Theme of the Day: “If we can’t fix previous mistakes, let’s
repeat the mistake again.”
PMNW
SIC committee member Barb Schlosser was part of the seniority integration
committee during the Hughes Air West/Republic merger. As a result of her
refusal to come to terms on a “fair and equitable integration” of the two
lists, that integration was brought before an arbitrator, who assigned a
rank/ratio integration to the Hughes Air West flight attendants. Ironically,
this PMNW SIC spent countless wasted hours arguing over how to undo that
previous mistake, yet they are bound and determined to shove the PMNW flight
attendants down the same path that Barb previously took with the Hughes Air
West flight attendants. And let’s not forget that the PMNW SIC is “led”
by Dotty Malinsky, who previously advocated stapling the Republic flight
attendants to the bottom of the Northwest Orient seniority list during THAT
merger, so who knows what’s in store for us?
Make
no mistake: the PMNW Seniority Integration Committee (SIC) has thrown down the
gauntlet with their latest update to the Delta flight attendants. With their
“my way or the highway” tone, they have made clear that, even though they don’t
represent the majority of the combined Delta flight attendants (and likely were
elected by a very small percentage of the PMNW flight attendants), they are
determined to set the terms for ALL Delta flight attendants and make those
terms permanently irrevocable.
In
a January 12, 2012 update, PMNW SIC committee members contradict themselves,
claiming “to look forward to constructive bargaining” in one sentence and
stating that their proposal is complete and unalterable in another (“. . . our
initial proposal is a complete proposal. None of its terms are effective unless
all terms are agreed upon.”) That statement is the antithesis of the definition
of good faith bargaining and the PMNW committee members have missed the point
of their role in the integration of the two seniority lists.
They
have recklessly overstepped the scope of the authority of their positions in
more ways then one:
1.
They have a basic lack of understanding of the job with which they were
tasked; namely the integration of the PMDL and PMNW system seniority lists. WHAT DOES SENIORITY LIST INTEGRATION MEAN? “Quite simply it means the method by which the two seniority
lists are combined into one.” (Source
AFA-CWA: http://www.afaonevoice.org/images/McCaskill%20Amendment%20explanation%20FINAL%20for%20WEB.pdf
). Clearly, their task, according to the McCaskill-Bond Amendment and the
Alleghany Mohawk LPPs, the PMNW SIC is to make a proposal ONLY about how the
two lists are integrated – without extraneous conditions placed upon the
integration of those lists.
2.
As even some of the committee members have admitted, the PMNW SIC only
has authority to represent the interests of the pre-merger Northwest flight
attendants, as they pertain to a fair and equitable integration of the
seniority lists. The PMDL flight attendants’ interests are represented by the
PMDL SIC and the two SICs are supposed to come together and find some mutually
agreeable common ground. The PMNW SIC DOES NOT represent, nor speak for the
interests of the PMDL flight attendants. Yet, contained within the double-speak
of their recent communications, the PMNW SIC attempts to assert their authority
over ALL Delta flight attendants – and not just for the foreseeable future, but
into perpetuity. Without so much as a survey of the
flight attendants they want to impact with their proposal, or an explanation of
their methodology or logic, PMNW SIC members want to set conditions upon ALL
Delta flight attendants. . . FOREVER! Further,
the PMNW SIC has made it clear that they don’t want to hear any contradictory
opinions from the PMNW flight attendants regarding this proposal (“we will not
negotiate in public and so this communication, and our roadshows this week, are
just for the purpose of explaining the terms of our initial proposal”).
3.
Too little, too late. As I stated in my previous blog, this “initial’
proposal comes far too late in the process, and what is glaringly lacking in
their “updates” is an explanation of why it took them so long (over nine
months) to come up with an “initial proposal”. They have failed to explain:
a.
Why were they only meeting 2 ½ days per week? How do they justify their
lack of work ethic?
b.
Why did they wait almost three months (the PMDL committee was almost
done with its entire proposal and methodology in that time period) just to ask
for an attorney?
c.
Why did they fail to show up for work for the entire month of August,
and most of December?
d.
Why did they refuse to meet with the PMDL committee until this late
date?
e.
What, really, took them so long to put out this proposal, when committee
members like Scott Braxton were telling people the proposal was finished months
ago?
The long and slippery slope of arbitration.
Some
committee members, who have no real prior union or negotiations experience, are
displaying an overly cavalier and extremely naïve attitude about taking this
issue before an arbitrator. They seem to think that going before an arbitrator
is “no big deal”. What they don’t apparently realize is that an arbitrator has
the legal authority to OPEN EVERY ITEM before him or her. The arbitrator is not
required to accept any of the terms the two sides have already agreed upon. Of
course, according to the PMNW SIC update, there is no agreement on ANY of the
items, unless the parties agree to ALL of the items, so if we are to believe
the PMNW SIC’s recent update, there will be NO agreed upon items if our
seniority integration is brought to arbitration.
This
type of posturing and stalling and blustering is typical of the mentality of
bloated, bureaucratic union representatives who will hijack their members’ best
interests in order to prolong their own cushy positions; and who value defiance
and heel-dragging above reconciliation and moving forward. In the end, it will
be the 21,000 Delta flight attendants who lose.
Sincerely,
Jose Arturo Ibarra
Sincerely,
Jose Arturo Ibarra
