Skip to main content

Veda Shook, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, explains why the "compromise" on union issues (that do not actually belong) in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill aren't actually a compromise. While the proposal drops Republicans' earlier insistence that workers who don't vote in union elections should be counted as having cast anti-union votes, it adds a host of new hurdles to workers wanting to form unions.

For one thing, in some cases, an existing union would just be dissolved. "In a merger," Shook explains, "if the larger workforce is non-union, there would simply be no election to determine representation of the combined group. The union and the contract would simply go away."

In other cases, though, hurdles galore. Accompanying the new 50 percent threshold to call for a union representation election, management would control all the information on how many people might be eligible to vote and who they were. That means they could pad the numbers required to get to 50 percent. Then, because the requirement threshold would now be written into the statute, it would be subject to litigation. That would not only allow companies to drag out the process, the union cards the workers had signed would be subject to discovery. It's a perfect opportunity for management to intimidate union supporters.

This is no compromise. Tell Congress to pass a clean FAA bill, without the union-busting.

Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 1:12 PM PT: The action has moved to the Senate, where we need 41 votes to block this provision. Call your senator.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:46 PM PST.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I sent off the email. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe wobblie, JDPITALIA, FarWestGirl

    We have got to get into the position where we are playing offense, not defense.

  •  I sent an email, although (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it's more a message of support; my rep. (Grijalva) will almost certainly fight back against this union-busting nonsense. My oasis of sanity in crazy-AZ.

    There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death. -- Isaac Asimov

    by tytalus on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 01:03:01 PM PST

    •  Mine is the opposite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      My Congress Critter is the odious Rob Bishop and he will put this in the circular file quick and then send me a "thank you for your support" email. I hates him.

      "But much to my surprise when I opened my eyes I was the victim of the great compromise." John Prine

      by high uintas on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 09:51:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Watching Unions Mobilize and Doorknock for a Year (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe wobblie, FarWestGirl

    but NOT DOING IT FOR DEMOCRATS, and the party doesn't get the implications?

    Anything the unions do to fight the Democratic Party on this kind of issue, I'll be helping, and deducting that from my efforts to re-elect them.

    I'm already committed to fighting Democrats instead of helping re-elect them on several policies that affect us personally in very immediate ways.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 01:13:51 PM PST

  •  I knew this was bad the second I heard about it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opinionated, Mogolori, Matt Z

    on NPR. The chairman of the House committee (a Repuke, of course) was bragging about it being a triumph for America. Rule #1, when a Republican tells you it's good they don't mean good for you.

    "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

    From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

    by ontheleftcoast on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:03:00 PM PST

  •  Moreover There's No Such THING As Compromise (0+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:08:29 PM PST

  •  OK then (0+ / 0-)

    I'm taking opening lines on the over/under of how long before the Obama Administration agrees to this "compromise" and those here (or anywhere really) critical of the union-busting provisions are denounced by great "progressives" as "whinning purist loosers demanding rainbow unicorn farts that are undermining the Obama campaign."

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:14:18 PM PST

    •  tiresome... (0+ / 0-)

      ActivistGuy; while you're certainly right, I have to confess that the constant whining about the lack of outrage towards Obama is tiresome. Instead of bitching, maybe you could start a poll that would allow Kossack's reactions to Obama's next sellout to be tallied, and then would could all just move the fudge on?

  •  If it's not one goddamn thing, it's another. (0+ / 0-)

    "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

    by Mogolori on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:20:25 PM PST

    •  Yep, I just got an email from MoveOn (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      saying "News just broke that the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, along with other conservative millionaires and billionaires, are pledging $100 million to defeat President Obama."

      I would sure like to see a tax proposal that said corporations and individuals owe 1) their calculated tax according to the tax tables or 2) two times the total contributed to political campaigns and lobbying efforts, whichever is greater.  

      Fine, let them lobby all they want, but double-match it in tax revenues.

      Can't never did nothin'; Can Do did!

      by susanWAstate on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:31:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Time to go on the offensive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommy Allen

    We can keep fighting these rear-guard actions and maybe slow down the rate at which they are pauperizing us, or we can go on the offensive. We need to be actively pushing legislation to make unions mandatory for all workplaces and to decriminalize general strikes. Labor-management relations only settle into steady states at the extremes. Otherwise, one side is always gaining at the other's expense.

    One thing is certain: it's not our side that's gaining, and the Democrats are not helping. For labor, and for the middle class generally, the choice between Democrats and Republicans is like the choice between euthanasia and execution.

    Yes we can! The president, however, I'm not so sure about.

    by eodell on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:32:19 PM PST

  •  No way this is acceptable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommy Allen, JDPITALIA

    The 50 percent thing I could have swallowed hard and lived with for reasons previously explained.  The rest of this is pure crap.  The ability of employers to obtain "discovery" of authorization cards is extremely dangerous, and puts the lie to the claim that the "secret ballot" is "sacred".  

    I can't believe this has gotten this far.  But I do.

  •  my text (0+ / 0-)

    My Rep is a freshman Republican, and one who vocally complained about the payroll tax holiday extension by saying incredulously that no one authorizaed his caucus's leadership to, uh, lead.

    here's my text:

    It is wishful thinking to write you asking that you oppose the FAA reauthoriziation because it is anti-labor, but that is just what I'm doing here. Holding this authorization up has been un-American. Loading it up has been un-American. And the GOP assault on organizaed labor should go back to the 19th century where it belongs.

    THERE IS NO PROBLEM. The problem is not what people who work for a living make, or that they have collective bargaining rights. You might honestly think otherwise, but you are wrong. And if this is simply doing the bidding of your corporate and party masters, I'd remind you that the work of whores usually involves taking the invasion for themselves, not merely arranging the invasiopn of others. And that pimps at least go through the pretense of acting in their whores' best interests.

    Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

    by textus on Sat Feb 04, 2012 at 04:26:29 AM PST

  •  Flight Attendants add a bit of history to the mix (0+ / 0-)

    There are a lot of sound arguments against assaulting workers' incomes and on-the-job rights with a sub rosa, influence-peddled legislative end run.  Add to them the industry stabilizing manner the Railway Act's labor provisions have been updated in the past (from the flight attendants' AFA union):

    The proposed Railway Labor Act changes would drastically rewrite a statute that was crafted through labor-management cooperation and has not been changed for over 75 years without the agreement of both employer and employee representatives.

    This is yet another right wing over-reach that'll blow up in the traveling public's face.  Both eroded in-flight health and safety issues -- which have been a major concern and contribution of the flight attendants' and pilots' unions before Congress and on the job -- and disruptions to scheduled travel caused by souring of labor/management relations are going to be the product of this fringe right assault on unions, mark my words.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site