New Election Rules

[The Goose]

Court Decision Upholds New Rules For Rail and Aviation Union Elections
WASHINGTON, DC – Edward Wytkind, president of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, issued the following statement today in response to a decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, rejecting the Air Transport Association’s attempt to overturn new National Mediation Board (NMB) rules governing union elections.

(more on the TWU 514 website)
__________________________
A simple majority of votes cast instead of 50% of membership +1.

A question for someone familiar with the legal issues - will this new ruling re: how abstaining votes are counted and what determines a majority have the same effect in a decertification vote?

Will this new rule make it easier to rid ourselves of the company bought and paid for and operated "union"?

 

[eolesen]

Abstaining is effectively a blank ballot. There's no precedent for it, so I'm sure the NMB will just make up a ruling on the fly, like they did here.

The extent to which this Administration is going to bypass the legislative process is boggling...

Next thing you know there will be an Executive Order granting both immunity and voting rights to the millions of illegals already in the US.

November's elections can't come soon enough.

 

[The Goose]

Abstaining is effectively a blank ballot. There's no precedent for it, so I'm sure the NMB will just make up a ruling on the fly, like they did here.

The extent to which this Administration is going to bypass the legislative process is boggling...

Next thing you know there will be an Executive Order granting both immunity and voting rights to the millions of illegals already in the US.

November's elections can't come soon enough.

While I believe it would be humanly and physically impossible to say enough "bad" about the O'Bummer administration (I agree with you in that regard), this ruling, on the surface anyway, would seem to hold representational elections to the same format as USA National Elections - ie, a majority instead of the former 50% +1. Ballots not cast equal nothing instead of a defacto "NO" interpretation. We've had the precident you seek for over 250 years in this country.

Not really sure how you call that eliminating the democratic process as it's now the same rules any other election (city, county, state or federal) runs under - the simple majority wins. If you're unhappy about this, try to instate a 50%+1 rule for the next USA Presidential election.

Again - my question was "Will this work the same way re: decertification votes?"

 

[700UW]

No it does not change in regard to a decertification, there actually is not a real process under the RLA to decertify.

 

[MCI transplant]

Abstaining is effectively a blank ballot. There's no precedent for it, so I'm sure the NMB will just make up a ruling on the fly, like they did here.

The extent to which this Administration is going to bypass the legislative process is boggling...

Next thing you know there will be an Executive Order granting both immunity and voting rights to the millions of illegals already in the US.

November's elections can't come soon enough.

<_< ------- HEY!------- Don't give them any idea's!

 

[jersey777]

I support this ruling and Obama.

 

[BoeingBoy]

this ruling, on the surface anyway, would seem to hold representational elections to the same format as USA National Elections - ie, a majority instead of the former 50% +1. Ballots not cast equal nothing instead of a defacto "NO" interpretation. We've had the precident you seek for over 250 years in this country.[/b]

There is a big difference. In every other democratic election in this country if enough voters don't like the job the elected official does they can "vote the bum out" at the end of the specified term. Where in the new rule is that part of the "over 250 years" of history in this country?

I have no problem with making representational elections like every other election in this country. It's the "easy to get elected, almost impossible to get voted out" nature of this rule that I disagree with.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

There is a big difference. In every other democratic election in this country if enough voters don't like the job the elected official does they can "vote the bum out" at the end of the specified term. Where in the new rule is that part of the "over 250 years" of history in this country?

I have no problem with making representational elections like every other election in this country. It's the "easy to get elected, almost impossible to get voted out" nature of this rule that I disagree with.

Jim

When is the last time you saw a Supreme Court Justice on the Ballott? What about the Federal Reserve?(You wont, its a private company). Does Texas vote every four years whether or not they want to stay in the union? Or do Texans, (and every other state) just vote on their representatives to the Federal Government?

My understanding is that this would make it easier to decertify or change unions. In fact that was one of the things brought up by ATA representatives when I sat in on the hearing in Washington DC last year. They complained about the instability it would cause, (too many company unions could face the axe).

The ruling is fair. The votes will be determined by the majority of votes cast, you would still need 35% to risk their jobs and face management intimidation by filling out a card calling for an election, but then the vote either for or against would be determined by the majority of those who have the courage to vote. In the past if someone didnt vote it was counted as a vote against joining the union. You would still need 50% + 1 to decertify or change unions.

The reason why it would make decertifying a union easier is that most union members who want to decertify their unions dont necissarily want to go non-union, under the old rules if they filled out a card calling for a vote between two unions and more than half didnt bother voting they would end up with No union at all. Few in this industry trust their employers enough to go that route so many would simply not fill out a card. Under the new rules members could put organizations on notice that if they do not perform they may face a competitor who will take away their members, it gives workers more choices while reducing the risks, stay, leave and go with another or go non-union but the determination will be made by people who are willing to express their desire and not by people who dont care one way or the other. Like all our other elections.

 

[Bob Owens]

Abstaining is effectively a blank ballot. There's no precedent for it, so I'm sure the NMB will just make up a ruling on the fly, like they did here.

The extent to which this Administration is going to bypass the legislative process is boggling...

The precedent was that a blank ballott was effectively a "NO" vote.

 

[aapitbull]

When is the last time you saw a Supreme Court Justice on the Ballott? What about the Federal Reserve?(You wont, its a private company). Does Texas vote every four years whether or not they want to stay in the union? Or do Texans, (and every other state) just vote on their representatives to the Federal Government?

My understanding is that this would make it easier to decertify or change unions. In fact that was one of the things brought up by ATA representatives when I sat in on the hearing in Washington DC last year. They complained about the instability it would cause, (too many company unions could face the axe).

The ruling is fair. The votes will be determined by the majority of votes cast, you would still need 35% to risk their jobs and face management intimidation by filling out a card calling for an election, but then the vote either for or against would be determined by the majority of those who have the courage to vote. In the past if someone didnt vote it was counted as a vote against joining the union. You would still need 50% + 1 to decertify or change unions.

The reason why it would make decertifying a union easier is that most union members who want to decertify their unions dont necissarily want to go non-union, under the old rules if they filled out a card calling for a vote between two unions and more than half didnt bother voting they would end up with No union at all. Few in this industry trust their employers enough to go that route so many would simply not fill out a card. Under the new rules members could put organizations on notice that if they do not perform they may face a competitor who will take away their members, it gives workers more choices while reducing the risks, stay, leave and go with another or go non-union but the determination will be made by people who are willing to express their desire and not by people who dont care one way or the other. Like all our other elections.

Thank you Bob

ANY MORE QUESTIONS ?????? No

 

[MCI transplant]

Thank you Bob

ANY MORE QUESTIONS ?????? No

<_< -------- Yes!------ Who's going to be the first to try out these new rules?

 

[aapitbull]

<_< -------- Yes!------ Who's going to be the first to try out these new rules?

Maybe AA/TWU you never know!!!!!

 

[eolesen]

Not really sure how you call that eliminating the democratic process as it's now the same rules any other election (city, county, state or federal) runs under - the simple majority wins. If you're unhappy about this, try to instate a 50%+1 rule for the next USA Presidential election.

Boeing Boy already hit on this -- there's a difference between elected representation, and elections which live in perpetuity. There are states and municipalities who already require a majority vote for changes which live in perpetuity (e.g. property taxes, constitutional amendments). Quorum requirements are also very common in corporations and some governmental bodies to avoid end runs.

If you told me that a union had to run for recertification every four years, I'd be all for unionization because at least they'd have to perform to stay in power, as opposed to simply taking the dues and going off to Atlantic City or Vegas for sham conventions.

I have a problem being forced to pay union dues simply because of a vote some guys took before most of you were even alive. Or worse, being forced to pay union dues because a couple of thugs found ways of getting people to sign a representation card under duress, which is essentially a worst case of what Card Check would allow to happen.

Sorry, neither one of those are democratic. There are cases where a quorum matters, and union representation is one of them.

 

[jersey777]

Boeing Boy already hit on this -- there's a difference between elected representation, and elections which live in perpetuity. There are states and municipalities who already require a majority vote for changes which live in perpetuity (e.g. property taxes, constitutional amendments). Quorum requirements are also very common in corporations and some governmental bodies to avoid end runs.

If you told me that a union had to run for recertification every four years, I'd be all for unionization because at least they'd have to perform to stay in power, as opposed to simply taking the dues and going off to Atlantic City or Vegas for sham conventions.

I have a problem being forced to pay union dues simply because of a vote some guys took before most of you were even alive. Or worse, being forced to pay union dues because a couple of thugs found ways of getting people to sign a representation card under duress, which is essentially a worst case of what Card Check would allow to happen.

Sorry, neither one of those are democratic. There are cases where a quorum matters, and union representation is one of them.

You crack me up. Since you can't logically dispute the idea of counting only those peoples votes that took the time to vote, you and your ilk are hounding on the fact that a Union cannot easily be decertified. When you can't argue about the facts, change the subject.

 

[Rogallo]

When you can't argue about the facts, change the subject.

Ain't that the truth!!