« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Threatens Veto If Congress Strips Pro-Union Election Rules in FAA Bill

As noted on Tuesday, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act is scheduled for a vote today. However, the White House is now stating that it is likely the President will veto the legislation if a provision that gives union bosses the ability to more easily unionize airline (and railroad) employees is not removed.

[via HuffPo]

In a big boost to union activists, the White House on Wednesday night threatened to veto a major Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill should it include a provision that would alter the way rail or aviation workers can unionize.

In a statement of administration policy offered by the Office of Management in Budget, the White House made clear its opposition to an amendment that would revert the law back to its previous language, making it so that if an eligible voter fails to vote for union representation, he or she would be tallied against representation.

Under election rules established less than a year ago, in the dark of night by two pro-union National Mediation Board members (both of whom are former union bosses themselves), 75 years worth of precedent on how union election ballot counts are conducted were thrown out the window.

Not surprisingly, the rule change highly favored unions seeking to unionize airline (and railroad) employees due to the nature in which the airline industry is structured with ‘hub’ cities. As a result of the “simple majority” balloting process, unions can spend less time and money in organizing hub cities where there are greater numbers of airline employees, while ignoring ‘spoke’ cities that are more spread out. As a result, if employees in the ‘spoke’ cities do not participate their non-votes mean that unions need one less vote to win. In essence, not voting under the NMB’s new rules is like voting for unionization. Practically speaking, as long as there is less than full participation, the rule change enables unions to win more elections with a minority of employees voting to unionize—which is just how union bosses want to keep it.

Here are a couple cases in point:

On Monday (as was noted), the International Association of Machinists won an election to represent 2,900 employees at AirTran. The union won despite the fact that 1,906 (nearly 66%) of AirTran’s employees did not vote for unionization. In fact, 36% of the employees did not vote at all. Yet, all 2,900 employees are now unionized.

Last November, as cited in the American Spectator, the Communications Workers of America also took advantage of the new rule.

On November 5, 2010, in an election under the new rules, passenger service agents at Piedmont Airlines voted on whether to join the Communication Workers of America (CWA). CWA did not win the 50 percent-plus-one of votes of all members of the bargaining unit [sic] required under the old rules, yet was certified as the employees’ bargaining agent. Out of 2,867 eligible voters, CWA won 1,107 votes, with only 638 No votes. Thus, 1,760 employees who did not vote for CWA representation will thenceforth be required to pay dues to the union.

Despite the attempt of union bosses to use an amendment introduced by House members Steve LaTourette (R-OH) and Jerry Costello (D-IL) to remove the language reverting the election process to its 75-year precedence, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act does stand a good chance of passing.

Unfortunately, now, with President Obama threatening to veto the legislation to cater to his union cronies, its future is far less than certain.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • coralchristie

    Make sure that Obama vetoes this bill and then broadcast loud and clear how he is taking away the choice of millions of workers by continuing to FORCE them to be unionized.

    • edintexas

      Umm – that would require the Republicans to do something positive and in their best interest on the PR front. I find that highly unlikely. Even if they had a media fawning over them, as the Democrats have, they would probably fail to do the job. History is not kind to Republican efforts to “get the message out”. And when they attempt to do so, a Graham, McCain or Brown (the “Maine sisters” usually just vote against the Republican position) will steal their thunder with the opposite message.

    • carolina

      He finds it easy to slither. Let’s make him “go on the record”.

    • http://www.resistnet.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

      UNIONS have been useless since the 19th century! They have managed to destroy more businessess and cities in the world than one could imagine, especially in America!

      Union members…you are being abused by communist thugs who do NOT give a rat’s @$$ about you or whether or NOT you have a job!

      The Union gosds thugs maintain a six figure income, limousine and ALL of the other ‘perks’ that you poor slobs PAY FOR WHILE YOU LOSE YOUR HOME, YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR VEHICLES!

  • miconservative

    Do you think that the 36% of the AirTran workforce that did not vote bear any responsibility?? It was their job situation at issue and they didn’t participate? Can you name another fair election system in the world that requires a majority of the total electorate in order to win? How is this unfair? And just looking at the numbers you report 1,107 for the union and 638 against. By my math that is 63% in favor and 37% oppossed. And under the old rules Big Brother government would decide that those who did not vote would in fact have voted NO. Why should we give government the power to cast a vote through regulation for any individual? Does the individual not bear the responsibility for casting their own vote?

    Also how does this relate to Obamacare? Well in Obamacare the Dems say that an individual who doesn’t buy heallth insurance is in fact participating in the healthcare marketplace through their inaction and thus can slapped with a new tax or fine. I say that is a personal decision and the government should stay the hell out.

    Now you are advocating that an individual who doesn’t take any action in voting is in fact taking an action by not voting and thus the government will cast a NO vote for them. Where is the difference?

    • edintexas

      I have a “fair” proposition for unionization. It is called “Right to Work” and such laws outlaw the “union shop”. If John Q. Worker wishes to be in the union, and pay union dues, he may elect to do so. If Joe Plumber, who works on the same crew, does not wish to be a member of the union he may decide not to join the union and does not pay union dues. This is fair. Forcing someone who does not affirmatively wish to be a member of a union to pay dues to that union is not “fair”.

      Your proposition regarding those who did not vote presumes they were aware of the change in vote counting method. In the last union representation election they did not vote and were counted as a “no” vote. Do you know, for certain, that they were aware that not voting would be counted as a “yes” vote this time? With a scattered workforce, do you even know for sure that all the employees knew of the election? I wouldn’t count on the employer opposing the union these days. They know the government will not be taking a neutral position.

      • miconservative

        or have someone propose a national right to work constitutional amendment. Otherwise we need to live by the current law of the land and the Constitution.

        • congressworksforus

          “Right to work” is a States-rights issue.

          You don’t like the laws in your State? Change them, or move. Quite simple.

          • miconservative

            to make the nation right to work which would trump any state law.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      The problem with NMB airline/railroad elections (which are different than other private sector NLRB elections) is that they are national in scope. In many cases (and this is not just for NMB elections), employees are often confused about the ramifications of the voting procedures. What makes NMB elections even more confusing is that, all too often, employees in spoke cities (especially those in Right to Work states) believe they won’t be affected.

      * There are no Right to Work provisions under the Railway Labor Act (which is the law that applies here).

      As a result, many don’t vote, falsely believing that they will not be impacted.

      Frankly, as a practical matter, it all boils down to how much employees understand* about the process which is why I stated above (in bold):

      In essence, not voting under the NMB

      • miconservative

        What is the ability of the companies to communicate with the workers and explain the situation to them? Certainly they have an ability to do so and explain the situation.

        • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

          Which sometimes gets the unions a new election when they lose (see Delta & AFA-CWA, for example).

        • Finrod

          After all, they’d be ‘interfering’ in a union election then.

  • romeg

    What if the Dems threaten to shutdown the government. Will the Stupid Party capitulate as is their habit?

  • miconservative

    You said…”The union won despite the fact that 1,906 (nearly 66%) of AirTran

    • Locke

      it is utterly reprehensible to allow a minority to do so.

      • miconservative

        Conservatives are saying that Republicans in Washington must hold firm to demand spending restraints against the overspending of Obama even though tens of millions of more Americans voted for Obama in 2008 than voted for GOP members of Congress in 2010.

        And enslave is a difficult word. Our Constitution gives We the People the ultimate authority. If we choose not to excercise that authority then shame on us.

        • Finrod

          Turnout is always down in non-presidential election years, so comparing turnout in 2008 to 2010 is deceptive. Millions more voted for Republicans than Democrats in 2010 after all, shouldn’t that be a plain message that people thought their 2008 vote was a mistake?

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      …that worked for 75 years.

      BHO comes in, his union cronies changed it less than a year ago, and unions are up in arms about changing it back.

      Why?

    • rcastonjr

      a person who did not vote either way count automatically as a “yes” vote as opposed to the long standing precedent “no” vote? The status quo is that there is NO UNION on the property. A change in the status quo should take action on the part of the worker, not inaction. Inaction means that the status quo, in this case no union, is maintained. Automatically counting a “not voting” as a “yes” vote is absurd because it assumes the not voting employee WANTED and change in he status quo! I’m not buying it. The rule needs to be overturned. Oh, and by the way, I am a member of a union at an airline no less.

  • http://www.planettron.com nickderinger

    We will not survive 8 years of Professor O’Barry.

  • annas

    …..Of all that is being done to this country under this regime is too much to contemplate. One gets so angry when reading a post such as this and yet there is likely a worse revelation later in the day! It seems we move from one outrage from this administration to another with no respite…….

  • omegared5

    You can’t miss one election and hope to get rid of the union the next go around b/c there isn’t a second election reauthorizing the union.

    • Duke

      …for public employees in the State of Wisconsin. They will have to hold recertification elections every year.

      Go get ‘em Scott!

  • hunter10

    That picture of obama behind the union head reminds me of the joke of someone getting a prostate exam. MAKE SURE BOTH HANDS ARE NOT ON YOUR SHOULDER!

  • bigjohn555

    If he doesn’t like the law, let him veto it. Then try to override the veto. To lose without trying is cowardice. Who knows, he may even cast his favorite vote “present.”
    Whatever the outcome, know that you have represented democratic actions for union members, and helped to save the Citizens from the thugs.
    (I am a retired Shop Steward and Branch Officer, but I always put Constitutional Principals before Union goals).

  • Pingback: read