NWAFA

Hmm, you're not making a very good argument for non-union companies. Go from one to another with poor working conditions. You do give a good argument to go back to the union work place of the '50s and '60s. One has the right to unionize to fix bad working conditions and money.

In the airline industry, one cannot just up and leave one company for another. Seniority and pay does not matter at a new company. Not to mention those like me who are older and cannot start over like a 20 something. These days, you have a job, you hold on to it for dear life. Who is going to hire the more mature worker?

DelrayChris

I'm not a fan of unions.

The issue you are describing can be handled without a union. If DL is doing this to as many people as you imply, then why not file a class-action lawsuit?

RetailTherapy

Wrong.

If a FA was legacy Delta and a vested employee prior to the change from a defined pension to cash balance/401k, their pensions were NOT lost in bankruptcy.

ETA: The only work group at Delta during bankruptcy to lose their pensions were the pilots. If they've gotten a raise recently, then good on them.

NWAFA

You are right. I reread my original post and spoke in haste. There was a difference in the two groups for accruing pension. The NW FAs are now under DL's retirement plan, but those who worked the majority of their career at NW, retire with a much higher pension income per month.

NWAFA

Nope,didn't say you were. But your description still makes a good argument for workers to unionize.

motytrah

Generally DL wages keep pace (if not slight more) than union equivalents. The Benefits packages are generally slightly worse. The union really helps out the retirees. Which is why the PMNW retirees do so much better than the PMDL groups. For the most part DL is free to adjust retiree benefits to a wide degree for work groups that were never unionized. It's a good cost saving measure and retired workers really have no power over day to day operations.

DL isn't dumb. If unionized employees are doing better than non-union then the vote won't go their way. First thing DL did post merger was a pay raise to the PMDL FAs to make sure they made slight more than the PMNW counterparts.

I don't belong to a union, but I ALWAYS work with a contract. HR Promises from 30 years ago aren't going to put food on the table when you retire.

nystateofmind

If they unionize or not unionize it will not change whether I fly Delta. The only thing that will change my flying habits is if there is a change in quality as a result of the vote. Looking at this from someone who has never been involved in airline operations I am cognizant of the pluses and minuses of union representation. On one hand it provides some protection to the employees if Delta tries to change the rules to drive out higher seniority FA, but from my experienced with unionized employees they are quick to protect the worst of the bunch and not recognize those that give stellar service and frequently go above and beyond because sometimes that may involve doing something that is not in the job description or technically involves a violation of the contract (although not FAR). I also am not thrilled with how difficult it is to remove a union once they are in place. Personally I do not understand why the voting procedure should be different for allowing and removing a union. If it takes 50%+1 of the FA's voting in support (with non-voting FA counting as "no") to unionize, it should be the same to de-unionize. I also am not thrilled when it comes to contract negotiations the union leaders are getting an earful from people who do not have the best interest of DL FA at heart and rather are looking at how the Delta contract will affect future negotiations at other airlines

DelrayChris

I would recommend reading Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers.

pbarnette

This really applies for low-skill jobs more than high-skill jobs. Indeed, I think that is the disconnect we see here. I have a job that pays me well, comes with great benefits, and has decent working conditions. I do not fear for my job and I retain significant mobility. I don't need a union and I doubt many others here do. Heck, I don't even have a contract and don't want one. Then again, I work in a high-skill job, rather than a low-skill job.

Your discussion of seniority and being locked into an employer actually speaks as much to the negatives of a union workplace as it does the positives. I work in finance. I'm pretty sure that (assuming a position was available and that I wanted to work in a low-margin, volatile industry) I could go to work for DL. I would not start from the bottom. I would be slotted into a role commensurate with my skills and experience. My pay would also be commensurate with my skills and experience.

An FA, on the other hand, could be the greatest FA to walk the planet, but they are bound by time in the job, not by skill or experience. That seems quite unfair to me. More importantly, though, it removes virtually all incentive to acquire skill or experience or to go above and beyond. With enough rules and restrictions and procedures, I have no doubt that you can have competent FAs in a union shop. Heck, if the package is good enough, they might even be happy and pleasant. But I don't think you will get great FAs by tying their rewards to longevity rather than performance.

The union shop is the lazy way out for all involved. It provides workers with security and means the employer doesn't have to worry about managing performance.

DelrayChris

Try firing a union employee. Next to impossible. Same for State/Govt workers under the old system.

jamesteroh

That is my biggest complaint about unions (regardless of I am speaking from the side of being a staff employee or upper manager), people don't get treated as individuals.

And like you said it is also gives management an easy out by not having to evaluate performance and set goals, etc.

jamesteroh

Yes. My dad managed a union grocery store all his life (regional chain that went under right after he retired due to not being able to compete) and he would have employees that would be caught stealing and would have issues with the UFCW over firing them because the UFCW complained they had a clean work record (the way their system worked was you got "points" for write ups and they would drop after a certain period but come on stealing is not like being 10 minutes late to work)

Or try getting some union employees to assist with something that isn't in their job description. I realize there are plenty of union employees out there that will go out of their way to assist others, but my dad told me they sometimes get an unexpected rush of customers and he would ask employees from other departments to come up and assist with bagging groceries and him and other management personell would open up a register or two to get the lines moving and some of the union people would refuse to help bag groceries because it wasn't in their job description (even though they were making a lot more than a bagger). He would also run into issues sometimes where him and other managers would assist in other departments like acting as a cashier during an unexpected crowd or cleaning up a spill if no employees were around and some union personell would complain about that.

SamuelS

Just like they're also free to look at union representation, and make a decision whether it is best (or not) for them.

motytrah

That's wasn't a problem for NW. The contract did create a process around termination, but if you're getting complaints you're going to be shown the door sooner rather than later. A purser has to maintain a squeaky clean record or they will lose their title (and pay).

SamuelS

Another fallacy that is trotted out regularly.

Consider, for example, the (significant) suspensions and firings over at CO/UA - a unionised environment. FAs that offered to help the company out by transferring to a suCO base for instance, whom have 10, 15, 20 years of service with UA. Suddenly, because they claimed bankruptcy or had a DUI several years back, they are fired because they failed a background check that they weren't even told they'd be submitted to. I can definitely see in an environment like that where employee groups would want the muscle of a union on their side.

Airlines, just like other corporations, create a culture among employee groups. If Delta's FA's feel that their company will be fair, negotiate with them sensibly on working conditions and contracts, and be reasonable in things like the attendance management process - then like the previous votes, there's every chance the unions will be told to take a hike.

But if folks feel that the relationship has soured, and DL management and employee groups no longer are working cohesively, then perhaps DL will have to face a union after all.

Meantime, I wish the DL FA's all the best through the process, hope that they continue to enjoy their careers, and that they continue to deliver what (for me at least) has been a high level of customer care (certainly better than many of the other major carriers)...

I buy a ticket, I expect certain standards and levels of service and care, and I really don't care whether it's from a union member or not.