So much for DPA's organizing ability and timely communications.

They can't even get base Communications Representatives, and they expect to represent 12,000 pilots? What a joke.


When the SLC Base Communication Representatives have been selected, they will be announced here. August 26, 2010 @ 11:06 ET

When the NYC Base Communication Representatives have been selected, they will be announced here. August 26, 2010 @ 10:58 ET

When the MSP Base Communication Representatives have been selected, they will be announced here. August 26, 2010 @ 10:56 ET

When the MEM Base Communication Representatives have been selected, they will be announced here. August 26, 2010 @ 10:54 ET

When the LAX Base Communication Representatives have been selected, they will be announced here. August 26, 2010 @ 10:51 ET

When the CVG Base Communication Representatives have been selected, they will be announced here. August 26, 2010 @ 8:36 ET

Where's the transparency, where's the Constitution and By-Laws, who's writing it, how much money do they have, where did they get their money, who are the committee chairman going to be, who will they retain to do representations, when are they going to stop hiding and actually start communicating and showing at least some semblance of organization?

 

"At 20% return of Cards – Draft constitution produced to web. Comments received." DPA

Anyone seen the draft constitution on the web yet?

How many folks have actually sent in a card?

The lack of transparency is very telling.

 

Karnak,

I'm almost to the point in time where I shouldn't discuss this with you, but if you really want to look smart in the future, Google:

* Mandatory subjects of bargaining. (Terms and Conditions of Employment- Discipline)
* Management Rights (Operational Control)
* Concerted Activity

Here are some cases for you to look into as well....

* Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U.S. 488, 498 (1979)
* Mary Thompson Hosp. v. NLRB, 943 F.2d 741, 745 (7th Cir.1991)
* Brewers and Maltsters, Local Union No. 6 v. NLRB, 414 F.3d 36, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
* Colgate-Palmolive Co., 323 N.L.R.B. 515 (1997)


But, especially look at the Ford case.

If you think what you say is how it works, so be it. But, in Fords, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Ford Motor Company couldn't even raise the price of food in their vending machines without bargaining with the union first. (The last two cases involve an employers improper use of video surveillance.)

If your extensive knowledge leads you to believe something contrary to what 9 Justices of the Supreme Court say, those cases say, and what I said in response to your earlier post, I'm all ears to find out why you would believe so.


New K Now

 

Reroute does have a point, and newK as always as spot on.

My beef is with ALPA national, personally...

 

OK. That's good.

Why would you care if it's just a small group? Small groups aren't a majority and as such, mean nothing. If the DPA supporters end up being a majority, then you have nothing to fear...because you just said you're not afraid of a majority opinion. So relax sparky...you've got nothing to worry about.

You're at least the 5th guy to use that exact phrase. Does it matter to you that Delta management has barred any DPA activity on the property? Why would anyone prohibit their wet dream?

DPA is an organization. It does not possess biological properties like DNA. Or were you trying to show us your ability to inaccurately describe things...again?

Carl

 

Of course the company can allow it. The portion of Section 1 that you state has nothing to do with your assertion to the contrary. We saw it happen at NWA where the company allowed a new union (AFA) to campaign on the property while the current union at the time also had exclusive rights for BARGAINING. It is at the company's sole discretion as to who they allow on THEIR property. As long as the entity is not on the property for the purpose of BARGAINING, there is no violation. Campaigning to become the bargaining agent of the future, is NOT bargaining.

Carl

 

You're really showing your ignorance here dude. Read my post above, then re-read Section 1.

You're half right...which is getting better for you.

Carl

 

Why don't you start us out on our first lesson of reading comprehension? Please post the portion of Section 1 that states no other union can come on the property for the purpose of campaigning to be the new bargaining agent.

Good to see you're showing us the way to move past sound bites.

Carl

 

Glad to see you got it right. It is the company's decision whether or not to prohibit their "wet dream."

Where?

Carl

 

Utterly incorrect. I know you're feeling vulnerable since you repeated the silly assertion that the DPA is management's wet dream...only to find out that management has prohibited any activities of their wet dream. But your trying to defend this assertion (and your vulnerability) by quoting a portion of Section 1 that has nothing to do with your assertion. You're in a hole dude...stop digging.

Carl