jsled

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans have failed in their bid to overturn a new rule making it easier for unions to organize workers in the airline and railroad industries.

The Senate voted 56-43 against a GOP resolution that would have prevented the Obama administration from enforcing the rule.

The new rule approved by the National Mediation Board in May allows employees to unionize if a majority of those voting support the union. The old rule required a majority of all workers to favor union representation. That meant workers choosing not to vote were treated as "no" votes.

The main impact of the change is at Delta Air Lines Inc., where unions are trying to organize thousands of flight attendants.

President Barack Obama had threatened to veto the resolution if passed.

gloopy

All this does is make it easier to unionize with less than 50% unity even on the issue of weather or not to unionize. Not only that, it will basically guarantee that almost every work group in airlines automatically unionizes. With that comes the Bolshevik mentality that any job no matter how lacking in skills, training, prerequisites, etc has a powerful group of people who can "shut er down" if they don't get what they want, and all jobs are of equal importance, right?. Do we really think that will lead to higher pilot pay?

Sink r8

No. There isn't a gain in it for us. This is about their right to self-representation, and it is their story, not ours. We'll gain nothing, and our livelihoods will also be subject to their gambles.

Other airlines that have multiple unions try to put on a brave face on this stuff, and they try develop a good working relationship with other unions. When the rubber really meets the road... other groups might play along a little bit, but overall they like the pilots to shoulder most of the cuts, and share most of the rewards.

How could adding another competing interest be useful?

ATCsaidDoWhat

Have you considered that by having union representation and less fear of retaliation, they would likely be more willing to support pilots on strike? And pilots supporting them would possibly lead to them having better wages and work rules...leading to the one thing that management is most afraid of...employee unity?

How have we as pilots fared in the post deregulation years with not having labor leaders and groups work together? Pretty poorly.

Yet, look at what happened at Amerijet last year. 40 pilots, who went on strike for their first contract. IBT pulled together support from all airlines and unions, and labor from across the spectrum. The result? They got a contract. They're still fighting management, but they got it.

What would have happened if they had no support? What do you think?

Sink r8

I realize this isn't the politically correct view, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I see no advantage. Whatsoever.

I have. But their withdrawal of services is not automatic, often isn't necessary, and it isn't usually free. For starters, they may not go along with a strike, or outright oppose it (for example the last mechanics' strike at NW). Second, they don't fly aircraft. If we have a unified pilot group, their support is not relevant. If we don't have a unified pilot group... we're screwed whether the others help or not.

Whether it's simply reciprocity when they decide to strike, or whether it's some sort of consideration when negotiating, they become another player in the discussion.

If I try to trade that in, will I get more for it than pilot unity that has relatively low miles on it?

Exactly. And yet, for almost all these airlines, they've had multiple unionized groups. Has that helped the pilot groups? Are the unionized pilot groups at the airlines with multiple unions better off than those where only the pilots are unionized?

I think the ability of a group to get leverage is tied to its' ability to completely shut the airline down. We don't duplicate functions, and don't replace one another. If one group strikes, and is completely unified, it's shut down. It's nice to have other groups onboard, but then it's something that must be reciprocated when they strike. Which is all well and good if you feel it's justified, not so much when it's not. And since you probably won't be able to identify a benefit from having multiple unionized groups from the standpoint of the pilots, you're left with no real upside, and a lot of potential downside.

As a philosphical point, I can see arguing for the right to self-representation. As a practical issue, from a pilots' perspective, not so much. I understand this doesn't make for good conversation in the crew-bus, or in Ops, but I think it's the truth. Most people live under multiple-union airlines, and have come to terms with it, kind of like living with extra relatives, and have learned to put a good face on it, and rationalize it with perceived advantages.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a favorable risk-return equation in it.

johnso29

This is just typical politics. One side wanting to change it because the other side likes it. What a sad country we live in. All fighting and doing nothing for the very people who elected them. United States of America? They forgot the United part long ago.