94% of US Flight Attendants vote to authorize a strike (UPDATED)
 

Today's Phoenix area East Valley Tribune:

Full article can be found here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49903444/n.../#.UKvRKWe2Y1B

Ugh...I hope that a strike doesn't happen. I'm surprised it's taken this long for this to happen though. And from the, albeit little bit, that I know, it seems that it's management that's more in the wrong here.

Why do you say that? Managment has negotiated and reached agreements with the union leadership twice and it was voted down by the rank and file, the last time by 49 votes, this like most US Airways union problems is almost entirely the result of infighting between east and west. West FAs overhelmingly voted for the last contract was the word on the street. They cannot strike, a merger is way more likely to happen before they could even be realeased to strike. This is just a thrown bone move by the union trying not to look out smarted at every turn and of corse hard core union people like those back east will eat it up.

Looks like the results are in 94% vote to strike:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...EN878320121120

Curious to see if they'll try and mobilize before the holiday travel...

Not possible, per the NBC article:

And somehow Dougie thinks bringing in a 3rd group of unionized employees to mix in with the 2 fighting unions he already has is a good idea ... :rolleyes:

Well considering how smooth an operation they've been able to run with the union fights and infighting, and the lack of contract, it really doesn't surprise me that they're willing to risk adding another union or three to the mix.

It's the employees who have been screwed in all of this, not the customer. Sure, there are stories of lazy FA's, surly FA's, and FA's who really need to go work somewhere else, but they're by far the exception and not the rule. If you can keep the customer relatively happy without actually fixing this problem, then there's less priority to fix it.

Not saying that makes it right, by any means. Just saying that upper management might not see it as being a deal-breaker.

I wonder if an AA/US deal will happen soon. Loads of strikes all the time at airlines. But good management teams have their problems sorted out.

Strike Authorization Update
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AJ1BR20121120

Sure hope this is resolved before we had out on a long international trip Jan. 22.

It will be at least a year before a strike could happen.... Federal mediators havent been keen on declaring impasse....

Can someone explain what are the issues why F/As didn't authorize the contracts thus far?

Nothing that gobs of $$$ wouldn't solve.

Also, it should be pointed out that just over 60% of the FA's actually voted for the strike.

Looks like a January or February strike is possible. Just when we'll be traveling. May conceivably be able to get put on other carriers (e.g., US), but on routes we'll be flying (Brazil-U.S., including Hawaii), may not be easy. US customer realtions never easy to work with in the best of circumstances. We once had an international fight canceled, mid-way through a long trip, and all the US agent could tell us was that some action had been taken in Munich (Europe was not part of our trip). If we get through this trip, we may be looking at other carriers for a May trip. Maybe DL more than AA, though DL ff miles we'd gain are harder to use than thos e of other carriers (highe requiremtns for flights).

This is spot on. I can't remember the last time any group of US flight attendants or pilots actually got to the point of striking. The Federal Government would surely delay a strike until who knows when.

Exactly. But the AFA got what it wanted: a lot of people who have no idea that a strike can't actually happen are talking about their fear that their travel plans might be disrupted.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...ants-vote.html

As others have said there is zero chance of a strike, do not let it even enter your head reguarding travel plans.

US is currently hiring FA's and I have heard had over 10 thousand applicants. So as is usual unionized employees greatly over estimate their own worth.

Last large airline strike I remember is in 98 when Northwest pilots went on strike. Comair went on strike in 2001 and shut the airline down and the airline was ready to fold but a last minute deal was struck. American was going to go on strike in the late 90s but Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting it but there was some blue flu going around with the pilots then. And in 2000/2001 Delta pilots were having labor issues and a lot of blue flu happened then as well.

In 2005 the Northwest Mechanics went on strike and Northwest had plenty of replacement mechanics that were out of work from other airlines that were glad to step in. Northwest basically gave the jobs to the replacements and told the union to pound sand When the mechanics wanted to talk again, Northwest offered them less money than what they had when they went on strike.

And I am sure there are still plenty of laid off FA's from other airlines who would be happy to step in for the pay US is offering. If a strike would occur, I can see the same thing as the Northwest Mechanics strike in 2005. They will have plenty of replacements to take the jobs, operations won't really suffer, and the replacements will be happy to take the jobs and US will tell the union to pound sand.

True. There's almost always an unequal power relationship in these disputes. Employees are best staying on the job to engage in sabotage. Just do as poor a job as possible without getting fired. That'd be my advice if they're screwing you around. If the games rigged just play your own and don't give a .... when everyone whines you're playing dirty.

Could you be less specific? Telling it is just a paycheck issue is not a real answer. I am sure $ is in the mix but that can't be the major thing holding this up I am sure.

Here's an article by Ted Reed (writes about US about every other day) with some discussion of the reasons:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11722...-contract.html

The failed TA would have given the FAs substantial raises, but even with the raises, their pay would still have been lower than UA, DL or AA. The West (PMHP) FAs would have seen larger raises than the East (PMUS) FAs, due to their much lower pay than their East colleagues.

So substantial increase but reason for holdout is that new contract doesn't keep pairing with the pilots? Seriously? That is the holdout in Charlotte? I understand potential advantages of pairings with the pilots but in doing so it would still prevent mixing of the crew and unifying labor force until pilots are under single contract as well. It looks to me that holdout is deliberate to lend more leverage to USALPA instead of taking it away (as they would be the last major stronghold preventing total merger of the East and West).

If this is the case (what is written in the article) then shame on FAs. It is not Doug's fault this felt through it truly is an union issue and a bogus one.

I wish they would do this for the pilots and can some of the east pilots, so a contact can be signed and the merger can be finalized.. This is just horrible how the east holds the company hostage...

If the F/As give up the pairing with the pilots the F/As will lose a lot of "Me Too" clauses. Such as scheduling rules, rest issues, hotel policies etc. its not just the East that is holding out for that. Most airlines (except DL and WN) stick with their pilots on pairings. The new FAA rules will begin implementation soon and those will have an effect on pairing construction. I don't know anyone at my airline that would vote for a contract that split us up from our pilots.

I keep preaching it. Many of us are not after lots of money. We are after the QOL issues that are in the contract. East would have given up QOL issues so I dont blame them for voting down the contract. Two different times they went to the table. Two times they went with people who didnt listen to the group. Two times they got an agreement that the majority didnt want and two times it was voted down. Yes that was a Union issue. The strike vote was just the next part of the process that needed to be filled.

Now I don't expect people here to like unions... I know the vast majority of FTers loath them. They do have a purpose and many airlines need them for protection of the employees. I will also point out that I have a graduate degree in Business and I know that employment contracts should be written at every level. You better believe that Doug Parker & Co. have extensive contracts with the company that spells out everything from hours served to compensation to benefits. Tell me why is it that the top 1% should have a contract thats binding and enforceable but not the front line staff? (not that I am looking for a response since I know what the answers will be...)

Just think of your own contract with your employer. Im sure that some of you all will be able to relate when thinking of it that way.

Hotel policies in the failed TA required the same hotels as pilots. There was increased rest in the failed TA, independent of the pilots. The scheduling rules for the pilots are changing in a year, and those rules are not desirable to flight attendants who want to work coast-to-coast turns (pilots won't be able to do those). Some FA's want to work a long day, and then be done for the, sleeping in their own bed at night (QOL). The PHX based crews don't co-pair, and I've not yet met one PHX FA who wants to co-pair. See Item 20 from OurAFA about why they don't want to co-pair. AFA was correct to write their own requirements into their contract, instead of relying on the pilots.

CWE:

I'm a bit puzzled - are you saying the negotiating committee isn't/wasn't on the same page with rank and file? Seems kind of pointless to keep them in place IMO.

Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand.

While I dont disagree that the policies should be in the F/As contractt the East side and a lot of the West (they want it back) want co-pairing. Since the larger group isnt willing to give it up then the point is moot and will be voted down unless some other agreement can be reached. Many people may not like the East side but for starters it makes the most money has the largest hubs and the most passengers. Not to mention the larger workforce. AFA needs to listen to their members in order to get a contract that can be put into place.

The have stepped down each time (If I remember correctly) I also recall that both times the majority on the committee was West F/As. West and East have different ideas about what the group wants and the East is the larger group.

That was the situation with Air Canada a while ago. Their union committees kept recommending contracts for approval, but the rank and file kept voting them down. It was comically sad.

Hire more FAs from the West and soon this will be history.
Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and California is my suggestion
Go to the lands of boom and bust after the housing crisis and find people willing to work.

When the 3rd group you are bringing in has good relations with you already after your friendly talks to help them, bringing them in will get rid of the majority bloc from the east (old US) and get everybody to shut up and work

Yawn, this is why workers shouldn't waste time with all the bargaining crap. If management wants to do stupid power play moves to steamroll you might as well just get off the usual script. I've never worked anywhere dissatisfied employees couldn't grind it to a halt from the inside. Then of course you'll get management and all the keyboard jockeys moaning and whining about respect and fair play. Oh well, they don't care about you anyway.

Thank you for the explanation. This makes more sense. I think what we (customers?) are missing is information on this. I am not opposed to unions as they make sense in terms of bargaining power otherwise unavailable to individuals unless higher in management.

I still don't understand the "me too" part. If certain issues (hotels, etc...) are important, then write them into F/A contract and you don't depend on USALPA.

Really? :confused:

When was the last time a U.S. airline's operations were disrupted because of a strike by its employees?