No Sudden Changes for Fuelers After Union Vote
Friday, April 11 2014
(Lauren Rosenthal/KUCB)
After two months of protests, Delta Western fuel workers in Unalaska have voted to unionize. But it could be the first step in a much longer process.
The Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific got majority support among 15 eligible workers in an election on Thursday night. a slim majority in an election on Thursday night -eight of 15 employees who voted. A lawyer from the National Labor Relations Board oversaw the election and tallied the ballots.
Leo Dacio is a dock driver for Delta Western on the night shift. Even though he couldn't be there to see the count, Dacio was glad to hear the results.
"I was happy, and all of the guys," Dacio says. "We can start to bargain with the employer. We’re ready to get done with them."
That can't happen yet. The union and the fuel company are both talking with lawyers about the possibility of filing complaints regarding the election. Those complaints could lead to a hearing, or possibly a new election.
Delta Western is taking things one step at a time, says president Kirk Payne.
"You know, my understanding is the NLRB will go through if there’s objections or not objections," Payne says. "They have to finalize this part of the process. And that at some point, we begin to negotiate with the union."
Payne says each side would come up with a bargaining team and hash out a deal.
"I’ve been told to expect this process to take anywhere from a year to two years," Payne says. "I hope that’s not the case. But we’re starting from a clean slate. Everything is on the table."
In the meantime, Payne says nothing should change for Delta Western’s workers in Unalaska. They’ll be expected to work under the conditions of their existing contracts until the union negotiates a new one.
When -- and if -- that happens, Unalaska will have the only unionized Delta Western terminal in the state.
CORRECTION: This story originally reported that a slim majority of 15 eligible voters approved union membership. That is misleading, since the full breakdown of the ballots is not public information. The National Labor Relations Board counted ten unchallenged votes. Union membership passed 8-2. Because there was a majority vote, the NLRB did not sort through five challenged ballots. The content of those ballots has not been disclosed.
Cora Holmes on Saturday, April 19 2014:
Thank you, Lauren, for setting the record straight and apologizing for your misleading comments. I appreciate that you went the extra mile to take the negative spin off your comments. I realize your broadcasting station is partially funded by the city but I would hate to believe you would take their political position aganist unions instead of simply reporting the news. Again, thank you. That took balls.
Lauren Rosenthal on Monday, April 14 2014:
It's clear that a majority of eligible voters supported union membership. Not knowing the content of the five challenged ballots, it's impossible to determine whether the measure passed by "a slim majority" or a broad one. The NLRB has not disclosed the content of those ballots.
I have corrected the story to reflect that. I apologize for any confusion the error may have caused.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, and thanks for reading KUCB.
Lauren Rosenthal
News Director
rosenthal@kucb.org
working together on Monday, April 14 2014:
Awesome and thank you for clarifying the outcome of the ballots for us Lauren.
But now that the vote is over it seems its time for the community to continue to pull together and support these workers in their negotiation for a solid union contract!!!
Just the facts on Sunday, April 13 2014:
As a plumber you probably work in the dark a lot, so you may have missed the points below -- The results can be called "8 out of 15" only if there were fifteen ballots counted and seven of them were "NO" votes.
The way this story is written, the reporter supposes that the uncounted ballots were "NO" votes, which is in no way supported by the facts she presents. If she knows that there were more than two "NO" votes, she would probably say that there were more. Wouldn't she?
There were fifteen ballots cast, not fifteen ballots counted. There were only ten ballots counted, and that resulted in an 8-2 split. A big, FAT split, and one that likely shows there were more "YES" votes within the challenged ballots that may have been found had they been opened and counted. But they weren't. Because they did not have to be. Now I am supposing. That's okay though, my job is not reporting the facts.
Joe T. Plumber on Sunday, April 13 2014:
I understand that "Confused Citizen" is "not a Union or Management supporter" and "Landslide Trend" is probably the union's organizer from Anchorage or wherever. Understanding that helps me to say that I am not a human, rather a nutria. Maybe KUCB is trying to take an unbiased approach? Maybe the rest of the community who read the site to see what's going on appreciates that? Maybe in the rest of the world 8 in favor out of 15 is a slim majority no matter what the back story was.
Landslide Trend on Saturday, April 12 2014:
I agree with you, Confused Citizen. Rosenthal's use of "slim majority" is a misapplication of her own opinion over the facts she presents in this story. I doubt it comes from malice for either party. More likely a lack of understanding of the process or being just plain busy. Either way this article is shallow in facts to support the usage of the writer and should be corrected immediately. This is an important story that may be read and shared widely.
The fact that only ten votes had to be opened to get eight "YES" votes, or 80% in favor per the math, shows a trend toward the support of an overwhelming majority, not a "slim" one.
It is my understanding that this was a secret ballot election, with nothing more to identify who cast which votes than the "questioned" ballots being placed in differently colored or labeled envelopes from the others at the time they were cast. When counted, those votes would be counted last, when and if the regular eligible vote count ended without a clear result. Even then, they could still be contested by one party or the other as to their eligibility.
We readers don't know, as I doubt Rosenthal does, whether this would have been an 8 to 7, or 13 to 2 vote or something in between based on the available facts. So, calling the counting of only enough votes necessary to state a winning result a "slim majority" is very definitely wrong.
I'll bet most experienced election watchers would call this a landslide trend.
Concerned Citizen on Friday, April 11 2014:
Confused - what do you expect from a government-supported news outlet in a city who's mayor has repeatedly stated her fear/hatred of union organization within our community?
The unions almost ousted her once...
Confused Citizen on Friday, April 11 2014:
"[union]got the support of a slim majority in an election on Thursday night -- eight of 15 employees who voted"
Lauren, obviously you went into journalism and not math, but it would be safe to say that 8 to 2 (if the comments Randall Baker made were true) is NOT a SLIM margin. It seems that of the votes that were counted 80 percent of the workers voted to go Union. Again, not a slight margin.
The 5 votes that were not counted could have gone either way- they were not counted because it would not have made a difference either way (again if Randall Baker's comments are true). You are suggesting that all 5 of those votes were no- which may or may NOT be the case.
So if what I am reading is true. 10 votes were counted out of the 15 employees. 8 of those were yes and 2 of those were no. Someone please correct me if I am wrong and lets get the facts straight.
I wonder what the Union has to say about this because obviously this article has the tone of the Delta Western management. Biased-hummmm?
I personally am not a Union or Management supporter, but I do support free and unbiased press if you can get that now days.