I started by career in the mid 1980s just following the implementation of B-Scale. What has always amazed me is the level to which our group has been under attack. As a result, we have been forced to contend with one battle after another. This is not a history lesson to whine about how horrible it has been. Rather, this is a review of how many times we have faced a battle from within as well as from out.

In the 1980s, airlines figured out a way to have a two-tiered wage scale. By not standing together with the future new hires, the "A" scalers received the last real wage increase of their careers. Since that time their real earnings have dropped when compared to inflation and the company has been the profiteer. By maintaining two pay scales, the company was able to drive a wedge between the existing FAs and the new hires. This wedge sowed the seeds for future conflict within the group and solidarity was difficult, if not impossible to achieve.

When the merger between Northwest and Republic happened, this wedge was even more pronounced. Not only were there fractures in each groups' internal solidarity, the company was able to pit one airline against the other. If you can't remember this horrible time or weren't around for it, the result was disastrous for the long term viability of our group's solidarity. Because of our internal battles, the shenanigans of the surviving union and the delays put up by NWA's desire to continue the battle as long as possible, the company was able to maintain 4 separate pay scales for close to 2 years while raking in huge profits. When a merged contract was finally reached, the group's solidarity was shredded from the experience and the lack of leadership from the surviving union only furthered this shredding. Can you see how beautifully the company has pitted one group against another and how that battle has continued internally ever since?

In the 1990s, teetering on bankruptcy, the company squeezed concessions out of the group. During that time, the union leadership was wise enough to get the company to agree to LPPs and other job protection language which is being flaunted today as the best in the industry. No doubt it is. Do not forget the sacrifice made by all of us at the time so we can have this important language. The company makes us pay dearly for these things.

When the concession period was up, don't forget that two things came out of this which were really harmful for the group: 1) the company made the union arbitrate the snap up language and 2) 10 years later, the company reneged on its promise to buy back the stock it promised it would buy back (also do not forget that the company promised to pay dividends on that stock. Those dividends where lost to us in the bankruptcy process).

After 5 years and several failed attempts, the company finally reached an agreement with the FA group. This was only after a very difficult battle which included what the company called "internet guerilla terrorists." With the advent of the internet, it was far easier for members of our group to communicate with and educate each other. To counter this threat, the company (with the union's acquiescence) filed a frivolous lawsuit against the union and some of the individual members of the union. They went so far as to set legal precedence by searching people's privately owned computers. It was obvious that the company wanted to put a thumb on the FAs rather than reach an equitable negotiated settlement. (btw, don't forget that Julie Hagen Showers was very much involved in this operation - she may be saying all the right things now but she knows exactly what she is doing now as she did then). The contract was signed and things calmed down. Or so it seemed....

Once the Pandora's Box was opened, it was impossible to shut it. The FAs had access to each other and information like never before. The union at the time was viewed as sluggish and "good old boy/girl." In a few short years, the company started to sniff around for more concessions. It was time for a change and the representational battle started between the then current union and an independent union.

This campaign was different than others in that it relied on communication. The independent union understood that frequent communication resulted in positivism and dispelled rumors, while the then current union relied on fear and intimidation. The group fought it out hard internally and solidarity was ripped again. In the end the grand experiment in independent unionism prevailed.

Then the company used a brilliant coup: they refused to honor dues check-off. Don't forget that the company is always looking for ways to drive a wedge within our group's ranks. Remember all the anger between each other over the dues issue? Can you still see the affects of this company decision? How many times do current union leaders get called out for not paying dues at that time? The company knows how to manipulate this group quite effectively. (btw: Richard Anderson made that decision - with Julie Hagen Shower's help of course.)

Shockingly, the group stood up and close to 85% paid dues. More information was going to the FAs than ever before and more votes were conducted than at any other time in the FAs history.

Then the company came asking for concessions and the bankruptcy timeline started. In the midst of this mayhem, some in our group again decided they needed a change. This time, the representational election was fueled by fear more than anything else. Interestingly enough, some of the same individuals involved with the old (pre independent) union where instrumental in starting this campaign. Again the company had an excellent wedge issue to use on the FA group. Yes, the fact that the group was not in solidarity was discussed at the bargaining table and in the bankruptcy court. Yes, the representational campaign was divisive. It fact, the distraction this caused it almost led to the dismantling of the job protections fought for and gained so many years before. In the end a majority in the group decided and a new union was elected.

Now we are a few more years down the road together and likely heading into another contract-altering (possibly contract-eliminating) experience. As this historical regurgitation has demonstrated, we will be at battle. The company will use wedges to divide our group and the company will benefit from it. Our own members will battle each other. We will likely fight with our future co-workers. It will not be pretty.

Please keep the following in mind as we go through this together:
1) Flight Attendants are not the enemy. We are in this together and need to support each other in kind - whether they are NWA FAs or FAs from another carrier.
2) The company has the long-view. They will find ways to drive a wedge between our various internal personal-interest groups.
3) The current union will be looking out to protect their own interest. Hopefully that interest is in line with the membership so both will win. However, I have not seen that from this union to date and do not expect a change any time soon.
4) Individually and collectively, we need to get to the other side with as much solidarity as possible. While that seems like a call from the union, it is not. The solidarity I'm talking about is more in line with taking care of one another and being aware of the whole group's best interest. This may include some personal sacrifice but will be worth it in the end as we will all be better for sticking together. This may include the current union and it may not.

If history is any teacher with with respect to the NWA Flight Attendants, it is that we are a divided, resourceful, tenacious group. Let's try to use that resourcefulness and tenacity toward a better future for all Flight Attendants (including thouse we have not yet met) while reducing the internal division. Stay informed as best you can. If you are not getting the information you need, demand it. Read the documentation about how things work from the source. Share what you learn with others. We are indeed all in this together and only together can we prevail.