Delta union talks could hinge on Obama appointment

Derg

New Arizona, Il Duce/Warlord
Staff member
Delta union talks could hinge on Obama appointment
New administration likely to affect labor relations
By KELLY YAMANOUCHI
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Monday, November 17, 2008

The switch to Barack Obama’s presidency is expected to bring a more labor-friendly administration, which could affect Delta Air Lines when it goes through union representation elections as a combined carrier with merger partner Northwest Airlines.

For the broader airline industry, “Labor costs are likely to rise, but not enough to impact the viability of the industry,” according to FTN Midwest Securities analyst Michael Derchin in a report issued Monday.

Clark University professor of labor relations Gary Chaison said Monday. He expects the Obama administration to “place a very high priority on protecting jobs.”

Many also expect President-elect Obama will appoint a member sympathetic to labor to the National Mediation Board, which facilitates labor-management relations at airlines and railroads.

That could affect efforts by unions to organize employees at the combined Delta, according to Derchin. Pilots were the only major unionized group at Delta, while employees from Northwest are largely unionized.

The Air Line Pilots Association and Delta have submitted filings seeking a determination that Delta and Northwest make up a single carrier. Delta wants the determination to apply across the company, which if approved would trigger a process toward union elections among other employee groups.

“If the current Republican dominated NMB does not move quickly” on the request, Derchin expects the composition of the board will become 2-1 in favor of Democrats, although it could take months before a new board member is appointed.

A pro-labor NMB also means current negotiations in the airline industry are likely to move more quickly, according to Derchin.

The National Mediation Board is made up of three board members who serve staggered three-year terms and are appointed by the president. Two of the three members’ terms have expired, but they continue in their positions until they resign or are replaced. No more than two of the board members can be of the same political party.

The board makes decisions on what group of employees constitutes a bargaining unit, which in turn can affect the result of a union representation election, according to Les Hough, an industrial relations consultant.

As Delta and its employees prepare for union elections, Delta recently announced 3 to 4 percent pay increases for non-union employees Jan. 1, while pilots will see 5 percent pay increases from their labor contract. Many unionized employees from Northwest will get 1 to 1.5 percent pay increases from their contracts.

Separately, Delta and Northwest pilots completed their last day of seniority list arbitration hearings Monday, and expect the arbitration panel to issue a seniority award and opinion Dec. 8.
 

Trip7

Well-Known Member
Things like this is why I am shocked that airline pilots voted against Obama. He's going to give me a tax break and be more labor friendly but no thanks I'm voting for the guy that will fill up my CEO's pockets.
 

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
Overwhelming Airline pilots are social conservatives, and tend to actually label themselves as Republicans (namely due to the majority having some ties to our National security apparatus).

What the majority of those pilots fail to realize is that they are no longer working for the Government, but rather for a private / public company that lacks any of the military/government safe-guards that they once enjoyed.

These safe-guards come from your labor apparatus (unions). While they recognize this, they do not want to sell out their national security ties for their professional career ties.

At least that's my analysis.

Now, for personal opinion: As a service member, I recognize the importance of a strong military. A strong military though comes from within, form the actual military leadership. Not by any single President. Be it a Republican of Democrat the military structure will continue to be successful and do as it is tasked. Strength though is never once put in jeopardy. Manpower numbers, funding of contracts, etc, can be but those in no way indicate our military or national security system is being weakened or strengthened. It's a red-herring fallacy that many can not escape. But, such is life in America. As a professional aviator that works in a heavily unionized environment, my ability to earn a wage that is livable, enjoy a good QOL, and utilize work rules and benefits that help me and my family rely on OUR (labors) ability to negotiate for such things. If our ability to negotiate with our management will be put into jeopardy by a clearly anti-labor Presidential candidate who has a well established track record of hating organized labor, I really don't care much if he is viewed as the "Pro-Military candidate," because he is clearly viewed as the "Anti-Labor candidate."

Priorities. My point is we each have different ones. Not saying they are right or wrong, just a friendly analysis.
 

Clocks

Well-Known Member
Things like this is why I am shocked that airline pilots voted against Obama. He's going to give me a tax vreak and be more labor friendly but no thanks I'm voting for the guy that will fill up my CEO's pockets.
Because voting for whoever makes your wallet fatter is always what's best for the country. :sarcasm:
 

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
Because voting for whoever makes your wallet fatter is always what's best for the country. :sarcasm:
Your sarcasm is clear. . .but. . .

Minus the sarcasm, you would hold the opinion that the majority of the voting population in this country votes on what would be best for the country as opposed to votes for what would be best for them and their family?

That goes against almost two centuries worth of voting habit research.

The American voting population overwhelming votes with individual issues in mind, not some notion of what is best for the Country. Collectively, their decisions could be viewed as them indicating that a candidate is the "Best" candidate to represent them, their goals, and meet the standards that they as the electorate have set forth.
 

L-16B

Well-Known Member
Things like this is why I am shocked that airline pilots voted against Obama. He's going to give me a tax break and be more labor friendly but no thanks I'm voting for the guy that will fill up my CEO's pockets.

I didn't vote for Obama, I voted for McCain. I wasn't really thrilled with either candidate. However, there are way too many policies for me to look at, it's not just about my profession.
I can see why you would say this, as it's true Obama will definitely help out labor relations. But I'm way too conservative!! :nana2:

I want Ron Paul.
 

Clocks

Well-Known Member
Your sarcasm is clear. . .but. . .

Minus the sarcasm, you would hold the opinion that the majority of the voting population in this country votes on what would be best for the country as opposed to votes for what would be best for them and their family?

That goes against almost two centuries worth of voting habit research.

The American voting population overwhelming votes with individual issues in mind, not some notion of what is best for the Country. Collectively, their decisions could be viewed as them indicating that a candidate is the "Best" candidate to represent them, their goals, and meet the standards that they as the electorate have set forth.
I hold the opinion that people should vote for what's best for the country, not just whoever is offering the biggest "vote for me" cash handout funded by the US tax payers. If someone thinks Obama was best for the country and by the way I believe he'll cut my taxes too, I have no problem with that. It's the people who in any other setting would be labeled as "getting bribed" that annoy me. But it's the direction the country is going towards. More and more people receive money from the government, fewer and fewer pay into the system. The entire government is going to be facing a Social Security style crisis in the future, all caused by a population voting solely in their short term personal interest with politicians all to happy to build an unsustainable system of buying votes, because they'll be long gone when the scheme falls apart.
 

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
Just so I'm clear, who was getting bribed (by politicians) to vote for any candidate this election cycle?

I see a lot of rhetoric, so I won't venture much further. Just want to know who was being bribed this election cycle.
 

aevfo

Well-Known Member
Just so I'm clear, who was getting bribed (by politicians) to vote for any candidate this election cycle?

I see a lot of rhetoric, so I won't venture much further. Just want to know who was being bribed this election cycle.
I think it's pretty clear. I'll give you a hint. One particular candidate was offering tax cuts to everyone under 250000 (250000 initially, that since has fallen). This particular candidate also was offering tax credits to those who pay NO taxes, and this particular candidate was offering to be like robin hood and take from the rich and give to the poor. Just who do you think was being bribed?
 

skydog

New Member
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the fundamental cornerstones on which this nation was premised. If you believe in these ideals, then you should vote for the candidate who is going to uphold them. But No one seems to give an at's rass about the first two, and are solely focused on the last. We elect candidates who advocate for the ability of one human being to deprive another of its life. We elect candidates who advocate for ever-increasing government control over our lives . And we do all in the name of furthering our own happiness, which is apparently defined by having more money in our pockets.

What no one seems to understand is that the first two are pre-requisites for acheiving the third
 

Clocks

Well-Known Member
I think it's pretty clear. I'll give you a hint. One particular candidate was offering tax cuts to everyone under 250000 (250000 initially, that since has fallen). This particular candidate also was offering tax credits to those who pay NO taxes, and this particular candidate was offering to be like robin hood and take from the rich and give to the poor. Just who do you think was being bribed?
There you go. The last point in particular.

No...Webster's isn't going to define tax refund checks to people who don't pay taxes as "bribery". But applied to any other scenario that's exactly what everyone would call it. "Let me go officer and I'll give you $5000"...."Throw out the case judge and I'll give you $5000"..."Vote for me and I'll give you $5000".
 

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
We elect candidates who advocate for the ability of one human being to deprive another of its life.

To my knowledge, no one (unless they've written in Charles Manson) has voted for someone that's "pro-murder." I know when I vote for someone who's pro-choice, I'm voting for someone that supports exactly that....choice. I personally do NOT believe that life begins at conception, so I'm not voting "pro-murder" as some more radical stanced people would phrase it. I'm voting to give someone the choice to make the decision on their own. Hence, the term, ya know.

But, I guess if you wanna get technical, anyone that voted for someone that authorized military action is voting "pro-murder."
 

Seggy

Well-Known Member
[RANT TIME]

I HATE getting political on an interweb board. However, something needs to be said especially since this is called JETCAREERS.COM not MANAGEMENTCAREERS.COM

Like it or not as a professional pilot we are blue collar workers, not white collar workers. Talking to some high ups at ALPA if John was elected president our careers would have been really in a lot of trouble. With foreign ownership, cabotage, arbitration style bargaining, the analysis of John's policies would have set us back as professional pilots back years. It was really scary. I don't want to hear that it was union propaganda, it was completed by a independent contractor.

Thankfully, the person that will be occupying the White House for the next four years knows where his support is. From blue collar workers, like ourselves. Changes will be made to the NMB to hopefully give us the tools to make progress in our work rules and compensation.

I am a fairly conservative person, yet conservatism went out the window when big business was crying to Congress to bail them out and they got close to a trillion dollars of our tax payer dollars.

Nothing we can do about who is going to lead our country, we all need to stand back, and see what he can really do. I think our industry will be better off in four years than it is now.

[END RANT]
 

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
I think it's pretty clear. I'll give you a hint. One particular candidate was offering tax cuts to everyone under 250000 (250000 initially, that since has fallen). This particular candidate also was offering tax credits to those who pay NO taxes, and this particular candidate was offering to be like robin hood and take from the rich and give to the poor. Just who do you think was being bribed?
Nice first post. . .welcome to jetcareers.

Actually, the tax policy of one of the candidates has not changed. That is, everyone who earns less than 250,000 married will see a reduction in income tax rates, and individual who earn 200,000 single will see a reduction in income tax rates.

Also, if you haven't noticed already - people who do not pay into the income tax system (as screwed up as it is) have already been able to get quality of life benefits for many many decades. Nothing any of the two candidates stated would bring benefits to those who are not already able to have them.

I don't think anyone was being bribed.
 

ladder360

Well-Known Member
[RANT TIME]

I HATE getting political on an interweb board. However, something needs to be said especially since this is called JETCAREERS.COM not MANAGEMENTCAREERS.COM

Like it or not as a professional pilot we are blue collar workers, not white collar workers. Talking to some high ups at ALPA if John was elected president our careers would have been really in a lot of trouble. With foreign ownership, cabotage, arbitration style bargaining, the analysis of John's policies would have set us back as professional pilots back years. It was really scary. I don't want to hear that it was union propaganda, it was completed by a independent contractor.

Thankfully, the person that will be occupying the White House for the next four years knows where his support is. From blue collar workers, like ourselves. Changes will be made to the NMB to hopefully give us the tools to make progress in our work rules and compensation.

I am a fairly conservative person, yet conservatism went out the window when big business was crying to Congress to bail them out and they got close to a trillion dollars of our tax payer dollars.

Nothing we can do about who is going to lead our country, we all need to stand back, and see what he can really do. I think our industry will be better off in four years than it is now.

[END RANT]

While I hope Obama makes strong decisions regarding the NMB, we still don't know for sure. Hopefully, he won't pull a "Slick Willy" and, after being heavily supported by the blue collar workers, appoints some yahoos to the board and screws labor. I would have a little more confidence had he accepted public financing for his campaign (as he originally pledged). Now, he has a lot of corporate "favors" to repay.
 
Top