NMB Rules on Flight Attendant Interference

[signals]

Jealousy rears it's ugly head again!

Tell it to your scab pilots

 

[signals]

What makes you think that just because you have a union, you will retain a pension ?

And why are you eating the AMT's food ?

Ask your arrogant union scab pilots

 

[signals]

It's amazing to me that we had a fair (now according to the NMB) election THREE times now
And the same result. NO! And some just cant comprehend. Build that bridge and get over it.
Lets move forward and make this the best AIR LINE out there. If you you want to tear down something,
Lets do that to the competition, NOT eachother.

Southwest already beat you to it, and they're union

 

[signals]

Never said union peeps weren't part of the American public, they just don't represent the majority of the American public, which by your previous statement, you would like people to believe !

Hey Delta unionized pilots, are you going to let him talk that way about your union?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Union members are the part of the American public.

Yes, part of the American public. But you said:

The NMB voting changes were implemented at the behest of the American public.

Not part of the American public...without a qualifier "the American Public" isn't just union members and their families. Face it, the vast majority of public comments on the rule change were form letters, with verbiage suggested by unions. Just one of those form letters, with about 20,000 submitted, was a preprinted postcard with instructions to give to a shop steward or mail to the address printed on the card. So it's pretty obvious that the American public didn't deluge the NMB with comments, just the part of the American public that are union members and their friends/family.

Jim

 

[700UW]

So the Americans against it had the same opportunity to voice their opinions, nothing wrong with a union gathering their members together for a good cause.

Jim, do you not agree the old way was not fair?

 

[southwind]

So the Americans against it had the same opportunity to voice their opinions, nothing wrong with a union gathering their members together for a good cause.

Jim, do you not agree the old way was not fair?

No one said John Q. Public was against the rule change ! Only peeps who have a problem with the rule changes are union peeps and the fact it backfired on their ### !

 

[Kev3188]

Yes, part of the American public. But you said:



Not part of the American public...without a qualifier "the American Public" isn't just union members and their families.

The comment period was open to any American citizen. Period. As for the "deluge" of comments coming from union members, that may be, but again, people opposed to the change had the same opportunity. In fact, a certain ATL-based carrier provided a pre-printed card with "suggested verbiage" against the change to all ~80k of it's employees, yet very few were submitted.

Only peeps who have a problem with the rule changes are union peeps and the fact it backfired on their ### !

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[southwind]

The comment period was open to any American citizen. Period. As for the "deluge" of comments coming from union members, that may be, but again, people opposed to the change had the same opportunity. In fact, a certain ATL-based carrier provided a pre-printed card with "suggested verbiage" against the change to all ~80k of it's employees, yet very few were submitted.





That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Come on Dude ! The unions thought, after the rule change, they were a shoo-in !

The general "American Public" could give a rat's ### about the rule change !

And why should unions be the only ones who distribute propaganda? You do believe people should have all information, from both sides, concerning a major decision, don't you ? :blink:

 

[southwind]

So the Americans against it had the same opportunity to voice their opinions, nothing wrong with a union gathering their members together for a good cause.

Jim, do you not agree the old way was not fair?

I'm sure the "MAJORITY" of Americans were never aware, that a rule change was even being talked about !

Just spit it out man, this rule change was pushed by the unions.......not the American public !

 

[Kev3188]

Come on Dude ! The unions thought, after the rule change, they were a shoo-in !

No they didn't. You are conflating the rule change itself with frustration over the NMB's recent determination regarding Carrier Interference.

And why should unions be the only ones who distribute propaganda?

I'm surprised to see you calling something on our company website "propaganda," but hey, stranger things have happened.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So the Americans against it had the same opportunity to voice their opinions, nothing wrong with a union gathering their members together for a good cause.

Didn't say there was anything wrong with it 700. But there is something wrong with trying to pass the change off as "the American public's" desire when the fact is that it was the union's desire.

Jim, do you not agree the old way was not fair?

I believe that if a union is going to be given so much power over the employee, up to and including termination, then the majority of the group should elect the union - not a vocal minority.

The old procedure was fair in that it was somewhat hard for a union to become the elected bargaining agent but nearly impossible to decertify a union once elected. If you and others want to talk about being "fair" and doing it "like every other election" it should be as easy to vote the union out as to elect them in the first place - by the majority of votes cast in both instances. But that is unfair according to the unions and union zealots...

Jim

 

[southwind]

No they didn't. You are conflating the rule change itself with frustration over the NMB's recent determination regarding Carrier Interference.
I'm surprised to see you calling something on our company website "propaganda," but hey, stranger things have happened.

No frustration here ! Actually , enjoying the AFA and soon to join, IAM eating crow, regarding Carrier interference............since according to the NMB , none was found ! I'm sure after the recent ruling concerning the AFA, your sitting on needles and pins right about now.

I'm surprised to see you agreeing that unions use propaganda also. Gotta fight fire with fire baby !

 

[Kev3188]

No frustration here !

Who said you were?

Actually , enjoying the AFA and soon to join, IAM eating crow, regarding Carrier interference............since according to the NMB , none was found ! I'm sure after the recent ruling concerning the AFA, your sitting on needles and pins right about now.

What crow? F/A's system wide are outraged (and rightfully so), not humbled.

It's a shame you "enjoy" the will of your coworkers being silenced by corporate America, but I guess after reading your cartoonish posts over the years I shouldn't be shocked.

As for me, I'm not on pins and needles. I'm fully prepared for a determination either way. I hope the NMB does the right thing with the fleet/CSA/res/stores elections, but won't be surprised if they don't after turning the RLA on it's head with this last verdict.

I'm surprised to see you agreeing that unions use propaganda also. Gotta fight fire with fire baby !

I didn't. Your term, not mine.

 

[700UW]

Didn't say there was anything wrong with it 700. But there is something wrong with trying to pass the change off as "the American public's" desire when the fact is that it was the union's desire.



I believe that if a union is going to be given so much power over the employee, up to and including termination, then the majority of the group should elect the union - not a vocal minority.

The old procedure was fair in that it was somewhat hard for a union to become the elected bargaining agent but nearly impossible to decertify a union once elected. If you and others want to talk about being "fair" and doing it "like every other election" it should be as easy to vote the union out as to elect them in the first place - by the majority of votes cast in both instances. But that is unfair according to the unions and union zealots...

Jim

Since the majority of union workers in the US are covered under the NLRA which is majority of those who voted, doesnt count a non-vote as a "NO" and they can strike as their CBAs expire and do not become amendable.

The RLA was set up to protect interstate commerce, because all of the wildcat strikes of the unorganized and non-union workers at the railroads, the law was written before airlines ever existed. The RLA doesnt level the playing field its 100% in the company's favor.

Why is it that every single industry in this country who have unionized workers dont have to follow the arcane process of the RLA, only airline and railroads?

Doesnt seem fair does it?

No election in this country had a process where the people who dont vote are counted as a "NO" vote, if that was the case no one would ever get elected as the majority of Americans dont vote, so in using your logic the President of the US should never get elected or any other office as the majority dont vote!