US Carriers Oppose Union Election Rule Change

If all the powers that be, are coming out against this... it must be the right thing to do. Why are the people who sign the checks so United against Unions?

When they all come out together against this 70 year old law, it must be historically working for THEM. Are their words hiding the truth in plan sight?

not a fine wine wrote:

If all the powers that be, are coming out against this... it must be the right thing to do. Why are the people who sign the checks so United against Unions?
When they all come out together against this 70 year old law, it must be historically working for THEM. Are their words hiding the truth in plan sight?

Why was has this law been OK and in fact supported by the unions until now? Could it be because all indications point to 50% plus one are not reachable by the IAM and AFA? The majority of people at DL/NW do not want a union. Pontificate away.

Old NWA Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why was has this law been OK and in fact supported by the unions until now? Could it be because all indications point to 50% plus one are not reachable by the IAM and AFA? The majority of people at DL/NW do not want a union. Pontificate away.

I don't agree with you but I'll say this..The company executives use anything they can to gain and advantage including, manipulation of the press,courts and legislators. They are in a situation where they are at a disadvantage after working to tilt the pendulum towards their needs. Now that the current administration might lean toward the union they are claiming foul!! Should n't their job be to run the airline and let the employees and NMB decide if they are to represented by a union?

Spade a Spade wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't agree with you but I'll say this..The company executives use anything they can to gain and advantage including, manipulation of the press,courts and legislators. They are in a situation where they are at a disadvantage after working to tilt the pendulum towards their needs. Now that the current administration might lean toward the union they are claiming foul!! Should n't their job be to run the airline and let the employees and NMB decide if they are to represented by a union?

" shouldn't the their job be to run the airline and let the employees and NMB decide if they are to be represented by a union?" Absolutely the employees should deide, hence the exist 50% plus 1 law. Doesn't the current law accomplish giving the employees what they want?

Old NWA Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
" shouldn't the their job be to run the airline and let the employees and NMB decide if they are to be represented by a union?" Absolutely the employees should deide, hence the exist 50% plus 1 law. Doesn't the current law accomplish giving the employees what they want?

No the current law is unfair. SCABAIR and Delta puhed their agend through during Bush administration
No it does not. I have never heard any union agree with this law..In fact to contrary.

Old NWA Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why was has this law been OK and in fact supported by the unions until now? Could it be because all indications point to 50% plus one are not reachable by the IAM and AFA? The majority of people at DL/NW do not want a union. Pontificate away.

Why was has this law been OK and in fact supported by the unions until now?

What facts do you have to support this claim? Or are you drawing a conclusion because the law is old? Unions have fought for many years to change a lot of unfair labor laws. More times than not... the money wins. Can you tell me how many times unions have tried to change the class and craft ruling? This country by far supports big business. Unions have never had an easy time here. So much so ... that many have taken the approach of can't beaten joinem.

not a fine wine wrote:

<quoted text>Why was has this law been OK and in fact supported by the unions until now?
What facts do you have to support this claim? Or are you drawing a conclusion because the law is old? Unions have fought for many years to change a lot of unfair labor laws. More times than not... the money wins. Can you tell me how many times unions have tried to change the class and craft ruling? This country by far supports big business. Unions have never had an easy time here. So much so ... that many have taken the approach of can't beaten joinem.

Back before this law was in place, the unions had to have all the employees agree to be unionized before it could happen. The unions pushed through the law requiring a 50% plus one and got it enabling them to collect dues from all employees in a particular work group even if 49% of the workers didn't want a union. In 70 years the unions were happy with this law as it allowed them to organize a whole group without the support of the whole group. Now all of a sudden it is unfair in their eyes. It is in effect admitting they don't have a majority of the flight attendants or ramp workers. Reminds one of the Mass legislature changing the replacement law when a Senator steps down. Do you honestly think the majority of the workers at DL/NW in these two groups want a union? The unions obviously don't think so or they wouldn't be requesting the chane.

I hope the rule changes, but not till late in the year 2010 or early 2011.

Old NWA Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Back before this law was in place, the unions had to have all the employees agree to be unionized before it could happen. The unions pushed through the law requiring a 50% plus one and got it enabling them to collect dues from all employees in a particular work group even if 49% of the workers didn't want a union. In 70 years the unions were happy with this law as it allowed them to organize a whole group without the support of the whole group. Now all of a sudden it is unfair in their eyes. It is in effect admitting they don't have a majority of the flight attendants or ramp workers. Reminds one of the Mass legislature changing the replacement law when a Senator steps down. Do you honestly think the majority of the workers at DL/NW in these two groups want a union? The unions obviously don't think so or they wouldn't be requesting the chane.

What you don't say is that people don't vote even though they may or may not want a union. If you had ever been involved in any union election and dealt with the members you would know this. I have never heard any union say the law is good. Simply the majority of those who vote should be counted. The law also states that a non represented workplace only needs 33 percent interst to have an election. According to your theory that should be wrong also..Seems the law has all kinds of twists..Should be simple majority..

Spade a Spade wrote:

<quoted text>
What you don't say is that people don't vote even though they may or may not want a union. If you had ever been involved in any union election and dealt with the members you would know this. I have never heard any union say the law is good. Simply the majority of those who vote should be counted. The law also states that a non represented workplace only needs 33 percent interst to have an election. According to your theory that should be wrong also..Seems the law has all kinds of twists..Should be simple majority..

I agree it should be simple majority of the entire work group.

Old NWA Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why was has this law been OK and in fact supported by the unions until now? Could it be because all indications point to 50% plus one are not reachable by the IAM and AFA? The majority of people at DL/NW do not want a union. Pontificate away.

No. The unions want to take away the unfair advantage of the non vote. Do you agree that a non vote being a no vote is the advantage of the company??? I won't pontificate wheather or not the majority of people at DL/NW want a union or not, we will see after the election. If the RLA amends the unfair law it has in place, it will be a fair election.

Old NWA Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Back before this law was in place, the unions had to have all the employees agree to be unionized before it could happen. The unions pushed through the law requiring a 50% plus one and got it enabling them to collect dues from all employees in a particular work group even if 49% of the workers didn't want a union. In 70 years the unions were happy with this law as it allowed them to organize a whole group without the support of the whole group. Now all of a sudden it is unfair in their eyes. It is in effect admitting they don't have a majority of the flight attendants or ramp workers. Reminds one of the Mass legislature changing the replacement law when a Senator steps down. Do you honestly think the majority of the workers at DL/NW in these two groups want a union? The unions obviously don't think so or they wouldn't be requesting the chane.

WOW! No wonder the unions were OK with the 50%+1 rule. Your telling me all a company had to do was strong arm one individual to vote against having a union. Baby steps, now it needs to be changed again.
BTW the RLA amended it's law in 1981 to include the P.E.B which has not been a friend to labor. Fear not, if the past means anything this law will not change. NWA for one had the NMB and Jack Bavis in there pocket back in our 1996 contract negotiations. President Bush helped them out also.

ex mech wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW! No wonder the unions were OK with the 50%+1 rule. Your telling me all a company had to do was strong arm one individual to vote against having a union. Baby steps, now it needs to be changed again.
BTW the RLA amended it's law in 1981 to include the P.E.B which has not been a friend to labor. Fear not, if the past means anything this law will not change. NWA for one had the NMB and Jack Bavis in there pocket back in our 1996 contract negotiations. President Bush helped them out also.

No need to strong arm, I remember when Delta gave all their employees computers,and the union vote just went away. Won't work this time though because the NWA'ers aren't that naive.

"Back before this law was in place, the unions had to have all the employees agree to be unionized before it could happen. The unions pushed through the law requiring a 50% plus one and got it enabling them to collect dues from all employees in a particular work group even if 49% of the workers didn't want a union. In 70 years the unions were happy with this law as it allowed them to organize a whole group without the support of the whole group. Now all of a sudden it is unfair in their eyes. It is in effect admitting they don't have a majority of the flight attendants or ramp workers. Reminds one of the Mass legislature changing the replacement law when a Senator steps down. Do you honestly think the majority of the workers at DL/NW in these two groups want a union? The unions obviously don't think so or they wouldn't be requesting the chane."

You're mistaken if you think there ever was a time when 100% of the employees had to agree to form a union. Can you think of any other situation in the whole of the democratic Western world, besides a criminal jury in the US, where unanimity is required?

The airlines like the law as it is because it forces the unions to essentially go through two election campaigns, one to get 1/3 of the employees to return cards, and one to get 50%+1 to actually get the union brought in.

The problem with changing the law, as the airlines see it, is that if it were to change, it would give the unions a chance to come in without the company having a chance to "educate" or "scare the hell out of", depending on your point of view,the workforce. the company wouldn't really know what was going on until the Labor Department suddenly notified the company that-POOF!-they were now unionized.

call me Al wrote:

<quoted text>
No need to strong arm, I remember when Delta gave all their employees computers,and the union vote just went away. Won't work this time though because the NWA'ers aren't that naive.

The NWA AMFA employees were certainly naive, when they went on stike in 2005 knowing their replacements were waiting in the wings. Did they think NWA was just kidding?

Old NWA Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
The NWA AMFA employees were certainly naive, when they went on stike in 2005 knowing their replacements were waiting in the wings. Did they think NWA was just kidding?

What the hell does that have to do with "US Carriers Oppose Union Election Rule Change"!

Hey Al don't get your panties in such a bunch!

call me Al wrote:

<quoted text>
What the hell does that have to do with "US Carriers Oppose Union Election Rule Change"!

What, only malcontents like you can go offtopic on any NW/DL thread but no-one else? Get Real Dude! You bring up the stupid amfa strike on every nw/dl thread whether it relates to the topic or not. What a hypocrite.

Old NWA Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
The NWA AMFA employees were certainly naive, when they went on stike in 2005 knowing their replacements were waiting in the wings. Did they think NWA was just kidding?

Just the less than 10% thought they were kidding..The ones who are SCABS..The other 90% SCABAIR couldn't get to cross the line by their begging phone calls,threats, and letter writing.

Spade a Spade wrote:

<quoted text>
Just the less than 10% thought they were kidding..The ones who are SCABS..The other 90% SCABAIR couldn't get to cross the line by their begging phone calls,threats, and letter writing.

Is this fodder supposed to make sense? Speak english