Tis the season to withdrawal from the union

i voted justin then rich. once nick daniels was elected and immediately did the opposite of what he ran on i quit the union. to me there's absolutely no reason to stay in. you could elect a brand new person and they'd swear up and down they won't extend, get elected, and extend the stupid contract yet again. i don't see the point, the union is filled with frauds and it seems better to save your money.

Raise when? said:

i voted justin then rich. once nick daniels was elected and immediately did the opposite of what he ran on i quit the union. to me there's absolutely no reason to stay in. you could elect a brand new person and they'd swear up and down they won't extend, get elected, and extend the stupid contract yet again. i don't see the point, the union is filled with frauds and it seems better to save your money.

Steven won’t

Whiny little bitch season

I was told to stay to vote last time and there was a candidate that would send us weekly videos about opening the contract no matter what. Couple months in office they extend for 5 more years. I’ve given NATCA over 20k in dues. They aren’t getting another cent until they grow a spine and fight for us. I can handle the FAA paying me and fucking me, I can’t handle paying the union to fuck me.

Flashy Vectors said:

I was told to stay to vote last time and there was a candidate that would send us weekly videos about opening the contract no matter what. Couple months in office they extend for 5 more years. I’ve given NATCA over 20k in dues. They aren’t getting another cent until they grow a spine and fight for us. I can handle the FAA paying me and fucking me, I can’t handle paying the union to fuck me.

So here's the thing, anyone that ever bought Nick's lies is an absolute idiot. I met the guy twice and he was obviously a grifter. Anyone that fell for his snake oil is an idiot. JD was the only obvious choice and you fuck didn't vote for him, next up would have been Rich because Nick is a ******

Gauff said:

So here's the thing, anyone that ever bought Nick's lies is an absolute idiot. I met the guy twice and he was obviously a grifter. Anyone that fell for his snake oil is an idiot. JD was the only obvious choice and you fuck didn't vote for him, next up would have been Rich because Nick is a ******

I voted for JD I just thought it was funny that the most outspoken guy betrayed us the second he got in. The whole election every candidate ran on a new contract.

Flashy Vectors said:

I voted for JD I just thought it was funny that the most outspoken guy betrayed us the second he got in. The whole election every candidate ran on a new contract.

Rich didn't really run on a new contract until the end. Nick ran on it from day one. Nick is a grifter and has shown when needed he crumbles in the moment. He needs to be recalled but our great union is the only one without an avenue to recall your elected leaders 👌

Termine said:

Yes, this is possible.

Hahaha, don't know about that one.

The election isn't until summer 2027, right? And if you re-join the union the fee is only one year's worth of dues, right? Seems like getting out now would still save you money, even just a few months' worth.

I'm still a member myself, but I have had this thought more than a few times.

People don't realize that NATCA does not have to allow you to rejoin the union. You can offer to pay your back dues and what not but they can still say no. With our current leadership, why would they let swarms of people rejoin right before election time to vote them out?

Gauff said:

People don't realize that NATCA does not have to allow you to rejoin the union. You can offer to pay your back dues and what not but they can still say no. With our current leadership, why would they let swarms of people rejoin right before election time to vote them out?

This is what I’ve been saying. I think the decision is at the facility level tho so it might depend on your rep.

Gauff said:

People don't realize that NATCA does not have to allow you to rejoin the union. You can offer to pay your back dues and what not but they can still say no. With our current leadership, why would they let swarms of people rejoin right before election time to vote them out?

They are 100% letting you back in lmao. They just see you as an extra $2k+/year they'll get fully knowing no one is going to be able to vote all of them out.

32andBelow said:

This is what I’ve been saying. I think the decision is at the facility level tho so it might depend on your rep.

I've seen people re-join and/or join well after they're new to the agency and locally the rep was able to waive the fees. This was a long time ago so I'm not sure if it's changed or is still possible.

Unable is a full sentence said:

I've seen people re-join and/or join well after they're new to the agency and locally the rep was able to waive the fees. This was a long time ago so I'm not sure if it's changed or is still possible.

It is possible per the constitution but I think Nick will tell the reps to stop waiving the penalty which is one years dudes. It may come down to if your rep is aligned with Nick or not.

Why rejoin? So you can pay for Nick and Jamaal to have a free vacation in Hawaii?

Gauff said:

People don't realize that NATCA does not have to allow you to rejoin the union. You can offer to pay your back dues and what not but they can still say no. With our current leadership, why would they let swarms of people rejoin right before election time to vote them out?

This is blatantly false. NATCA can not stop you from joining if you meet the qualifications and pay the initiation fee. IIRC that is an LMRDA thing.

Unable is a full sentence said:

I've seen people re-join and/or join well after they're new to the agency and locally the rep was able to waive the fees. This was a long time ago so I'm not sure if it's changed or is still possible.

A fee can not be waived, that also is a DoL thing. But a local can do what ever they want with their finances, including paying back a member you pays initiation fees.

ManBearPig said:

This is blatantly false. NATCA can not stop you from joining if you meet the qualifications and pay the initiation fee. IIRC that is an LMRDA thing.

A fee can not be waived, that also is a DoL thing. But a local can do what ever they want with their finances, including paying back a member you pays initiation fees.

But they’ve been known to waive the fee and they rightfully know that people won’t rejoin if they have to pay.

32andBelow said:

But they’ve been known to waive the fee and they rightfully know that people won’t rejoin if they have to pay.

Reimburse is the word you are looking for there. But yes, most people wont rejoin if the fee isnt at least partially reimbursed. We had several rejoin over the past couple years at a reduced reimbursement rate.

ManBearPig said:

This is blatantly false. NATCA can not stop you from joining if you meet the qualifications and pay the initiation fee. IIRC that is an LMRDA thing.

Legally their is nothing preventing any union from denying re-entry into the union. Even the NATCA constitution doesn't say they HAVE to allow a member to rejoin, it just says "shall not be allowed to rejoin the union without paying an initiation fee".

While NATCA has never denied anyone re-entry that doesn't mean they can't start and there is nothing legally or in our constitution preventing this.

It's covered in the NATCA constitution under the Standing Rules, Section D

LMRDA has nothing specific to union membership and I know other unions that have specifically refused re-entry to members

Gauff said:

Legally their is nothing preventing any union from denying re-entry into the union. Even the NATCA constitution doesn't say they HAVE to allow a member to rejoin, it just says "shall not be allowed to rejoin the union without paying an initiation fee".

While NATCA has never denied anyone re-entry that doesn't mean they can't start and there is nothing legally or in our constitution preventing this.

It's covered in the NATCA constitution under the Standing Rules, Section D

LMRDA has nothing specific to union membership and I know other unions that have specifically refused re-entry to members

Federal law says you can not discriminate based on those special things like race, religion, age (lol FAA), skin color etc etc. EEOC I think?

I think you are looking at that backwards. Our constitution has the requirements to be a member. If those are met, by definition any denial after that would be discriminatory. There would have to be specific guidelines in the constitution saying someone who quit could be denied.

We cant kick people out without following the process laid out in the constitution either.

Also, denying union membership by the union would have to be super rare. What other unions have you seen deny someone, and were reasons given?

ManBearPig said:

Federal law says you can not discriminate based on those special things like race, religion, age (lol FAA), skin color etc etc. EEOC I think?

I think you are looking at that backwards. Our constitution has the requirements to be a member. If those are met, by definition any denial after that would be discriminatory. There would have to be specific guidelines in the constitution saying someone who quit could be denied.

We cant kick people out without following the process laid out in the constitution either.

Also, denying union membership by the union would have to be super rare. What other unions have you seen deny someone, and were reasons given?

What other union have you seen deny negotiating their contract twice and then advocate for management priorities non stop?

ManBearPig said:

Federal law says you can not discriminate based on those special things like race, religion, age (lol FAA), skin color etc etc. EEOC I think?

I think you are looking at that backwards. Our constitution has the requirements to be a member. If those are met, by definition any denial after that would be discriminatory. There would have to be specific guidelines in the constitution saying someone who quit could be denied.

We cant kick people out without following the process laid out in the constitution either.

Also, denying union membership by the union would have to be super rare. What other unions have you seen deny someone, and were reasons given?

If you're looking for examples, ALPA. Especially with Continental guys that crossed the picket line, any of those guys that left the union were not allowed entry back in even when offering back dues. Now whether or not some were allowed back in within the last 10 years idk.

It's not discrimination because if you leave you volunteered to leave.

I get that it's pretty rare and would likely not happen, but our constitution doesn't say you HAVE to be allowed re-entry, it just lays out what is required to be allowed back. The intent it is written with is to allow people back but intent isn't legal standing.

If Nick sees a large group of people filing to return right before his next election I would not put it past him to make them wait until he is reelected.

AnyTrafficPleaseAdvise said:

If you want to change the union and vote out the decision makers at the national level, then this is not the way. We get an opportunity to vote in a national election next year and the winners of that election will negotiate our next contract.

I’m not sure that the damage that has been done can be repaired at this point with just a simple leadership change.