Log in

View Full Version : Capitals fear of unions, why?



MJM
8th February 2002, 05:47
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Feb. 14, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS SAY STRUGGLE CONTINUES: DELTA
EXPLOITS 9/11 TO STOP UNION

By Michelle Quintus
Member, Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO

In August 2001, the majority of Delta Airlines' flight
attendants signed representation cards requesting union
representation by the Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-
CIO. But by the close of the vote on Jan. 30 of this year,
only 29 percent had returned a ballot voting for the union--
5,609 votes out of a potential 19,033--no longer the
majority needed to win representation.

What happened between then and now? A bare-knuckled anti-
union campaign that included blatant exploitation of the
Sept. 11 tragedy. This illegal campaign to interfere with
the flight attendants' vote was decisive in discouraging
flight attendants from voting in the largest union election
in the airline industry.

With close to 20,000 flight attendants involved, the Delta
vote was also the largest private-sector union election in
more than 30 years. Delta is the only major U.S. air carrier
whose flight attendants do not have union representation.

According to hundreds of flight attendant reports, Delta
didn't just discuss the effects of the hijackings on the
airline. The bosses used Sept. 11 to make flight attendants
fear for their jobs if they voted for the union.

"While we were grieving for the loss of our co-workers on
those planes on 9/11, Delta management used our fears and
anxiety against us," said Los Angeles-based flight attendant
Lorraine York. "Delta illegally interfered with our rights
as American workers before the terrorist attacks. But that
paled in comparison to management's exploitation of our
national tragedy."

The bosses at Delta engaged in various tactics to create an
atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

On Sept. 12, Delta began conducting weekly conference calls
that were censored, so that pro-union flight attendants were
not permitted to ask questions. Other departments at Delta
do not have these conference calls, only flight attendants.

Delta lied to the over 3,000 laid-off flight attendants,
telling them they were not eligible to vote to keep them
from returning their ballots. In fact, all laid-off flight
attendants were eligible to vote and were most likely the
workers who most directly understood the need for a union.

"Videos of our CEO played continuously in our crew rooms,"
said Seattle-based flight attendant Mike Trau. "He kept
repeating the threats 9/11 have placed on our airline and
talking about our family atmosphere, then he'd instruct us
to rip up our ballots." Not returning a ballot in a National
Mediation Board election is a "no" vote.

Delta communications with flight attendants during the
election period inextricably linked Delta's survival to
defeating the union effort. These communications included:

Letters and videos from senior management to the homes of
flight attendants implicitly threatening them with job loss
if they unionized.

Supervisors illegally questioning AFA supporters, asking,
"How can you support a union at a time like this?"

Management constantly referring to the job losses in the
industry in the wake of 9/11 and falsely promoting Delta's
layoff plans as better than those at unionized carriers.

One-on-one meetings where supervisors would take aside
flight attendants they identified as AFA supporters and
grill them on their support for the union, in many cases
saying that support was anti-Delta.

"Democratic elections are supposed to express the voice of
the people," said AFA International President Patricia
Friend. "In this election, the flight attendants' voices
were silenced by fear and intimidation. Now the American
government must act to punish Delta for violating the rights
of its workers and silencing their voices. Delta's entire
campaign focused on creating fear and uncertainty in flight
attendants' minds."

In October 2001, the NMB found that the flight attendant
claims presented a prima facie case of illegal conduct
against Delta (see www.afanet.org). But rather than take
action to charge Delta with illegal conduct and provide the
flight attendants with an atmosphere free from intimidation
when voting, the NMB held off further investigation and
hearings on the charges until after the election.

Now, the NMB will begin a full-scale investigation into the
charges of illegal conduct by the bosses at Delta. The NMB
could set a new election, possibly changing the balloting
procedures to make the balloting process less likely to be
influenced by Delta's illegal conduct.

Almost 50,000 flight attendants at 26 carriers joined
together to form AFA, the largest flight attendant union in
the world. Delta flight attendants have the right to join
this powerful union of workers free from intimidation and
fear of their bosses. This struggle is far from over. In
fact, it has just begun.

- END -

El Che
8th February 2002, 09:48
WW is a great source for alternative information. Also try Zmag.org its a part of Znet.org.

Capitalist
8th February 2002, 22:12
I support Unions and the right to assembly.

Fidel Castro does not allow the right to assemble without government approval.

peaccenicked
8th February 2002, 22:30
You support unions, you support capitalism
one wants money from the other.
which side are you on?
Come all you good workers,
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how the good old union
Has come in here to dwell.
CHORUS:
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
My dady was a miner,
And I'm a miner's son,
And I'll stick with the union
'Til every battle's won.
They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J. H. Blair.

Oh workers can you stand it?
Oh tell me how you can?
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?

Don't scab for the bosses,
Don't listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organize.

Capitalist
15th February 2002, 21:07
The labor unions were the first to resist the Batista Regime during it's early days.

Principal CTC leader, David Salvador, a man of the left broke with the People's Socialist Party over it's refusal to condemn Batista. He organized strikes at big American sugar plants in 1955 - was arrested and tortured by the Batista Regime.

David supported the April 1958 strike (Organized by Fidel Castro's Underground July 26 Movement)

After being democratically elected as secretary general of the CTC in 1959, Salvador was forced to work with 2 orthodox Communists APPOINTED WITHOUT DEMOCRATIC MANDATE by Che Guevara's Economic Office.

Salvador resisted their communist influence - but after spring of 1960 - his power became increasingly reduced by Castro's policies. In June - he went into hiding, but in August 1962 - he was arrested and spent the NEXT 12 YEARS in CASTRO PRISON. Thus Castro forced off the stage another major figure in the anti-Batista Movement.

As a final blow AGAINST WORKERS - Castro outlawed the CTC, their sole remaining labor union, to stage strikes.

WHY??? (Communist should be Pro-UNION !!!, ANTI-CAPITALISTIC)

WHY WHY WHY?

Party/Castro Spokesman's Reply: "The Union must not be used for the wrong purposes"

Supermodel
16th February 2002, 20:41
I think it's important to look at the Wallmart view of unionisation. Wallmart resisted the unionisation of its workers because it claimed they did not need to group together to claim power, that any employee would be heard at any time and get fair treatment.

Furthermore, the more employees are at the same time shareholders in the company, the less need for unionization.

Still, unions have a valuable place in society. Personally I'm a member of a couple of professions and those act very much like unions too.

Let's not forget what Lech Walesa and the Polish dockers were able to do to turn around the course of history.

Moskitto
16th February 2002, 22:19
Wallmart's idea doesn't work.

The theory of a union is simple.

Worker wants higher wages so goes to his boss. His boss refuses so the worker says he's not working tommorow, boss says fine.

However if Worker wants higher wages he goes to his union. Union goes to boss demands higher wages, boss refuses, union says they're not working tommorow, boss has a problem.

Of course Thatcher completely destroyed the unions over here and caused quite a lot of riots in manufacturing and mining communities because of her policies.

I Will Deny You
16th February 2002, 23:17
Quote: from Capitalist on 11:12 pm on Feb. 8, 2002
I support Unions and the right to assembly.

Fidel Castro does not allow the right to assemble without government approval.
I understand that this board is called Che-Lives. And when we're talking economics and such, Cuba is very relevant. I also understand that you're not allowed in the Ernesto Guevara section, so if you want to complain about Fidel this is the only place where you can. However, I think it's important that you don't change the subject. There are plenty of threads in this forum about Cuba, and if they don't address what you would like them to you can just start a new one. This section is about unions, but it's about unions today in America under George W. Bush. I think you're making a good point, but unions in a different country under a leader who was overthrown a long time ago under conditions that are very, very different from the conditions that workers today are facing is not relevant to this specific discussion. If you start a new thread I'd love to learn more and talk to you about this. (Sometimes you strike me as immature, but I do have a certain amount of respect for you and I think there's a lot that I could learn from you.) So don't change the subject--it only makes you lose respect and makes me want to skip over your posts next time I see them.