IAM Stepping Up campaign

[737823]

Explain to the board how it is fair in any type of election that a non-voter is counted as a no.
 
No type of election in the country does/did this except the RLA.
 
So if we counted every non-voter as a no in a political election no one would ever get elected.

Because an apathetic employee is most likely content with the status quo than having a collective bargaining agent (and the requirement to pay dues) imposed. You say everyone should vote, well look at the pathetic voter turnout in union ratification votes, representational elections, and union officer elections.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

while I agree with that rationality, I agree that the process of counting votes was unique.

The issue remains that DL FAs have consistently voted against unionization regardless of which voting system was in place.

it also doesn't change that DL has a track record of managing downturns with its employees better thanother airlines.

As I have noted before, DL laid off less employees in the first half of the decade of the 2000s than any other network airline except for AA which ended up in BK later and has cut further jobs.

 

[700UW]

Because an apathetic employee is most likely content with the status quo than having a collective bargaining agent (and the requirement to pay dues) imposed. You say everyone should vote, well look at the pathetic voter turnout in union ratification votes, representational elections, and union officer elections.

Josh

First of all you havent explained how that type of vote was fair.
 
And if they dont want to join the union under an RLA CBA, they can become a dues objector and only pay whats germane to the CBA.  But the closed shop has to be negotiated into the CBA.
 
Union votes are apathetic?
 
Why dont you count that political office elections have a more apathetic non-voter, yet they arent counted as a no vote.

 

[700UW]

 

[Kev3188]

Because an apathetic employee...

IMO, the apathetic employee is worse than the rabid Kool-Aid drinker. The latter can be obnoxious, but at least they usually give a sh*t...
 
 

As I have noted before, DL laid off less employees in the first half of the decade of the 2000s than any other network airline except for AA which ended up in BK later and has cut further jobs.

Maybe 'cause they were already gone? Either way, that's one wicked indemnifier, even by your normal standards... Tell us more about '05 and the ensuing few years.

 

[700UW]

And what about leadership 7.5 which was done before 2000.

 

[southwind]

 
Have you been nominated yet for douchiest person alive? If not, allow me

Me saying I hope the ramp gets a chance to vote for union representation "AGAIN" makes me a douche? If that's the case, I'll take it as a compliment and you can blow it out yer a$$!
 

Again not all of DL folks vote against union its a sad reality that atlanta carries no union votes and that trumps all. It does not come as a shock that atl based dl w the large nbr of their employees make sure dl doesnt go union. Nwa was union til delta wrecked that. I dont believe u can speak for all employees of dl but in bwi theres a large nbr of those folks who wish they would go union bec of dl mgmt tactics

"Nwa was union til delta wrecked that"? I don't remember the mechanics being union...............maybe because the IAM represented ramp workers didn't back the mechanics strike at NWA and "WRECKED" that!
 

The rules were changed to have it as a normal election just like the NLRA and no it wasnt made easier as the card threshold which DL lobbied for was raised from 35% to 50%.
 
So dont preach on the board it was made easier.
 
No type of election except under the RLA was a non-voter counted as a no.

The rules were changed before the last vote and the majority decided..................case closed!
 

So wt essentially dl made it effectively harder for unions to come on board at dl guess its true when big bucks come a callin they get what they want

so if theres another down turn in the industry dl will have so much fun gettin rid of who they want when they want bec they're not union

Yeah, because we all know, "NO" union represented workers "EVER" get furloughed !
 

And what about leadership 7.5 which was done before 2000.

What about it?

 

[WorldTraveler]

you and the labor movement can use whatever qualifiers you want but it doesn't change the fact that DL has laid off fewer employees relative to its network peers for years.

Logic would show that DL's more efficient staffing means they don't carry the fat in the good times and are more profitable then which allows them to weather the downturns better.

DL isn't in danger of laying off people now or in the forseeable future.

UA is already doing what many of us knew would happen with their merger and will happen with AA. Given that many of AA's own people believe it, no one should be surprised.

Doesn't matter what airline you are talking about. You can't merge without growing after the merger or you have to lay off employees. DL and WN both have recognized it and built their post merger strategies around that reality.

BTW< AA and UA are much more heavily unionized.

 

[robbedagain]

Southwind im not saying that no one in union represented gets furlough but the fact is DL can tell their employees they dont need them and it can be done much faster also delta has been able to fend off unions ... as I said before big money talks and delta keeps unions out

I knew amfa rep the nwa maintenance folks but amfa stood up for what they believed was corp greed it may have cost them dearly but in the end they did what they felt they had to do

 

[737823]

First of all you havent explained how that type of vote was fair.
 
And if they dont want to join the union under an RLA CBA, they can become a dues objector and only pay whats germane to the CBA.  But the closed shop has to be negotiated into the CBA.
 
Union votes are apathetic?
 
Why dont you count that political office elections have a more apathetic non-voter, yet they arent counted as a no vote.

Semantics. Point is someone who didn't vote is likely more content with the status quo than beginning to pay a third party to "represent" them to their employer. An apathetic employee is even less likely to take the time or interest to become a dues objector so they would likely be paying dues as a full member. Besides its semantics, point is this requires someone to unwillingly pay dues (or an agency fee) to a third party organization.

I know it may be hard for you to relate, but to some employees being part of the "union" isn't a big part of their life or career. I'd reckon many union employees either don't know any different or simply do not have a choice of being represented or not (closed shop, RLA, non-RTW states)

And if you look at the recent IAM votes-United TA 2.0, Boeing, they had low voter turnout and both were following an election that went against the interests of the union (the organization).
 
 

IMO, the apathetic employee is worse than the rabid Kool-Aid drinker. The latter can be obnoxious, but at least they usually give a sh*t...

But of course they b!tch the loudest when things don't go exactly as they would like.

Josh

 

[700UW]

By law the union has to inform the members of their rights to be a dues objector once a year.
 
So try again.
 
Beck vs CWA and Machinists vs Whirpool.

 

[737823]

Yep but people are also informed about representation and despite aggressive organizers, mailings, literature and possible messaging from their employer some still choose not to vote and completely stay out.

Josh

 

[aislehopper]

Kev:
 
Thanks.  It has been a while.
 
Everyone:
 
I think Delta is a great place to work.  I have enjoyed my career here and would like to hang on until retirement.  If I ever felt that we needed a union, I would support one.  However, when I look around and weigh the alternatives, I do not see a union advantage at this point.  I have watched Eastern, Braniff, Pan Am, TWA and others cease to exist.  I have watched fellow flight attendants at the other carriers get put through the ringer.   The current furlough situation at UAL comes to mind. The whole concept of a scablist that can have ramifications that last for decades is appalling to me. I do not see a definite union advantage.
 
I feel that unions are good at protecting seniority. They are also helpful in unjust discipline cases.  They can get rules down in black and white.  However, I do not see problems at Delta that rise to the level of needing these protections.
 
With the exception PATCO, 7.5, and 9-11 and its fallout, Delta flight attendants have relatively stable careers with a minimum of drama.  Bringing a union on the property could upset this stability, that is one of the main reasons why I do not support one. 
 
Moving back to the NMB change in voting procedures, I do not remember the exact language, but the purpose of the RLA is to promote stability in the railroad and airline industry.  Congress did not want this critical industry crippled by strikes.  If you notice, under the RLA contracts become amendable instead of expiring.  Before a group can legally strike, years of negotiation happen.  Under the NLRA, a group can strike at the contract's expiration.   The drawn out NMB process before a strike could be called promotes stability. 
 
Having a majority workers actively support a union was also seen as a stability issue. IIRC, the thought was that a union with less than a majority of the workers supporting it could destabilize the industry. Based on that, the RLA had the historic 50%+1 standard.  This standard was maintained through both Republican and Democrat majority Boards for years.
 
In my opinion, the worst thing that could happen to a group is to unionize with less than a majority supporting it.  If 50%+1 have affirmatively voted, it sends a message to management that the desire for representation is strong. Management has to negotiate in good faith since majority or workers have spoken. 
 
With the new voting procedure, once an election is called, a simple majority of those voting could cause our group to unionize.  For example, if we have 20,000 flight attendants, the union will have to submit 10,001 valid, signed cards to the NMB to call for an election.  If in the election, 10,000 do not vote, 4999 vote no union, and 5001 vote for a union, we have a union with only a quarter of our group actively supporting it.  Theoretically, 1 flight attendant could vote no, and 2 flight attendants could vote yes, and they will have brought the other 19,998 flight attendants to representation.
 
When you look at the historical apathy of the PMDL flight attendants combined with the IBT, PFAA, AFA infighting of the PMNWA flight attendants, I am especially concerned about a minority of flight attendants making a decision for the majority.  I do not see how a union brought on the property with a low level of support will be in our best interest. Management would draw out negotiations until it was decertified.  This would be years of wage stagnation and infighting among ourselves.
 
IMHO, the rule was changed because the Obama administration was paying back labor by changing a longstanding rule to try to help the unions win at a combining NWA/DL.  While the change was good for unions, I feel that it was not good for employees.  I would like to see the voting procedure changed back to what it was before, and the threshold for calling an election returned to 35%+1.
 
 
 
 

 

[aislehopper]

One other point. I would be less against a union if there was a National Right to Work Act or the RLA did not specifically preempt state right to work laws.   Becoming a dues objector is relatively meaningless since contract maintenance fees can approach 100% of dues and dues checkoff is a priority for a newly elected union.

 

[Kev3188]

Me saying I hope the ramp gets a chance to vote for union representation "AGAIN" makes me a douche?

Nope. It makes you a fan of democracy (if you're sincere). The rest of what you wrote? Not so much...
 

 

Logic would show that DL's more efficient staffing means they don't carry the fat in the good times and are more profitable then which allows them to weather the downturns better.

The staffing model currently used is broken- and ineffectual. For a company that touts it's flexibility, I can tell you it's MUCH less so than it was at NW. All of it. From the modeling itself, to the requisition process, approval, and more. You can take my word for it... or don't, but it's true.
 

DL isn't in danger of laying off people now or in the forseeable future.

There are at least 54 people in the Motor City who disagree with you.


 
 

Semantics. Point is someone who didn't vote is likely more content with the status quo than beginning to pay a third party to "represent" them to their employer. An apathetic employee is even less likely to take the time or interest to become a dues objector so they would likely be paying dues as a full member. Besides its semantics, point is this requires someone to unwillingly pay dues (or an agency fee) to a third party organization.

... Another favorite code word of the anti-labor firms.

All well and good, except for the fact that a union is made up of it's members.

But since we're here, let's talk about some of the 3rd parties DL is apparently okay with having around. I'll start:

Ingenix
People Scout
Sedgwick
Esis
The company doing seat belt audits for OSHA audits (sorry, not sure of the name)
1-800-MY-DELTA
Payroll in MBJ
DGS
Eulen(sp?) America

The list goes on...




 
 

Kev:
 
Thanks.  It has been a while.

Cool. Stick around.
 

 

I think Delta is a great place to work.  I have enjoyed my career here and would like to hang on until retirement.

Me too. I also think it could be better, and the current avenues to affect meaningful change aren't working.

 

I feel that unions are good at protecting seniority. They are also helpful in unjust discipline cases.  They can get rules down in black and white.  However, I do not see problems at Delta that rise to the level of needing these protections.

I do. In fact, those sorts of inconsistencies are a HUGE driver of card signings in ACS.
 

Bringing a union on the property could upset this stability, that is one of the main reasons why I do not support one.

How so?
 

 

In my opinion, the worst thing that could happen to a group is to unionize with less than a majority supporting it.

+1

You may recall my for aiming for 100% turnouts, and a landslide either way (obviously preferring a "yes.")in the last round of voting.
 

With the new voting procedure, once an election is called, a simple majority of those voting could cause our group to unionize.  For example, if we have 20,000 flight attendants, the union will have to submit 10,001 valid, signed cards to the NMB to call for an election.  If in the election, 10,000 do not vote, 4999 vote no union, and 5001 vote for a union, we have a union with only a quarter of our group actively supporting it.  Theoretically, 1 flight attendant could vote no, and 2 flight attendants could vote yes, and they will have brought the other 19,998 flight attendants to representation.

This "tyranny of the minority" talking point is a curious one. The simple answer is to get out the vote, right?

BTW, do you remember the five -yes 5- employees (including 3 of your fellow Aislehoppers) that with the help of the RTWF sued to maintain the "old" voting rules? How is that NOT a "tyranny of the minority? Kinda funny how that inconvenient truth didn't get much airtime on our employee website...