Unions dig in for Delta fight

[cooper43]

Hi everyone--Just checked in and read some of this thread. With limited time, I will add the following:

The concensus I am hearing among NW friends of mine who are not exactly enthralled with AFA is to get a union (AFA in this case) voted in first, THEN, depending on how AFA does with our new group/contract negotiations, leave open the option to decertify AFA for another (hopefully better, more responsive) union. I know many will regurgitate the company line about how difficult it is to decertify/vote out a union. Remember, however, NW f/a's have done it twice in the past 5-6 years. First by voting out Teamsters for PFAA, then PFAA for AFA.

We have neither the time, nor the resources to fall for this fantasy of not voting in AFA and then trying to recruit for another union from the ground up...signing cards, etc. It could take many, many years.
Since the May election, I've done some thinking and I feel now, more than ever, that there are other alternatives to AFA, however, I don't think not voting in the next election (thus having no representation at all), then later trying to organize 21,000 f/a's around a new union from the ground up is good strategy.
Just my .02

I can support that idea, i for one think I can vote in AFA and give them a chance, with them realizing that if they do nothing we will decertify them and replace them with our own in house union. Do you know the time line now of how and when we have another vote?

 

[bagboy]

If it goes up for a vote whether to unionize, Delta has almost twice as many employees as NWA. They might like where they are at without a union. Unions seem to be becoming a hard sell in a world where jobs are scarce and being outsourced. Just my opinion.

I was doing a bit of lite reading and found it funny that you would mention the number of employees that DL has over NW. In respect to the ramp and counter departments, how many person do you figure you, DL, employ? Now remove all the outsourced stations that are run by your DGS and Comair and who has the majority vote on if, or should I say when we unionize the ground operations of my new Delta.

 

[Danny Campbell]

At one time, I (too) believed that having an 'independant' union was the best for us at Northwest. However, we learned the hard way that it was not. Some of the lessons we learned were;

* Creating an independant union requires an incredible amount of money from grassroots contributors -- in fact, our PFAA union never had nearly enough money to operate or provide the level of representation we had come to expect from the former union we complained about (Teamsters). By the time we voted the independant union out, it was 1 million in the red and couldn't meet it's finanical obligations to legal or administrative staff.

* Having an independant union greatly reduced our ability to have qualified legal and collective bargaining 'experts' -- with vast experience in our industry and with the RLA (Railway Labor Act). There are few lawyers in the country who specialize in the RLA, and those that do are already 'on staff' at two unions (the pilots' union, ALPA and our union. AFA). Unless you have ever sat at the bargaining table, an arbitration or in the courtroom, you have no idea how essential it is to have people on staff who have more experience than the management representatives across the table from us. That was NOT the case in our independant union -- where we lost every important battle that we confronted (including the bankruptcy concessions we are now working under).

* Finally, being in an independant union (as a flight attendant group) gave us virtually NO POWER or LEVERAGE on Capital Hill -- as legislators and government agencies have a long history of working with the 'largest' labor organizations. While AFA has always been the loudest 'voice' of working FAs in our country, it's voice grew even louder when we formed a partnership with the 700,000 members of the CWA. Imagine you are on staff for a US Senator and you have calls to meet with 'flight attendants' that belong to a union of 8,000 FAs (with no ties to the larger labor community) or you have calls from a union of 55,000 FAs (with ties to 700,000 CWA and the many millions in the AFL-CIO). Who do you think will get the first appointment? That was the lesson of our lobbying efforts when NWA wanted to outsource 75% of all of our international flying. Had AFA not helped us with that effort, our pleas would have fallen on deaf ears. We should look no further than the failed 2005 AMFA strike (independant union for NWA mechanics) to realize that we are powerless when we are isolated.

These (and many other issues) were the harsh lessons we learned during the three short years we belonged to PFAA. And, sadly -- we are now living under a contract that was brought about BECAUSE of these weaknesses. So, for many of us - an independant union is something we can't support. AFA works when you elect the right leaders - the resources and the structure of the union is the best -- the trick is putting the right people in office.

Danny G. Campbell, NWA FA

 

[cooper43]

At one time, I (too) believed that having an 'independant' union was the best for us at Northwest. However, we learned the hard way that it was not. Some of the lessons we learned were;

* Creating an independant union requires an incredible amount of money from grassroots contributors -- in fact, our PFAA union never had nearly enough money to operate or provide the level of representation we had come to expect from the former union we complained about (Teamsters). By the time we voted the independant union out, it was 1 million in the red and couldn't meet it's finanical obligations to legal or administrative staff.

* Having an independant union greatly reduced our ability to have qualified legal and collective bargaining 'experts' -- with vast experience in our industry and with the RLA (Railway Labor Act). There are few lawyers in the country who specialize in the RLA, and those that do are already 'on staff' at two unions (the pilots' union, ALPA and our union. AFA). Unless you have ever sat at the bargaining table, an arbitration or in the courtroom, you have no idea how essential it is to have people on staff who have more experience than the management representatives across the table from us. That was NOT the case in our independant union -- where we lost every important battle that we confronted (including the bankruptcy concessions we are now working under).

* Finally, being in an independant union (as a flight attendant group) gave us virtually NO POWER or LEVERAGE on Capital Hill -- as legislators and government agencies have a long history of working with the 'largest' labor organizations. While AFA has always been the loudest 'voice' of working FAs in our country, it's voice grew even louder when we formed a partnership with the 700,000 members of the CWA. Imagine you are on staff for a US Senator and you have calls to meet with 'flight attendants' that belong to a union of 8,000 FAs (with no ties to the larger labor community) or you have calls from a union of 55,000 FAs (with ties to 700,000 CWA and the many millions in the AFL-CIO). Who do you think will get the first appointment? That was the lesson of our lobbying efforts when NWA wanted to outsource 75% of all of our international flying. Had AFA not helped us with that effort, our pleas would have fallen on deaf ears. We should look no further than the failed 2005 AMFA strike (independant union for NWA mechanics) to realize that we are powerless when we are isolated.

These (and many other issues) were the harsh lessons we learned during the three short years we belonged to PFAA. And, sadly -- we are now living under a contract that was brought about BECAUSE of these weaknesses. So, for many of us - an independant union is something we can't support. AFA works when you elect the right leaders - the resources and the structure of the union is the best -- the trick is putting the right people in office.

Danny G. Campbell, NWA FA

You make a good case for AFA and I personally am still weighing the differences. What do you think of the fact that we would be a much larger group of f/a's much like AA. How long has AA had an independent union? And are they happy with having an independent union? Would it be possible to create a separate chapter of their union which would rival AFA?

 

[yoyodyne]

At one time, I (too) believed that having an 'independant' union was the best for us at Northwest. However, we learned the hard way that it was not. Some of the lessons we learned were;

* Creating an independant union requires an incredible amount of money from grassroots contributors -- in fact, our PFAA union never had nearly enough money to operate or provide the level of representation we had come to expect from the former union we complained about (Teamsters). By the time we voted the independant union out, it was 1 million in the red and couldn't meet it's finanical obligations to legal or administrative staff.

* Having an independant union greatly reduced our ability to have qualified legal and collective bargaining 'experts' -- with vast experience in our industry and with the RLA (Railway Labor Act). There are few lawyers in the country who specialize in the RLA, and those that do are already 'on staff' at two unions (the pilots' union, ALPA and our union. AFA). Unless you have ever sat at the bargaining table, an arbitration or in the courtroom, you have no idea how essential it is to have people on staff who have more experience than the management representatives across the table from us. That was NOT the case in our independant union -- where we lost every important battle that we confronted (including the bankruptcy concessions we are now working under).

* Finally, being in an independant union (as a flight attendant group) gave us virtually NO POWER or LEVERAGE on Capital Hill -- as legislators and government agencies have a long history of working with the 'largest' labor organizations. While AFA has always been the loudest 'voice' of working FAs in our country, it's voice grew even louder when we formed a partnership with the 700,000 members of the CWA. Imagine you are on staff for a US Senator and you have calls to meet with 'flight attendants' that belong to a union of 8,000 FAs (with no ties to the larger labor community) or you have calls from a union of 55,000 FAs (with ties to 700,000 CWA and the many millions in the AFL-CIO). Who do you think will get the first appointment? That was the lesson of our lobbying efforts when NWA wanted to outsource 75% of all of our international flying. Had AFA not helped us with that effort, our pleas would have fallen on deaf ears. We should look no further than the failed 2005 AMFA strike (independant union for NWA mechanics) to realize that we are powerless when we are isolated.

These (and many other issues) were the harsh lessons we learned during the three short years we belonged to PFAA. And, sadly -- we are now living under a contract that was brought about BECAUSE of these weaknesses. So, for many of us - an independant union is something we can't support. AFA works when you elect the right leaders - the resources and the structure of the union is the best -- the trick is putting the right people in office.

Danny G. Campbell, NWA FA

 

[Danny Campbell]

yoyodyne:

Nice - - very in-depth rebuttle to my arguments <not>

copper43:

You asked; "Would it be possible to create a separate chapter of their (American Airlines FAs') union which would rival AFA?

My Response: If American FAs (APFA) created a 'separate chapter', guess what? -- they would then no longer be an 'independent union' run by and for American FAs. In fact, they would then be what we currently HAVE in AFA. AFA is comprised of 'separate chapters' (called the MEC and LEC leadership at each individual carrier). The sole purpose that we band together under a more broad umbrella is because it gives us power & the ability to share resources (departments at the international union, like legal, communications, membership, EAP, safety/health/security and collective bargaining) and it also gives us a louder voice with legislators and gov't agencies. I think there is a mis-conception with Delta FAs that our contracts and daily representation are administered or negotiated by someone other than the FAs at our own carriers. That isn't how AFA works - we have total autonomy at each individual carrier to negotiate the agreements our FAs want and to protect our contracts as we see fit. We also elect our OWN peers on the base and carrier level -- not someone from another carrier.

As a final thought, the America FAs created their independent union in the 1970's - prior to deregulation -- when it was easier to do so and employers did not have as many tools in their arsenal to destroy an independent union. That ability no longer exists -- and in fact, it would take 10 x's MORE MOBILIZATION (than the former DL campaign just mustered) and more hundreds of DL and NW FAs opening their personal pocket-books to even begin to create an independent union. Trust me -- I dare someone to even begin to put something of that magnitude together. I would eat my shorts if they succeeded at it <wink>

 

[Danny Campbell]

Cooper43:

P.S. In case you are the person that wants to start up an independent union, here is a DO TO list for you...

* Create a comprehensive "Constitution and Bylaws" for the organization and file it with the Department of Labor and related agencies.

* Begin a fund-raiser to fund the organization - a good start-up estimate to run an organizing campaign (of 22,000 employees scattered across 50 states and abroad) and pay for services needed before you even get through the door would run somewhere between 2 million - 10 million (maybe a few thousand bake sales are in order).

* Hire lawyers, economists, admin staff and accountants for the new labor organization

* Somehow obtain the contact information for all 22,000 employees -- which is nearly impossible if there is no existing union on the property.

* Find an interim leadership team.

Now that's just the beginning - once these things are accomplished, then you have a campaign to run.

 

[cooper43]

yoyodyne:

Nice - - very in-depth rebuttle to my arguments <not>

copper43:

You asked; "Would it be possible to create a separate chapter of their (American Airlines FAs') union which would rival AFA?

My Response: If American FAs (APFA) created a 'separate chapter', guess what? -- they would then no longer be an 'independent union' run by and for American FAs. In fact, they would then be what we currently HAVE in AFA. AFA is comprised of 'separate chapters' (called the MEC and LEC leadership at each individual carrier). The sole purpose that we band together under a more broad umbrella is because it gives us power & the ability to share resources (departments at the international union, like legal, communications, membership, EAP, safety/health/security and collective bargaining) and it also gives us a louder voice with legislators and gov't agencies. I think there is a mis-conception with Delta FAs that our contracts and daily representation are administered or negotiated by someone other than the FAs at our own carriers. That isn't how AFA works - we have total autonomy at each individual carrier to negotiate the agreements our FAs want and to protect our contracts as we see fit. We also elect our OWN peers on the base and carrier level -- not someone from another carrier.

As a final thought, the America FAs created their independent union in the 1970's - prior to deregulation -- when it was easier to do so and employers did not have as many tools in their arsenal to destroy an independent union. That ability no longer exists -- and in fact, it would take 10 x's MORE MOBILIZATION (than the former DL campaign just mustered) and more hundreds of DL and NW FAs opening their personal pocket-books to even begin to create an independent union. Trust me -- I dare someone to even begin to put something of that magnitude together. I would eat my shorts if they succeeded at it <wink>

Ok Danny thanks for your response , it sounds reasonable to go with AFA, but I am confused as to how our dues money would be spent. Does AfA share a portion of our dues money to help other carriers? When I mentioned the AA union, my intent was to maybe have our own union modeled and maybe the same name but autonomous (sp) finacially from AA. And it was just an example. I am just concerned how our dues money will be spent. I prefer if every dollar of our dues money goes toward legal expertise for our benefit and not for say United or US airways, etc.. When we merge we will be the largest group of flight attendants and I have a hard time with any portion of our money going to a rival carrier. Is there some way that our money could stay just for our employees unless and only unless it is brought up for a vote among our members for a vote to let any portion of our funds be spent to support another group of employees. I do not mean to sound selfish but that is just the way I feel about the money end of things. Am I wrong?

 

[Danny Campbell]

The way AFA works is similar to how the United States Government works. Below, is a graph that explains it better. Think of it this way...

You pay state and federal taxes, right? Well, in AFA the vast majority of our $43.00 monthly dues goes directly into the "local" budget (like our state budget). The 22% that goes into the "AFA International" budget pays for departments that are available to us also (so even some of that 22% is still being utilized by the local level). Consider portions of our taxes that go to something like FEMA for example....well, a portion of our dues in AFA in international budget that might be similar is what we call a "Mobilization Fund". Any carrier in a hard contract battle or legal process may apply for funds in the Mobilizaton Fund - so it is actually available to ALL AFA carriers.

Does this make more sense?

 

[Danny Campbell]

copper43:

P.S. What is ironic about your statement above (about competing carriers) is that for many decades, AFA members have complained that United has a too powerful "political pull" on decisions made at the international level - due to the fact that they outnumber all other AFA FAs and therefore having a stronger voting block of members. Should Delta-NWA FAs join AFA together (as 22,000 FAs), we will have the LARGEST voting block in AFA and will likely hear the 16,000 United FAs complaining for the first time in 20 plus years about the same thing. Something to think about.

 

[cooper43]

The way AFA works is similar to how the United States Government works. Below, is a graph that explains it better. Think of it this way...

You pay state and federal taxes, right? Well, in AFA the vast majority of our $43.00 monthly dues goes directly into the "local" budget (like our state budget). The 22% that goes into the "AFA International" budget pays for departments that are available to us also (so even some of that 22% is still being utilized by the local level). Consider portions of our taxes that go to something like FEMA for example....well, a portion of our dues in AFA in international budget that might be similar is what we call a "Mobilization Fund". Any carrier in a hard contract battle or legal process may apply for funds in the Mobilizaton Fund - so it is actually available to ALL AFA carriers.

Does this make more sense?

Ok I kind of understand the idea. When a vote comes around you guys can count on my vote. As you probably remember from the last vote I was against voting AFA in because of their merger policy on seniority. I feel better now since there will be f/a's from both carriers negotiating a fair seniority list for both groups. And I yes I know that if we cant come to an agreement it it will go to arbitration which if that happens is fine with me and I will have to live with what ever decision the arbitrators make. I just feel better that at least we are working together and looking at all angles before jumping into DOH. So at this point I am ready to vote yes for union representation. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to my concerns and answering some of my questions.

 

[Danny Campbell]

You are welcome. Feel free to email me if you ever have additional questions; dgcampbell@comcast.net

I agree with you that it is wonderful that both sides of this merger are already working together. I know I said this before, but I think its important to repeat it: I truly believe that if both groups do not agree on DOH, that the NWA FAs stand to gain a better seniority placement due to the fact that the Delta seniority list is heavier than ours. However, I think what is MORE IMPORTANT is that we (collectively) have the power to ensure that a "fence agreement" remain in place, which would do two major things...

1. It would provide indefinite seniority and base protection for both groups -- so that nobody can lose their current flying -- until which time we negotiate a combined contract.

2. By having this fence agreement in place, it allows us to continue to work together (while we negotiate a combined contract) and it allows us to analyze the likely impacts of the merger on our seniority (mostly our base seniority) and develop contract proposals that mitigate any such impact. For example, the only three bases where we overlap are BOS, NYC and LAX. During negotiations, we could poll flight attendants on whether they would seek to remain in those bases or transfer to a larger hub (like ATL or DTW). The responses you get to these kinds of polls help predict what the impact of integration will be.

However, if we lose the next election, it means we (the NWA FAs) lose our contract and therefore we BOTH lose the "fence agreement" that would otherwise be in place. Given the history of NWA execs (and the Lorenzo-style tactics they are fond of), it works to their advantage to force a more rapid integration process, whereby employees are pitted against each other. That, among all other things, is something we on the NWA side of this merger do not want to see happen.

Danny

 

[dapoes]

You forgot to put into the pie chart salaries paid to AFA board members.

IE: Why is Pat Friend collecting a salary after retiring in clear violation of the C&B where it is clear that "A retired member shall not have the right to vote or hold elective office." (Article II, Section C.7.c).

If the AFA is truly run by FA's for FA's then why does this happen? Who else is secretly appointed and on the payroll without the FA's knowing?

 

[cooper43]

You are welcome. Feel free to email me if you ever have additional questions; dgcampbell@comcast.net

I agree with you that it is wonderful that both sides of this merger are already working together. I know I said this before, but I think its important to repeat it: I truly believe that if both groups do not agree on DOH, that the NWA FAs stand to gain a better seniority placement due to the fact that the Delta seniority list is heavier than ours. However, I think what is MORE IMPORTANT is that we (collectively) have the power to ensure that a "fence agreement" remain in place, which would do two major things...

1. It would provide indefinite seniority and base protection for both groups -- so that nobody can lose their current flying -- until which time we negotiate a combined contract.

2. By having this fence agreement in place, it allows us to continue to work together (while we negotiate a combined contract) and it allows us to analyze the likely impacts of the merger on our seniority (mostly our base seniority) and develop contract proposals that mitigate any such impact. For example, the only three bases where we overlap are BOS, NYC and LAX. During negotiations, we could poll flight attendants on whether they would seek to remain in those bases or transfer to a larger hub (like ATL or DTW). The responses you get to these kinds of polls help predict what the impact of integration will be.

However, if we lose the next election, it means we (the NWA FAs) lose our contract and therefore we BOTH lose the "fence agreement" that would otherwise be in place. Given the history of NWA execs (and the Lorenzo-style tactics they are fond of), it works to their advantage to force a more rapid integration process, whereby employees are pitted against each other. That, among all other things, is something we on the NWA side of this merger do not want to see happen.

Danny

Well I still have a few questions. I still support the "fair and equitable" negotiation process of senority intergration, it is my understanding that this will take place before another AFA vote. Now If thru this negotiation process it is agreed that DOH is the best way to go and both committees agree to that, I totally support what they come to terms with. I am still in favor of going thru this process so we all can sit down and make sure what the most "fair" integration will be. It is also my understanding that if our committees can not agree upon a way to intergrate then it goes to binding arbitration. Which I am ok with that also, even though I do not know what the out come will be, it is the process that I support. Now as far as all the other stuff like the fence agreements I am totally cool with all of that . So I think I am on the same page with you but just maybe beleive in different ways of getting there. I truely hope that our two employee groups can come together and work together and learn from each other. We have different cultures but I look forward to the blending of the best of the two cultures.

 

[Dignity]

I feel the integration of seniority will be one of the last issues to be resolved instead of one of the initial items handled at the approval of the merger. You have to take into consideration when dealing with over 22 thousand Flight Attendants full cross training will need to be accomplished prior to any combined list is finalized and certainly after the union vote for representation. While branding of inflight items(magazines, onboard product) would happen in the short term the actual merging of employees regarding inflight would happen more in the longer run..
Personally, and this is just my opinion, taking into consideration how much technology, facilities, training of all employees groups management would be wasting valuable time bickering about seniority. I think the only employees that will end up without D.O.H will be the pilots of course mid-level management, the rest of the employees(dealing with 10's of thousands) would more than likely go D.O.H based on their Inflight training date, or job classification date. It would cause for a much smoother transition instead of fighting over who goes where on the list.