New Election Rules

[eolesen]

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.

Sorry you don't see decertification as a legitimate issue, but it is. NMB makes it easy to get the union in, but won't do anything to get rid of them?... Yet another reason why the ATA and others are questioning this is the authority NMB has to start changing legislation. That's the legislature's job, not a politically appointed committee's.

If NMB were changing *all* the rules, I don't think you'd see as many people questioning this. But they're not. It's a one-way door into the roach motel, and one that will only get worse if Card Check is ever made law. Now not only do you have a minority of people voting, but you eliminate the voting...

Again, it comes down to permanency. If it were easy to undo the decision in a couple years, a simple majority is fine. But this isn't easy to undo.

The city next to me can't annex our property unless there's a majority of the 50 landowners in said parcel vote for annexation. If we all stay home, and only 2 out of 50 people vote, we don't get annexed. That vote can't be un-done in four years, and the land returned to an unincorporated status.

In 2003, the Texas legislature's Republican majority tried to push a redistricting plan, which was going to wipe out a couple predominantly Democrat districts. The vote couldn't be held without a quorum, so Democrats got on a bus from Austin to Ardmore, OK, and blocked the vote from taking place.

Quorum and super-majority votes have their place in the voting process. I happen to think this is one of those places it's deserved.

 

[jersey777]

Sorry you don't see decertification as a legitimate issue, but it is. NMB makes it easy to get the union in, but won't do anything to get rid of them?... Yet another reason why the ATA and others are questioning this is the authority NMB has to start changing legislation. That's the legislature's job, not a politically appointed committee's.

If NMB were changing *all* the rules, I don't think you'd see as many people questioning this. But they're not. It's a one-way door into the roach motel, and one that will only get worse if Card Check is ever made law. Now not only do you have a minority of people voting, but you eliminate the voting...

Again, it comes down to permanency. If it were easy to undo the decision in a couple years, a simple majority is fine. But this isn't easy to undo.

The city next to me can't annex our property unless there's a majority of the 50 landowners in said parcel vote for annexation. If we all stay home, and only 2 out of 50 people vote, we don't get annexed. That vote can't be un-done in four years, and the land returned to an unincorporated status.

In 2003, the Texas legislature's Republican majority tried to push a redistricting plan, which was going to wipe out a couple predominantly Democrat districts. The vote couldn't be held without a quorum, so Democrats got on a bus from Austin to Ardmore, OK, and blocked the vote from taking place.








Quorum and super-majority votes have their place in the voting process. I happen to think this is one of those places it's deserved.

When you start to cite Texas policy making as an example it gives me an idea where your mentality comes from.

 

[eolesen]

When you start to cite Texas policy making as an example it gives me an idea where your mentality comes from.

and what does it say when you have to resort to questioning the poster instead of their opinions?...

 

[jersey777]

and what does it say when you have to resort to questioning the poster instead of their opinions?...

I was trying to make a point. No opinions are going to get changed on this point. The two lines of thinking are too entrenched in ideology as well as being steeped in political leanings. What I find valuable and interesting is the basis some use as their argument for and against a subject. On this decision of the NMB I think it is interesting that you and others are more concerned with arguing what the NMB didn't do vs. what they did do. You and I probably won't agree on most things but sometimes I learn things on here from you and others who have a different background and experiences. On this subject though, the bantering on this issue is simply opinion.

 

[eolesen]

Make no mistake, I'm firmly against their interpretation of the rules, and also against the half-assed way they've ruled.

 

[aapitbull]

NMB makes it easy to get the union in, but won't do anything to get rid of them?...

This statement shows how little you know of the true function of the NMB Go look at their case docket and see how many case are dismissed annually because the company wrongly inflates the list and no election is allowed. "the NMB makes it easy to get a union in" please I,m LOL

As far as doing anything to get rid of one, they are the mediators between the company and the union it's what they do !!

Take it from someone who has been there the NMB is no friend to the working man!!!

 

[BoeingBoy]

On this decision of the NMB I think it is interesting that you and others are more concerned with arguing what the NMB didn't do vs. what they did do.

For me personally, that's because of the supporters continually citing "every other democratic election in this country" as a basis for changing the rule. I just point out that they don't really want that - they want democratic election rules to get the union in then lifetime appointment rules once the union is in. Which goes to Bob's comment mixing appointed office holders and elected officials. Even appointed officials keep their jobs at the pleasure of whoever has the power to appoint them except for the federal judiciary which is due to the separation of powers.

So if you want "democratic election" rules that's fine - insist on that at both ends of the process. Otherwise admit the hypocrisy.

Jim

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

Agree totally on the de-certification argument. It's inappropriate to be so inconsistent on this. Just one more reason why I view it 100% as a political move.

 

[jersey777]

Agree totally on the de-certification argument. It's inappropriate to be so inconsistent on this. Just one more reason why I view it 100% as a political move.

COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR--DISCUSS POLITICS IN THE WATER COOLER

 

[MCI transplant]

COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR-DISCUSS POLITICS IN THE WATER COOLER

<_< -------- That's the problem!------- It ain't just "Republican"! Both parties have their own self serving agendas that got us into this mess!------ Their mantra has been "Free trade"! "Free trade"! "Free trade"! When it should have been "Fair trade"! "Fair trade"! "Fair trade"! They have given away the candy store, and saddled our grandchildren with a dept that will be impossible to repay!

MODERATOR NOTE: Do NOT discuss politics in this forum-that's what the Water Cooler is for!

 

[aapitbull]

Agree totally on the de-certification argument. It's inappropriate to be so inconsistent on this. Just one more reason why I view it 100% as a political move.

Well lets see what do yiou think the companies postion would be on de-certification ? Now what do you think the companies postion would be on unionization? this is why the rules are different the company will threaten and intimadate those wanting a union up to and including termination of the ring leaders, while they would most likely fund a de-certification drive if they thought they could get away with it!

But the same standard should apply, come on you guys can do better than that.

 

[eolesen]

If the union is so valuable to the employee, would it really matter if the company were able to fund a decertification drive? If they're so important, surely the employees would see thru that, so what's the concern?...

 

[BoeingBoy]

But the same standard should apply, come on you guys can do better than that.

Tell that to those who claim that the "democratic standard used in all elections" should apply to representational elections. You know those representational elections that apply to both voting in and voting out a union. Likewise for those who claim that "if it's good enough under the NLRB it should be good enough under the NMB" but only want the certification part of the NLRB rules and wouldn't touch the NLRB's decertification or contract rules with a 10 foot pole.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

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

Probably the Delta Flight Attendants. The hearing was packed with them.

 

[Bob Owens]

Tell that to those who claim that the "democratic standard used in all elections" should apply to representational elections. You know those representational elections that apply to both voting in and voting out a union. Likewise for those who claim that "if it's good enough under the NLRB it should be good enough under the NMB" but only want the certification part of the NLRB rules and wouldn't touch the NLRB's decertification or contract rules with a 10 foot pole.

Jim

I'd welcome going fully under the NLRB. The only people on the side of labor who like it are the lawyers and the Union Bosses, because neither of them have to work under it.

It provides the Unions some security but not the workers. Dump the RLA! No multi year dragging out of negotiations, when the contracts up, its up, either settle or strike. No class and craft requirement to organize, the gate agents could have organized years ago if not for that. No BS. The RLA does nothing for workers. All the promises it made to workers back in 1926 have been broken, only the restrictions remain. Everything works in favor of the carrier and the carriers have been very successful at using it to ruin worker lives.

When the airlines are ready for a strike the NMB releases them right away (look how quickly CAL, EAL and NWA were released after the contracts became amendable) but when workers are in a position to make gains the NMB refuses to release them, sometimes as long as eight years(in the rails)! In 2000 the NMB told AMFA at NWA that unless they lowered their demands (for restoration) that they would never release them, five years later after the company made it clear that they were prepared to bust the union the NMB released them right away! The companys demands were more extreme than AMFAs demands but the NMB did nothing to protect the workers interests, their job is to allow the carriers to continue to operate. I say get rid of the whole thing, let us go under the NLRB.