Aviation

AVM 349 ASSIGNMENT #2 ARGUMENT ANALYSIS OUTLINE For this assignment, you will be completing an organizational outline for your argument analysis writing (assignment #3). For completing the argument analysis outline and argument analysis writing (assignments #2 and #3), you will be required to produce a critique of the line of reasoning of an argument. The argument statement to be used for this assignment is provided below. You will need to point out: 1. The strengths and weaknesses of the argument 2. How the argument supports and/or weakens the position with reasons and examples This assignment is intended to test your ability to evaluate the soundness of a position and your ability to get your point across to an audience. However, you should not present your personal views on the topic. Your job is to analyze the elements of the argument, not support or contradict that argument. NMB Rule Change Argument Statement: In 2010, the National Mediation Board (NMB), the government agency charged with overseeing labor relations in the railroad and airlines industries, changed voting rules to favor unionization. On 16 December, 2011, a US Court of Appeals upheld the rule change as consistent with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). However, the NMB has failed to provide any justification for changing a ″voting rule″ that had stood for over 75 years. On 2 November, 2009, the NMB issued a proposed rule change that would allow an airline work group to unionize if a majority of those casting ballots approve unionization. Under a longstanding (75-year rule) interpretation of the RLA, NMB only certifies a union if a majority of the work group′s total members vote ″yes″, effectively giving equal standing to ″no″ votes and those that abstain. NMB stated that its proposed rule change ″will provide a more reliable measure of employee sentiment″ and ″discourage employee non-participation″ (National Mediation Board, 2010, para. 30). Since 1934, every National Mediation Board, even those with Democratic majorities, has upheld the current rule on grounds that companies governed by the RLA are vital to the US economy. The existing 76-year old rule was designed to reduce strikes by ensuring that a majority of airline and rail employees support union representation. One immediate effect of the rule change would be a boost to the International Association of Machinists (IAM) in its effort to unionize 14,000 fleet service employees at Delta Air Lines. At the time, Delta had 14,000 flight attendants who were not represented by a union. Prior to making this new change, a majority of an airline′s workforce was necessary to vote in favor of representation. Now, only a majority of received votes is sufficient to force unionization on an entire company. The NMB was established to oversee union elections, not to dictate or change 75 years of precedent. Instead, the NMB has moved itself into the congressional legislative role. This was done to tilt the playing field and to influence upcoming elections. From the beginning, many believe the target has been Delta Airlines, which has voted down union organization attempts since 2002. Also, if labor leaders could organize the majority of Delta′s 56,000 employees, it would help to reverse their diminished standing in the private sector. Published on 11 May, 2010 in the Federal Register, the NMB announced that it adopted a final rule modifying the way votes are tallied in representation elections under the RLA: ″As part of its ongoing efforts to further the statutory goals of the Railway Labor Act, the National Mediation Board (NMB) is amending its Railway Labor Act rules to provide that, in representation disputes, a majority of valid ballots cast will determine the craft or class representative. This change to its election procedures will provide a more reliable measure/indicator of employee sentiment and provide employees with clear choices in representation matters″ (National Mediation Board, 2010, para. 4). Under the newly proposed labor rule, unions would no longer have to get the approval of a majority of total airline workers to achieve certification. Instead, a union could win just by getting a majority of the employees who vote. Thus, if only 1,000 of 10,000 flight attendants vote in an election, and 501 vote for certification, the other 9,499 become unionized. In the past, employees who did not vote were counted as ″no″ votes. Under the new labor rule, if an employee does not vote, their vote does not count one way or the other. Now, it makes it easier for the union to win an election if they only have to count the votes of the employees participating. On 18 May, 2010, Air Transport Association (ATA) filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the NMB′s decision, alleging that the NMB ″overstepped its bounds″ in reversing more than 75 years of precedent. The ATA said the lawsuit asks the court to make ″a declaratory judgment that the new rule is invalid under the RLA, because the NMB does not have the authority to change this rule, only Congress does. This is a matter of right granted to rail and airline employees by Congress (in the 1934 RLA)″ (ATA v NMB, 2011, pg. 2). Remember, there is no provision in the RLA for members who vote to unionize to later decertify a union. Under the new ruling, if an airline has 5,000 employees, and only 200 vote on whether to organize a union, it only takes 101 employees to unionize that airline work group permanently. Invariably, that means that a union would be able to become certified as the sole bargaining representative without a majority of the workers it represents having voted for it. References: Air Transport Association of America v National Mediation Board, No. 10-5253. (16 December, 2011). Retrieved from https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf. National Mediation Board: Representation Election Procedure, 75 Fed. Reg. 90 (final rule June 10, 2010) (to be codified at 29 CFR Parts 1202 & 1206). Before you can identify the flaws in an argument, you must have a clear understanding of the claims it makes. For this assignment, provide an outline which provides the following elements: I. Overall point of the argument 1. In 1-2 sentences state the overall point the argument makes. II. Claims and assumptions 1. Claim #1: In 1-2 sentences list the claim Assumptions: In 1-2 sentences list the assumptions made about claim #1. 2. Claim #2: In 1-2 sentences list the claim Assumptions: In 1-2 sentences list the assumptions made about claim #2. 3. Claim #3: In 1-2 sentences list the claim Assumptions: In 1-2 sentences list the assumptions made about claim #3. 4. Claim #4: In 1-2 sentences list the claim Assumptions: In 1-2 sentences list the assumptions made about claim #4. 5. Claim #5: In 1-2 sentences list the claim Assumptions: In 1-2 sentences list the assumptions made about claim #5. III. Evidence and support 1. Evidence and support for claim #1: In 1-2 sentences state if there is any evidence to support the claim. Does the evidence support or contradict the claim? Could other factors, not provided in the argument statement, be impacting the argument? 2. Evidence and support for claim #2: In 1-2 sentences state if there is any evidence to support the claim. Does the evidence support or contradict the claim? Could other factors, not provided in the argument statement, be impacting the argument? 3. Evidence and support for claim #3: In 1-2 sentences state if there is any evidence to support the claim. Does the evidence support or contradict the claim? Could other factors, not provided in the argument statement, be impacting the argument? 4. Evidence and support for claim #4: In 1-2 sentences state if there is any evidence to support the claim. Does the evidence support or contradict the claim? Could other factors, not provided in the argument statement, be impacting the argument? 5. Evidence and support for claim #5: In 1-2 sentences state if there is any evidence to support the claim. Does the evidence support or contradict the claim? Could other factors, not provided in the argument statement, be impacting the argument?