Welcome back to an exploration of the IAM’s withdrawal of its application for a vote to represent Delta Air Lines’ flight attendants. If you haven’t followed so far, Crewed Talk first covered the withdrawal announcement here, and followed-up last week with an introduction on how the process works to give some understanding into the suspicions on both sides of the issue. This case is a bigger deal than a casual observer might recognize. It holds interest for flight attendants across the industry and, likely, repercussions across union drives in general. As such, it’s a case that deserves a thorough look.

Again, it’s important for me to note that I have no intent to take sides on the matter, nor am I encouraging anyone to form conclusions pending a full investigation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to indicate whether it will even pursue an investigation, but hopefully, today I can help show why it should.

Both the pro-union/IAM and the anti-union/Delta sides say they want the DOJ to proceed. Judging by the personal emails I’ve received from both sides, urging me to “dig deep,” both sides mean it. A look at the main whys — drawn from speaking to supporters from each camp (all wishing not to be named) and continuing to follow discussion on the public Facebook pages for both the pro-union and anti-union campaigns — starts with motive.

Remember: the statements and accusations are according to the opposition camp’s thinking.

 

IAM’s Motives

According to the other side

To trigger an election. Why? Because the IAM felt certain, “that an overwhelming majority of Delta employees were ready to vote YES; even Flight Attendants that DID NOT sign a card.”

Plus, if you get the “fence-sitters” to the polls, many will swing your way. Remember, the previous vote was only lost by a few hundred. Meanwhile, many former Northwest Airlines flight attendants who were willing to try the non-union way may have changed their minds by now.

Explanation / Evidence / Rumors

The next question would be “why now?” The drive has been going on for three years. In this scenario:

• Many cards were about to expire (they’re valid for one year) so they needed to file before that happened.

and/or

• The IAM wanted to call a vote before a flood of new hires came on the line throughout 2015, as they’re likely to be “pro-Delta”.

Delta has a number of flight attendants reporting that cards were signed in their name. More on that below.

Rebuttal

The pro team says it’d be pointless to trigger an election if they didn’t have the demonstrable support for it. Plus, “everyone knew that the cards would be scrutinized and bogus ones tossed out,” said the supporter I spoke to. “There was no incentive […] because the cards would be tossed and the election not called.” In such a case, the three years’ work would be lost since a union drive would have to start from scratch.

 

Delta’s Motives

According to the other side

That — the starting over three years of work — is why the union side thinks it would have been tempting for Delta to orchestrate false cards, as it was explained to me.

I’ve seen a couple of theories:

• To trigger an election the IAM would lose, thus making the whole process start over and delay any benefits the work group would have gained in the meantime.

• To create exactly this withdrawal situation, making the whole process start over (Bonus: possibly discrediting the IAM)

Explanation / Evidence / Rumors

The pro side questions how flight attendants would even know if a card were signed in their name. “Thank you for signing” cards sent to the flight attendants in question are said to be the “tipster,” but the pro team says they never received such cards upon signing themselves.

Rebuttal

“Triggering a false election is a crazy gamble, especially if your fear is that there is actually enough support for a union.” Also, “IAM supporters were responsible for collecting signatures. At no point in the process does the company or its supporters have control of or responsibility for the cards.”

 

And yet so much more to the story…

Of course, there’s always more. E.g. When it comes to those reporting false cards in their name, Delta wants to know how employee numbers would have been provided with the names, as a union would/should not have that information. The IAM supporters point to a couple of flight attendants allegedly admitting to signing the cards and then calling the NMB to claim they did not.

There is also a lot of talk about a couple of surveys (from the IAM, meant for Delta flight attendants to fill out) that, as one side has it, an “anti” flight attendant publicly called for people to falsely complete (seen as evidence of general intent to tamper with the drive) but, as the other side has it, a point she was making about the lack of security for the online survey has been taken out of context.

I think we’ve seen enough to demonstrate that both sides feel confident “their side” will ultimately be exonerated if the DOJ proceeds. I have floated the idea to both that the culprit is rogue individuals. Everyone agreed to the possibility, but it did not slow them from casting suspicion upon “the other” organization as a whole.

What I’ve been most convinced of is that this situation is very personal for flight attendants on both sides, workers who have put their hearts into what they think is best for their work conditions and their company (whatever that may be). One source captured my main concern precisely: “The flight attendants themselves (not the IAM or Delta) have the most to lose and […] they are pawns in this tug of war.”

All sides seem to agree on one, single thing — that they deserve to know who did it. Crewed Talk can agree without reservations on that, and sees no reason why the DOJ shouldn’t try to provide that.

 

[Photos: iStock]