raehl311

Not exactly. Only counts for jobs done in the US. Flying your plane to Mexico to have its regular maintenance done there is fine, for example.

Unionization of any job that can be done outside the US will cause Americans to lose jobs.

Driving by DCA

Not to get too off topic, but is that really how it works for you? If so, I'm sorry.

I mean, I assume you negotiated your pay, responsibilities, benefits, etc. when you took your job. Maybe you didn't and just took the offer you were given, but even that is a negotiation (if not a very aggressive one). I assume you occasionally have reviews in which you discuss your role, pay, and responsibilities and have a negotiation over the possibility of changes (again if you just take what is give, you're still negotiating even if you're not doing it well).

I also assume that if your boss came to you and told you that you would have a wholesale change of work location, responsibilities, hours, etc. that you would negotiate for something satisfactory and/or for more pay.

I think we sometimes oversimplify the difference between union employment and the non-union white-collar jobs that many of us have. The biggest difference isn't the fact that employees negotiate to get fair payment for the value they provide their employers--everyone does that.

The biggest difference is that some unions over time have chosen not to negotiate for as much in the way of merit-based pay and bonuses and have instead chosen to work on a purely seniority-based structure. That's a difference between union and non-union jobs, but it's a choice some unions and employers have made rather than a necessary result of unions. There are numerous counter examples of unions that have managed to significantly reward merit while still collectively bargaining (SAG and various pro-athlete unions come immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are others).

Ancien Maestro

UA would be hard pressed to get employees to agree not to unionize..

Look at Walmart and their attempts to disorganize unions.. literally shutting down stores when employees start wanting unions.

So collective bargaining and giving into some major issues is the only way how established airlines can continue.. Unfortunately, unions is a realtiy.

mduell

Welcome to the Railway Labor Act, which despite it's title covers airlines (which were very minor and heavily regulated at the time).

ClipperClub

Hey Guys.

I'm one of the flight attendants going through this voting process, also on the voluntary furlough, and have a bit of insight if anyone has specific questions.
I am also interested in the crossover flying.

Back a couple months ago i posted something regarding the additional 400 furloughs that were being asked. I got shot down by a few people on the board for some strange reason, but if anyone has specific questions....feel free to ask.

jetaway96

This has nothing to do with qualification or unions from both sides at this moment. Even if we are trained to work on CO aircrafts tomorrow, we still can't work for them as we are hired by UA. Because of the separate operating certificates, CO and UA are still 2 separate airlines and has to operate their own aircraft/ crews until they can get a single operating certificate to become one carrier then union issues would apply.

As Channa mention, it would not be easy for UAFAs to come and join CO right now as seniority is a big problem. If UAFAs cross over to CO and have to be placed at the bottom of COFAs then no one would go except for maybe a hand full of the most Junior UAFAs. If UAFAs can keep their seniority when cross over to CO.....you would not want to be on a flight with a mix crew as it would not be a fun flight. I can not imagine myself working a trip with the rest of the crew are COFAs who are all Junior to me and I just join them from UA. As much as I would love to work with them as I have heard a lot of good things about them, I can't think of what kind of talks would that be behind my back. It would be different when it become 1 airline instead of 2.

I don't know much about COFA contract but with UAFA, UA has to offer the volunteer furlough before in-volunteer. There are around 1200 UAFA being recalled next year so I think that UA try to offer this as they called "to balancing the workforce", but the truth is IMO they might use this offer to get rid of some UAFA next year by in-volunteer furlough or even lay off.

ClipperClub

>The furloughees at UA are only required to get company approval before working at another airline. Its in the furlough paperwork. You can see it online at the AFA website.

>The idea that not many would come over is not necessarily true. AFA did not allow voluntaries back during a rebid process, so this is our only option for work thus far. I know of 4 people in my circle of influence who would do it and we are all over 15 years. Remember, we are on A/B rotation doing reserve 5 weeks out of every 8 already. Big difference? No.

>The CO contract offers job shares first, and then COLA (company offered leaves of absence). This is similar to the voluntary furlough at UA. One thing of note....even if it get to the point of involuntary furlougs at CO under IAM.....the f/a never loses seniority. ever. they always have recall rights. At UA under AFA those rights tick away after 6 months.

>The recalls in March 2012 are only going to result in larger numbers of furloughs, which is why AFA should not ignore the fact that many of us want to work. AFA is actually calling their own members 'scabs' at this point, which is unreal considering the word does not apply to this situation, it is vile, and that there are many of us that would like to come back to work. Harship returns are a 100% company decision, therefore many were not successful but need to return.

>The need on UA's part is genuine, and the scare tactics employed by AFA at this point are worrisome. It is affecting the ability to get back on the line, and may cause larger numbers of furloughs.

*Please become familiar with CO and their contract. The biggest vote of your career is happening. Good luck to you.