Flight Attendants Say "NO" To Union: Delta Breathes Deep

Tuesday November 3rd was a day on which two allied parties were dealt crushing blows. The Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives was the first loss. The second was that Delta flight attendants handed a major loss to the Association of Flight Attendants, the union seeking to represent the combined workforce of Delta and the former Northwest Airlines.

This loss was despite the changes in rules about how elections were to be held. Prior to this election Delta had been victorious in two prior elections. But at that time if a flight attendant opted not to vote that lack of a vote was counted as a "NO" vote. This time the rules were changed and only the votes of people who actually cast a ballot were counted. Thus all the "NOs" actually had to show up and vote that way. So the non-union flight attendants had to be educated on the new process. Apparently Delta did a good job in this education process.

The union, AFA, also campaigned heavily. Here in the Atlanta area they benefited from  public radio and TV commercials from the machinist union that touted how it was "good for America" that the Delta workers be unionized. It would mean that "we were fighting the Wall Street pirates". Those commercials did not address the needs or concerns of the flight attendants but seemed to be designed to get the public to pressure any flight attendant they knew to vote for the union. An article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution entitled Delta Flight Attendants to Union: No Thanks quoted Barry Hirsch, a professor of economics at Georgia State University, who said "...too few Delta attendants saw a clear economic incentive to pay $43 a month in AFA dues. Because the airline industry is so highly unionized, there is little difference between pay, benefits and work rules between unionized airlines and non-union major airlines..."

The vote on the unionization was 51% against and 49% for. As typically happens in a union loss the AFA is crying "foul" and they plan on contesting the loss. They claim intimidation on the part of Delta management caused the election to turn out the way it did. The union was considered to have a good shot at winning this and according to the article they had even gone so far as to plan their victory celebration. As the article said "Given the presumed built-in support from Northwest workers and recent election rules changes favorable to organizers, the AFA was regarded as having a strong shot. The union planned a celebration at its Washington headquarters and had already scheduled initial training for union leaders."

OOPS! This loss for the AFA is a major blow. Not only does it mean they will not get the Delta flight attendants they lose the former NW attendants. This is approximately 7000 people and at $43 a month in dues they are going to lose $3.6 million in revenue from no more dues. Maybe the union will have to lay some of their workers off. That would be an interesting development. Afterall unions are in the business of making money off of organizing employees. The loss of that revenue could put a major kink in their operations.

This loss may also have a chilling effect on the machinist vote for a union. And it could be tied into the general overall feeling about the direction of the country at this time. Time will tell.

I am happy that the flight attendants get to keep that $43 a month. Maybe they can use that money to stimulate the economy?

Legislation Introduced to Strip States of "Right to Work" Status

The newsletter LaborUnionReport.com  reports that California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) has introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to strip states that are "right-to-work" states of that status. There are 22 states that are considered "right to work" as shown in red in the picture above. This was a state right granted in 1947 by the Taft-Hartly Act, an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act. (Taft-Hartly is officially the Labor-Management Relations Act, and it granted managment rights where none had been.)

Briefly, what "right to work" means is this. Employees in every state of the US have the right to organize a union. If they do so, two different conditions exist, depending on whether they are in a "right to work" state or a non-right to work state. In a non-RTW state an employee, in order to hold their job, must belong to the union if that job is covered by the union contract. They have no choice. When I was the HR manager in a union plant in Chicago, if I hired someone for a job and wanted to keep them after their probationary period, they had to become a union member otherwise I had to fire them. If that had been here in Georgia, a RTW state, they would have had the choice to become a member of the union. Regardless of their choice however, they would have kept their job. So it is a matter of freedom of choice for the employee. Some places they have that freedom of choice, other places they do not.

Congressman Sherman, who represents California, a non right-to-work state, says that it is unfair to California to have to compete with RTW states for jobs. He says it is costing California because companies are moving away and taking jobs with them. (Of course he doesn't mention the overburdensome employment laws, taxes or broken government in California. Employment laws in California are so different there is a separate PHR designation for CA) So, with the support and endorsement of the AFL-CIO, he has introduced legislation in Congress to strip ALL rights from the other 22 states that had the foresight to pass right-to-work legislation.

I would like to suggest to Congressman Sherman that perhaps there should be an introduction to make all states RIGHT TO WORK. This will level the playing field as well, potentially lower the cost for businesses, take away restrictive practices, and give employees a true free choice to belong to a union or not. If a company then has a union in place they will truly deserve it. But if employees do not wish to belong to one there will be no pressure of Job/No Job decisions.

Of course with a 100% endorsement of the AFL-CIO I doubt whether this option ever entered Rep. Sherman's wallet....errr... head.