Delta's non union position, explained without the shouting: what it means for crew day to day, the drives, and why it is the exception
-
#1 JFK, and the thing non American crew ask most about Delta after the reserve system is why Delta cabin crew are not unionised when every other US major is. Here is the situation, as plainly as I can put it, because the internet version is all shouting.
The fact
Delta's flight attendants are not represented by a union. United, American, Southwest, Alaska, JetBlue and most others are (mostly by the AFA, some by other unions). Delta's pilots are unionised. Delta's flight attendants are not, and have voted on it more than once, and the votes have not passed.
What it means day to day
Pay, work rules, scheduling and benefits are set by the company, not negotiated in a contract. In practice, Delta has historically set pay at or above the unionised carriers, precisely to make the case that a union is not needed. The reserve rules, the duty limits beyond the legal ones, the boarding pay that Delta introduced first, are company policy. They can be changed by the company. At a unionised carrier they can only be changed by negotiation.
The argument for
Delta pays well, has good benefits, has introduced things like boarding pay before the unionised carriers did, and a lot of crew feel the company treats them well without a union and do not want to pay dues or be part of a contract negotiation cycle that at other carriers has meant years of frozen pay.
The argument against
What the company gives, the company can take. Discipline and grievances are handled by company processes, not an independent one. Scheduling rules can change with an email. And the crew who have been through a company decision that hurt them, without representation, tend to become the ones organising the next drive.
The drives
Organising campaigns by the AFA happen periodically, with cards signed, a vote called if enough sign, and a company campaign against it. The most recent one is, as I write, ongoing in some form, and the crew room is split, and it is a genuinely divisive topic that people avoid at the galley.
My view
I would vote yes. I am in a minority at my base, I think, and a majority at some others. The reason is the 'what the company gives' point, and the reserve years, which a contract could shape. But I understand the no vote and I fly with people who hold it and we are still friends.
For non US crew
The unionised carriers in the US work like Hannah's Lufthansa: a contract, a negotiation, strikes that are rare and real. Delta is the exception and it is an exception that pays well and asks you to trust it. Whether you do is the vote.
-
#2 Atlanta, and Sally has described a divisive topic without being divisive, which is harder than it looks. I would vote differently. We are still friends. That is the Delta crew room.
-
#3 United, unionised, and I would say to Delta crew from the outside: the contract is not perfect and the negotiations are exhausting and I would not give it up. The 'what the company gives' point is the one. But I understand why Delta crew look at our last negotiation cycle and hesitate.
-
#4 Lufthansa, and reading this as someone for whom the agreement is the air we breathe: the idea of pay set by company policy that can change with an email is genuinely foreign. The Delta case that it pays more anyway is interesting. I would still want the contract.
-
#5 @hannahfra 'the air we breathe' is exactly what a contract becomes at a unionised carrier and exactly what Delta crew have never had. Hard to miss what you have not breathed.
-
#6 United LAX, and the boarding pay point is fair: Delta did it first and the unionised carriers followed in negotiation. That is the Delta argument in one policy. It is not nothing. It is also not a contract.
-
#7 Reserve, and the reserve rules being company policy rather than contract is the part that affects me most, and it is why I would vote yes, and it is why I do not say so in the galley.
