than the latter.

Are you referring to those CEOs who's incompetency crashes an airline into bankruptcy, then rewarded for it by a pack of lackey's with no aviation experience whatsoever. Suffice it to say, your comparisons suite a convoluted perspective.

Perhaps you are referring to the ones that seen not to be able to run a profitable airline in the world's richest airline market, contrary to Europe and Asia.



Case & point.

The truth is, most union supporters and organizers aren't interested in the well-being of Delta employees, they're interested in their own causes, their own union strength (and union strength in general), and promoting the "Us vs. them" atmosphere that has destroyed airlines (and other companies). They operate with the assumption that we should organize now, figure out why later. They put the cart before the horse. Often they distort real "facts" to suit their own arguments, then claim that the opposing arguments are "FALSE or grossly misleading". Don't you Delta F/A's reading this board find it peculiar that the NWA people here who only a short time ago were ready to chew you up and spit you out, are now reaching to you with their "voices of reason", putting their energy into the well-being and welfare of your employment, and life in general? Don't you question their motivation? I certainly do! :blink:

What is it you think we at NWA have to gain from Delta FAs joining AFA? One might ask you of the same genre, particularly when you are not employed at Delta or Northwest.

 

[Danny Campbell]

I'll be the first one to raise my hand and say "guilty" of having some self-interest in Delta FAs joining AFA. There are many GREAT protections we have in our NWA contract -- some fought for and secured over 40 years ago -- which I don't want to see go out the window if we merge with Delta. Likewise, there are many things at Delta that you currently have that I would like to see in a 'combined' contract. By merging the best of both worlds into a 'legal contract', the combined group would be in a powerful position to help raise the bar for others in the industry. I don't think that is selfish or self-serving, I think it is pragmatic and wise. Especially if we were to be the largest carrier in the US.