MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 17729
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:10 am

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idCNN0245999420091103?rpc=44

"ATLANTA, Nov 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. National Mediation Board has proposed a sweeping rule change that would base the outcome of union elections at airlines and rail companies on the majority approval of people who vote, a move that could increase the odds of unions winning such contests."

They can change the rules, but they still can't change basic economics.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:18 am

I'll make sure to tell everyone that they MUST vote, either for or against unionization, or the union will automatically win.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23971
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:19 am

Don't worry, long way to go before these radical proposed changes see light (if ever)

There a 60-day comment period for all parties, with even the head of the NMB opposing the changes and feels the agency does not have the legal powers to ammend the act, only congress does.

Then if changes were to occur, we surely will see legal action, as Delta in its earnings call insinuated could be possible.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:38 am



Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
ATLANTA, Nov 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. National Mediation Board has proposed a sweeping rule change that would base the outcome of union elections at airlines and rail companies on the majority approval of people who vote, a move that could increase the odds of unions winning such contests."

They can change the rules, but they still can't change basic economics.

I think it is about time. If you stay home in any election, your vote should not count. Too lazy, no vote. They can change the rules, which have favored the companies for too long. I sure vote for the change.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23971
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:01 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
If you stay home in any election, your vote should not count. Too lazy, no vote

Sorry, don't see it that way.
If a union wants to change the status quo at a company they surely need to win over the majority of All workers in a trade or class.

Even in Congress, failing to vote is equivalent of a No vote, as a bill must have a majority off all members to pass.

To simply use a majority of votes cast could be paramount to the minority hijacking the majority will in likely cases of low vote turn out.
Its simply unrealistic to ever expect 100% voter participation.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
They can change the rules, which have favored the companies for too long

Well we will see who has the legal authority to change the law, that is still up in the air.

But regardless the law does change it creates a terrible precedence by politicizing something that for 75-years has been untouched and uninfluenced by either party.
Today you have a Democrat in office changes it one way, what do you expect the Republicans to do next time they gain power back? Its going to turn into a football that will get punted back and forth and ultimately hurt the whole process.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:14 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
They can change the rules, which have favored the companies for too long

Well we will see who has the legal authority to change the law, that is still up in the air.

I did mean Congress. Yes time will tell.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Sorry, don't see it that way.
If a union wants to change the status quo at a company they surely need to win over the majority of All workers in a trade or class.


Everyone has to be notified of the vote, the responsiblity to vote is on the people affected. I certainly do not care about how congress votes, they are dysfuntional at best. In a general election, the majority rules. The present rules favors the company period. You have an interest, vote. It could become a political football, everything does. The party in power still has to get it passed, that is Democracy.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:38 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 5):
The present rules favors the company period.

Right... which is why most major airlines are unionized. Give me a break, man. If currently non-union workers wanted to be unionized, they would've voted in the union one of the 50 or so times the unions have tried.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 5):
The party in power still has to get it passed, that is Democracy.

???

I suggest you look up the meaning of "Democracy", and then realize that the US government is not democratic, but republican.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 5):
You have an interest, vote.

This I will agree on, and I really don't understand people who don't vote, because I find they're the loudest whiners.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
MUWarriors
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:45 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):

Even in Congress, failing to vote is equivalent of a No vote, as a bill must have a majority off all members to pass.

This is not true. As I mentioned in another thread, even in congress it is a majority of members who vote, not an overall majority. I can get you evidence if you'd like, but that's the fact of the matter.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
To simply use a majority of votes cast could be paramount to the minority hijacking the majority will in likely cases of low vote turn out.

If that's the case the majority clearly doesn't care enough about the issue to vote, you can't complain about the outcome if you don't vote. If it really means that much to people they will vote. I have no sympathy for people who are too lazy to vote and then don't get the results they want. If a majority of people don't want a union, and don't want it as passionately as those who want it they should get out and vote. It's that simple.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
Today you have a Democrat in office changes it one way, what do you expect the Republicans to do next time they gain power back? Its going to turn into a football that will get punted back and forth and ultimately hurt the whole process.

Here is the real issue that needs to be addressed, I agree. I think we are on opposite ends of what we would like to see, but I agree that it shouldn't change every time we get a new president.
 
deltairlines
Posts: 6935
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 4:47 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:55 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Don't worry, long way to go before these radical proposed changes see light (if ever)

There a 60-day comment period for all parties, with even the head of the NMB opposing the changes and feels the agency does not have the legal powers to ammend the act, only congress does.

Then if changes were to occur, we surely will see legal action, as Delta in its earnings call insinuated could be possible.

Bingo. And with a Republican-leaning USSC, hopefully this change never sees the light of day. Biggest downside is this dragging out the full integration at Delta. Let them play by the current rules and get it over with...even if AFA loses now, we all know they'll be back trying again in 18 months.

[Edited 2009-11-02 20:56:28]
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23971
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:12 am



Quoting MUWarriors (Reply 7):
This is not true. As I mentioned in another thread, even in congress it is a majority of members who vote, not an overall majority. I can get you evidence if you'd like, but that's the fact of the matter.

I've been involved in some legislative work over the years, and cannot tell you the number of times votes have been delayed (particularly in committees) as not enough members were present to provide a majority.

Look at the recent health care debate and all the wondering taking place if Ted Kennedy would ever make the vote prior to his passing, as missing him would be equivalent to a No vote for any measures being pursued.

Quoting MUWarriors (Reply 7):
Here is the real issue that needs to be addressed, I agree. I think we are on opposite ends of what we would like to see, but I agree that it shouldn't change every time we get a new president.

 checkmark  regardless of whatever side of the issue we might sit on, one of the foundations of our society needs to be a set of established rules that all parties can count on and pursue their agendas accordingly by.

Turning this issue in a political flip-flop game from administration to administration will in my view end up hurting everyone including the unions whom are supportive of this potential law change at this time. Who is to say what the law might look like on the flipside in the future under a new administration. Unionization might be bared for all we know!
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
MUWarriors
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:44 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Look at the recent health care debate and all the wondering taking place if Ted Kennedy would ever make the vote prior to his passing, as missing him would be equivalent to a No vote for any measures being pursued.

No, lacking Ted Kennedy means they can't pass cloture on a fillibuster because without him and Byrd (who was/is ill) they couldn't get 60%. I'm heading for bed right now but in the morning will pull up a few examples in both houses where less than 50% of the membership but over 50% of the vote passes things. If you don't have a quorum you can't get anything done, but once you have that it's 50% of the vote.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
   regardless of whatever side of the issue we might sit on, one of the foundations of our society needs to be a set of established rules that all parties can count on and pursue their agendas accordingly by.

I have a feeling this will end up in the Supreme Court and they will puny it back to Congress in a "You guys have to create the rule, not create a government body that can alter the rule," much like they did with the Gitmo tribunals. This thing is a long way from over.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
I've been involved in some legislative work over the years, and cannot tell you the number of times votes have been delayed (particularly in committees) as not enough members were present to provide a majority.

That sounds like an issue of getting a quorum. My wife also said "Committees are a different animal and play by different rules, but generally speaking if you have a quorum it's a matter of majority of votes." I will take her word on this since she is a professor of American Political Institutions and is currently teaching Congress as one of her classes. (sorry this is in a random order, I'm typing on my phone before bed).
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4132
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:07 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
To simply use a majority of votes cast could be paramount to the minority hijacking the majority will in likely cases of low vote turn out.

Such hijacking is also know as pretty much every election for political office. Even Obama, who got more votes than any other presidential candidate, was elected by only 31% of the voting-age population. If one needed a majority of possible votes, not actual votes, nothing would ever get done, Congress, the White House and most state-wide political offices would be nothing but empty chairs...

On paper, basing elections on the number of people who voted, not who could have voted, makes perfect sense. I do agree the NMB shouldn't be changing the rules, however, for fear the next administration might feel compelled to change them too and the process would become far too politicized. Better to let Congress make a law instead. If nothing else, it's more visible and they don't move as fast.
The Trump/Johnson special relationship: Special people on both sides of the Atlantic
 
MUWarriors
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:28 pm



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):

Even in Congress, failing to vote is equivalent of a No vote, as a bill must have a majority off all members to pass.

As I mentioned here are some examples of less than 50% of the various houses passing a bill. In the house a majority is 218, this is an appropriations bill that passed with 210 yeas: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/106/house/1/votes/305/
Here's a budget bill that passed with 211 yeas: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/106/house/2/votes/75/.
In the Senate 51 votes would be needed: Here is a pass with 50 votes 1 not voting: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/130/
Here is one with 49 votes:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/67/
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:44 pm



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 11):
If one needed a majority of possible votes, not actual votes, nothing would ever get done, Congress, the White House and most state-wide political offices would be nothing but empty chairs...

And that's supposed to be a bad thing?!
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:04 am

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiacyKUUr

I agree with this article, the election is stacked against the unions under the guise of trying to keep the transportation sector from labor unrest.. Another smokescreen by anti-labor folks to stop unions. It is so against the way a Democratic election is carried out, it is ridiculous. Many times in local elections, less than 50% of the voters do not show. In referendums and bond issues, the no shows would control the results by their votes counting as no votes, absolutely assinine for unions to have to contend with such nonsense when trying to organize a workplace.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:16 am



Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 6):
Right... which is why most major airlines are unionized. Give me a break, man. If currently non-union workers wanted to be unionized, they would've voted in the union one of the 50 or so times the unions have tried.

They are obviously unionized because of poor labor relations. Unions have the right to try to organize anyone they can. Success or failure, it is their right. Unless you want rewrite that rule also.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 6):
suggest you look up the meaning of "Democracy", and then realize that the US government is not democratic, but republican.


We are talking a Democratic Election, where the rules say a majority of votes means victory, not a rigged election where the company can scare people to stay home and still be counted as a vote. Once again completly ridiculous. Imagine that, I can stay home and still vote, no absentee ballot either. Not bad for Management. Hell for the union.  Sad
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15494
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:23 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 15):
the company can scare people to stay home

They can? How?

I'm being serious - how do you figure management can strong-arm someone into not voting if they want to?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:26 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):
They can? How?

I'm being serious - how do you figure management can strong-arm someone into not voting if they want to?

How about, We will close the shop, We will send the job overseas, We will move to another state. Subtle meetings and talks can convey many messages by management. It is far easier to not stick your neck out. You do not want a union, have the balls to go vote against them. Don't hide like a thief in the night behind the rule. They have created a tool for management in the screw way, a not voting person, is counted as a no vote. I wonder why it is not the opposite, a non-voting person is yes vote. Can you or anyone explain that?
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15494
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:40 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):
They can? How?

I'm being serious - how do you figure management can strong-arm someone into not voting if they want to?

How about, We will close the shop, We will send the job overseas, We will move to another state.

 redflag 

All of which the company is free to do BEFORE a union if they want to.

However, if a company suddenly finds themselves dealing with a union and end up with a CBA with work rules that mean the shop is no longer as productive or competitive, they may choose to look at other options - including outsourcing, moving, etc - to produce the best value for their customers and shareholders.

Sometimes unions price themselves out of work.


Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):
You do not want a union, have the balls to go vote against them.

I can easily say the opposite - you want one so bad, you shouldn't have a problem getting 50 percent of the workgroup plus 1 vote to bring in the union.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):
I wonder why it is not the opposite, a non-voting person is yes vote. Can you or anyone explain that?

Because votes should always be for something, not against the current conditions. Otherwise you have the tyrrany of the minority - where a small, vocal group of employees votes in a way that impacts the livelihoods of EVERYONE.

It's far more fair to require 50% plus 1 of ALL workers to agree instead of just a simple majority of those who bother to vote.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
MUWarriors
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:41 pm



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 18):
It's far more fair to require 50% plus 1 of ALL workers to agree instead of just a simple majority of those who bother to vote.

My question is why are union votes treated differently than every other vote that we have in this country? I understand they are changing the norm, but every city referendum that goes to a ballot box will change the norm, yet those results are based only on votes cast. Every other form of representation in this country only counts votes that are cast (the exception being the electoral college, but even there if a majority is not reached no decision is made until a majority in the House is reached one way or another, and there is no option for the status quo), even in congress it's only votes that have been cast which count. If the way we elect unions is fair and correct, why shouldn't we change our entire system? I know it's a slippery slope fallacy, but I am wondering what makes union votes so unique. I honestly don't understand.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 18):
Otherwise you have the tyrrany of the minority - where a small, vocal group of employees votes in a way that impacts the livelihoods of EVERYONE.

If everyone votes, the minority should never win. It's really that simple. If someone doesn't care enough to vote, then their vote shouldn't count, just like in normal elections. If there is someone completely ambivalent to the outcoe, they don't care one way or another, absolutely zero preference. How should they voice their opinion? In normal elections you can write in a candidate, or leave a particular field blank, but how would an employee in a union vote do that?
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:23 pm



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 18):
Because votes should always be for something, not against the current conditions. Otherwise you have the tyrrany of the minority - where a small, vocal group of employees votes in a way that impacts the livelihoods of EVERYONE.

The Tyranny of the minority, of course that does not apply to the Tyranny of the minority as in Management. My goodness, the vote should not be against current conditions? Run that over the tongue a few times and see how foolish that sounds. I will not bother to explain. Let us take into consideration a fair vote for something. An election, which is determind by some action, raising ones hand, yelling Aye! Pulling a lever, something? Now we can sit at home, drink a few beers, and defeat some issue. How does a vote that was never caste, so does not exist, end up being counted??????? Wow! La, La Land. We have arrived.  Sad
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15494
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:13 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 20):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 18):
Because votes should always be for something, not against the current conditions. Otherwise you have the tyrrany of the minority - where a small, vocal group of employees votes in a way that impacts the livelihoods of EVERYONE.

The Tyranny of the minority, of course that does not apply to the Tyranny of the minority as in Management.

You have a problem with management calling the shots - the people elected by the owners of the company to RUN IT?

I'm sorry, but a business is not a democracy, it's a benevolent dictatorship. You do NOT have a "right" to work there - you work at the pleasure of the owners. And that's the same way for management - they can be let go at any time if the owners or higher management feels it's necessary.

Union job protections sound great on paper, but in practice they protect only the marginal, incompetent and lazy at the expense of those who TRULY bust their butts to excel. I see it every day, and worst of all - they "eat their young" by insisting those hard workers with low seniority get furloughed ahead of the complacent senior workers who don't bring their "A" game every day.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:52 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 21):
Union job protections sound great on paper, but in practice they protect only the marginal, incompetent and lazy at the expense of those who TRULY bust their butts to excel. I see it every day, and worst of all - they "eat their young" by insisting those hard workers with low seniority get furloughed ahead of the complacent senior workers who don't bring their "A" game every day.

I suggest that we all watch this cartoon from 1948, about our country, and Ism, we seem to have swallowed the whole dam bottle.

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.c...on-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15494
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:03 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 22):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 21):
Union job protections sound great on paper, but in practice they protect only the marginal, incompetent and lazy at the expense of those who TRULY bust their butts to excel. I see it every day, and worst of all - they "eat their young" by insisting those hard workers with low seniority get furloughed ahead of the complacent senior workers who don't bring their "A" game every day.

I suggest that we all watch this cartoon from 1948, about our country, and Ism, we seem to have swallowed the whole dam bottle.

Ummm, okay...

Can you tell me what a cartoon designed to counter Communism has to do with our discussion about labor unions - other than the fact that the "equal wages for all, regardless of ability or achievement" mentality mirrors that of Communism?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:09 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 23):
Can you tell me what a cartoon designed to counter Communism has to do with our discussion about labor unions - other than the fact that the "equal wages for all, regardless of ability or achievement" mentality mirrors that of Communism

It showed us working TOGETHER, now we are our own worst enemy. Everything is now devisive, everyone has an agenda of their own. What are those old words, "working for the common good", not anymore. Just tread the bunk on here from both sides.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:56 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 23):
Can you tell me what a cartoon designed to counter Communism has to do with our discussion about labor unions - other than the fact that the "equal wages for all, regardless of ability or achievement" mentality mirrors that of Communism?

I just watched that again, and I am not surprised how you brushed over the key points of the message. You are good at reducing the points that mean the most to nothing. Equal pay for all? I did not see that. Management, skilled labor, working together for the common good, now that I saw. Prosperty for all, I saw that. Maybe you should watch that again, there is a lot of what made America great in that cartoon. Working together, not tearing each other apart. Skilled Labor, an interesting point that you overlooked. Unions, seemed to me that they were an accepted part of America, helping to get a fair share of the pie. Not all of it, the Tycoons still lived well, the rest shared in the bounty of a common effort. Read it again, maybe you missed all that.  Smile
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23971
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:21 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):
I wonder why it is not the opposite, a non-voting person is yes vote. Can you or anyone explain that?

Because you are seeking to change the existing status quo.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 18):
Because votes should always be for something, not against the current conditions

 checkmark 

I will say if this does get changed it could be easier to decertify a union, as you only majority of those voting, not of all existing members.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:37 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 26):
will say if this does get changed it could be easier to decertify a union, as you only majority of those voting, not of all existing members.

Huh! that would be fair and that is the point. People should vote, not sit on their ass knowing that they will be counted for not voting. You will only need a majority? I should hope so, that is a Democratic Election. I hope you do not think that people will NOT turn out to vote, if a physical prsence at the election is required, not the ghost votes wriiten into the rules now. Those who do not show up to vote. when they could, should not gripe, though they will as usual. Let us change the ridiculous rules now in affect and the union will take its chances in an election. We do try to be fair, not like some.  Smile
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15494
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:45 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25):
Equal pay for all?

I was pointing out that this is a union ideology - one that mirrors Communism.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25):
Management, skilled labor, working together for the common good

Yet unions only seem to look out for themselves and not the common good. For example, the APA is aggressively opposing an ATI for an AA/BA partnership because "job protections" for AA pilots weren't included as part of the proposal.

No one argues that the partnership will make more money for AA, where the "common good" is a stronger, more competitive AA. Yet the pilots' union disagrees, because they feel it could result in some pilot job losses along the way.

Care to explain that one to me? Are companies expected to never develop more competitive strategies and procedures if it means even one union worker might lose their job?

Even in my place of work, the employees are growing increasingly frustrated with what they perceive as the self-serving agenda of the union, openly voicing concern that the union protects the jobs of their lazy, unprofessional co-workers. Care to explain to me how union members themselves even find unions unappealing?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:04 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
I was pointing out that this is a union ideology - one that mirrors Communism.

Pure Baloney.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):


Yet unions only seem to look out for themselves and not the common good. For example, the APA is aggressively opposing an ATI for an AA/BA partnership because "job protections" for AA pilots weren't included as part of the proposal.


More Baloney, two sides to every story, in case you had not noticed, peoples jobs are important to them. I just bet yours is.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
No one argues that the partnership will make more money for AA, where the "common good" is a stronger, more competitive AA. Yet the pilots' union disagrees, because they feel it could result in some pilot job losses along the way.

See above.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
Care to explain that one to me? Are companies expected to never develop more competitive strategies and procedures if it means even one union worker might lose their job?

Why, I bet you would be glad to sacrifice your livlihood for the good of the job and efficiency for the company. Would not everyone?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
Even in my place of work, the employees are growing increasingly frustrated with what they perceive as the self-serving agenda of the union, openly voicing concern that the union protects the jobs of their lazy, unprofessional co-workers. Care to explain to me how union members themselves even find unions unappealing?

Not even a union can satisfy everyone. If you are part of that union, start a movement to de-certify. If you are not, I would have to look on your opinion as questionable.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 18):
Because votes should always be for something, not against the current conditions

Let us apply that statement in another aspect of life also, politics. Even unions involve some politics. Now if we cannot vote against current conditions, we would have no change at all. That is why we have elections, to CHANGE CURRENT CONDITIONS, whether in politics or working conditions. People do like change, that is why Obama is President, the American people voted to change CURRENT CONDITIONS. It works for me.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15494
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:49 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 29):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
I was pointing out that this is a union ideology - one that mirrors Communism.

Pure Baloney.

Is it? I've seen firsthand where management wanted to reward workers with incentives based on performance, and the union shot it down because it wasn't "fair to all" - only those who worked harder were able to receive them, when everyone at each step of the contract should be receiving the same pay no matter what.

Sure sounds like it mirrors that aspect of Communism to me...

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 29):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):

Yet unions only seem to look out for themselves and not the common good. For example, the APA is aggressively opposing an ATI for an AA/BA partnership because "job protections" for AA pilots weren't included as part of the proposal.


More Baloney, two sides to every story, in case you had not noticed, peoples jobs are important to them. I just bet yours is.

It's baloney? Then why is the APA the only union on the property opposing the AA/BA ATI? Even the AFA has called out the APA for their shortsighted stance.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 29):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
Care to explain that one to me? Are companies expected to never develop more competitive strategies and procedures if it means even one union worker might lose their job?

Why, I bet you would be glad to sacrifice your livlihood for the good of the job and efficiency for the company. Would not everyone?

Sacrifice? No, however I realize that I'm expendable unless I demonstrate to the company, through high levels of performance and continually improving my skill set, that keeping me is a mutually-beneficial arrangement - not just because some CBA makes it hard to get rid of me unless I show up drunk, snort rails of coke off my desk or bring a firearm to the office.

And if I don't perform well and don't constantly evolve as an employee, then eventually I may find myself out of work. My employer is a for-profit business that depends on the skills of highly talented people working at a high level of performance, not a jobs program for the marginal and unmotivated.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 29):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):
Even in my place of work, the employees are growing increasingly frustrated with what they perceive as the self-serving agenda of the union, openly voicing concern that the union protects the jobs of their lazy, unprofessional co-workers. Care to explain to me how union members themselves even find unions unappealing?

Not even a union can satisfy everyone. If you are part of that union, start a movement to de-certify. If you are not, I would have to look on your opinion as questionable.

I've been part of that union, and saw firsthand the way they bred complacency among the workers and stifled incentives for achievement, slowly driving the will to succeed from new employees. And because I knew I could do better for myself while simultaneously working to improve the company from within, I went into management.

It's the best move I ever made.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 30):
People do like change, that is why Obama is President, the American people voted to change CURRENT CONDITIONS

So you admit then that people didn't vote FOR Obama or his policies?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
pilotsmoe
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:21 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:57 am

I think that the outcome should be based on the majority of voters. This is already the way it works in regular NLRB governed union elections
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:38 am



Quoting Pilotsmoe (Reply 32):
I think that the outcome should be based on the majority of voters. This is already the way it works in regular NLRB governed union elections

Absolutely correct, a majority of votes, wins the election. Not rocket science for most, just some. Why would the same rules not apply to labor as applies to all other of our Democratic Elections? You are citizens of a country who have elections where 1 man,woman 1 vote applies. I just wonder why some do not like the idea? Like I say, not rocket science.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:44 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):
I've been part of that union



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):
I went into management.

Enough said, common as the nose on ones face, former union, now management. Eureka! I have seen the light! All that was before is not now, I have seen the light at last.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:05 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):
Is it? I've seen firsthand where management wanted to reward workers with incentives based on performance, and the union shot it down because it wasn't "fair to all" - only those who worked harder were able to receive them, when everyone at each step of the contract should be receiving the same pay no matter what.

You see, the union does not want incentives based on performance, we have learned what they do to management. We like a fair system, not one based on cutting each others throats to look good. What would you call it, the Brown Nose system. Not for the union. We just do our job, and ask for fair pay.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:56 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 3):
I think it is about time. If you stay home in any election, your vote should not count. Too lazy, no vote. They can change the rules, which have favored the companies for too long. I sure vote for the change.

It makes no difference. If the employees are told that a non-vote is the same as a no vote (and they are) what difference does it make if they vote no or not at all? If the employees know this, a non-vote is the same as a no vote.........I can't see what difference it makes at all.

As far as favoring the companies, why, then, have the unions been successful 65% of the time since the rule went into effect? Sounds like a pretty good percentage, to me.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15494
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:21 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 34):

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):
I've been part of that union



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):
I went into management.

Enough said, common as the nose on ones face, former union, now management. Eureka! I have seen the light!

Why do you dismiss my comments? Wouldn't you think that someone who has been on and seen both sides of the equation might be able to make a more informed decision that someone who hasn't?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:47 am



Quoting Mayor (Reply 36):
It makes no difference. If the employees are told that a non-vote is the same as a no vote (and they are) what difference does it make if they vote no or not at all? If the employees know this, a non-vote is the same as a no vote.........I can't see what difference it makes at all.


There is no other election that I know of where, you do not have to particpate to defeat an issue. If there is no difference, why is the rule there? I think it was put in to allow non-participation in the actual vote. When you show up to vote with that rule, you are automatically identified as a union supporter. This just might intimidate a few from voting. All it takes is one voter who does not want to stick his or her neck out. You lovers of a secret ballot should have no problem with that rule being eliminated, just show up and vote with the rest of the employees. Out in the open, but a secret ballot.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:13 am



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 37):
Why do you dismiss my comments? Wouldn't you think that someone who has been on and seen both sides of the equation might be able to make a more informed decision that someone who hasn't?

After working for many years, and seeing many, many union folks get promoted, I have seen it all. We have the folks who never forget where they and their friends came from, and those who try to become the world beaters, the company men. It is not evil to take a promotion, but to rail on about the unions after coming from a union is just a mite hypocritical to me. I was always amazed how a white shirt and tie brought out the true personality in some. Usually a small percentage, but enough to be dammed aggravating. I have been on both sides, on temporary assignments. I just knew it was not for me.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:50 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 38):
There is no other election that I know of where, you do not have to particpate to defeat an issue. If there is no difference, why is the rule there? I think it was put in to allow non-participation in the actual vote. When you show up to vote with that rule, you are automatically identified as a union supporter. This just might intimidate a few from voting. All it takes is one voter who does not want to stick his or her neck out. You lovers of a secret ballot should have no problem with that rule being eliminated, just show up and vote with the rest of the employees. Out in the open, but a secret ballot.

You're theory might make sense if the election was held as you state, but it isn't. It's done by mail..........the only ones that see the votes are the NMB. In the two elections I participated in when the TWU was trying to organize the workers at DL, the ballot came to my house......I had the option to vote yes, no or no vote. No one saw my choice except for the vote counters. BTW, the TWU lost, both times, miserably.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:32 am



Quoting Mayor (Reply 40):

You're theory might make sense if the election was held as you state, but it isn't. It's done by mail..........the only ones that see the votes are the NMB. In the two elections I participated in when the TWU was trying to organize the workers at DL, the ballot came to my house......I had the option to vote yes, no or no vote. No one saw my choice except for the vote counters. BTW, the TWU lost, both times, miserably.

The only change is about the more than 50% participation rule for the vote to be valid. All other elections have obviously no rule requiring more than 50% participation as the NMB rules do. If it is a mail ballot, as you said, it is a secret ballot. No problem there. We know the opposition to the rule change, claims the union will have a better chance of success, if the rule is changed. If that is true then, obviously the rule as it stands gives the company a unfair advantage. As is said by the Union side, the playing field is not even. I still agree that the rule is there to make it harder for unions, a simple majority is the Democratic way. How come that principle is not employed here. Yes,no, no vote. Yes, no is the way it should be. In an ordinary election, you can withold your vote on principle, but it is not mean anything, here it certainly does.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:03 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 41):
If that is true then, obviously the rule as it stands gives the company a unfair advantage. As is said by the Union side, the playing field is not even.

IF it does give the company an unfair advantage, why have the unions been successful 65% of the time since the rule went into effect? Seems like it's working in their favor, to me. Seems like the playing field is MORE than even, in their favor, to me.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:52 pm



Quoting Mayor (Reply 42):
IF it does give the company an unfair advantage, why have the unions been successful 65% of the time since the rule went into effect? Seems like it's working in their favor, to me. Seems like the playing field is MORE than even, in their favor, to me.

If that is the case, why is anyone from the union side advocating changing the rule, while the ant-union folks fear the change.? I am puzzled by it all. It does seem to place a roadblock in the way of the union with the more than 50% participation rule. That is not common anywhere, why here? There has to be a reason for the rule, what is it? Just because folks have felt the need to unionize, and unions have been successful, does not mean there is not an unfair burden on those same unions.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:49 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 35):
We like a fair system,

Please explain to me how it's fair when I do more, better, and safer work than someone else who's been there 5 years longer than me, and I get paid $4/hr less.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 35):
the union does not want incentives based on performance

What's funny is, a union is supposed to listen to and represent its workers, not the other way around.

Explain that one also.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 38):
This just might intimidate a few from voting.

Except the company never sees who casts a vote for unionization, as the ballots are mailed out. Nice try, though.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 39):
but to rail on about the unions after coming from a union is just a mite hypocritical to me.

You're just upset that a union member didn't like what their union was doing.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:36 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 39):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 37):
Why do you dismiss my comments? Wouldn't you think that someone who has been on and seen both sides of the equation might be able to make a more informed decision that someone who hasn't?

After working for many years, and seeing many, many union folks get promoted, I have seen it all. We have the folks who never forget where they and their friends came from, and those who try to become the world beaters, the company men. It is not evil to take a promotion, but to rail on about the unions after coming from a union is just a mite hypocritical to me. I was always amazed how a white shirt and tie brought out the true personality in some. Usually a small percentage, but enough to be dammed aggravating. I have been on both sides, on temporary assignments. I just knew it was not for me.



Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 39):
but to rail on about the unions after coming from a union is just a mite hypocritical to me.

You're just upset that a union member didn't like what their union was doing.

I was referring to a former union member, now a member of Management, hardly a union member now. My point, that some can make the change without compromising their integrity, some cannot.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:15 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 45):

I was referring to a former union member, now a member of Management, hardly a union member now.

How about you answer my questions?
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13249
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: NMB Proposes Change To Majority Of Union Votes

Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:55 am



Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):

Please explain to me how it's fair when I do more, better, and safer work than someone else who's been there 5 years longer than me, and I get paid $4/hr less.

I do not understand, are you in the union? Are you on steps for pay? More, better, and safer work? Who determined that? You? Are you on piecework?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):
What's funny is, a union is supposed to listen to and represent its workers, not the other way around.

I do not know how that is possible, that is why they have election of Officers, throw out the ones who do not. I had times when I was not always satisfied, but you take the good with the bad. I found the good always outdid the bad, in wages and benefits and savings and pension.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):
Except the company never sees who casts a vote for unionization, as the ballots are mailed out. Nice try, though.

That, I was in the wrong type of election, got going on regular elections. Still, it is peculiar why that 50% rule. I am sure it was all in fairness to labor. Sure!

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):
You're just upset that a union member didn't like what their union was doing.

I answered that above, he took a promotion, he spends his time bad mouthing unions on here. He once belonged. Is he missed in the union?????
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Oliver2020 and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos