Southwest flight attendants have voted down higher union dues three times, but the proposal is back for a fourth try. This time, the union is limiting ballots to in-person meetings, turning a $5-a-month ask into a fight over turnout, process, peer pressure and whether “no” actually means no.
This is a controversial union that pushed the airline to fire one of its own members who criticized their leader on Facebook, and which punished flight attendants who wanted a new union.
They’re only a couple of years into their current contract. And they’ve been pushing for a dues surcharge that would last through ratification of the next contract.
- TWU Local 556’s first round of 2026 membership meetings includes a vote on a special assessment that would add $5 per member, per month, described as money earmarked for bargaining and set to end 90 days after the next contract is ratified.
- This vote isn’t by mail. It doesn’t permit online voting. Only members physically present at a meeting can vote. They’re holding 13 sessions from February 16 through March 25, 2026 across multiple bases.
The reason members are boiling over is not the motion. A press release from mid-2025 described three earlier attempts to pass a similar monthly assessment, each one lower than the last: $11, then $8, then $7 — all were voted down by flight attendants. Now it’s back for a fourth bite at the apple at $5.
For critics, this has become a governance issue more than a budgeting issue. If “no” just means “the votes will continue until morale improves” then member votes don’t count as a final decision – until the members do what union leadership wants. That’s also how this new ‘in-person only voting’ mechanism is being read.
- Officers attending in an official capacity have lost time and travel covered. The President can designate additional attendees.
- That’s standard for union business, but some people (who favor the motion) are paid to show up. While the general membership isn’t.
- Most flight attendants can’t attend weekday 10 a.m. meetings!
- And it’s the general membership – who keep voting against this – who are paying for the replay, and for those taking a contrary position to vote against them.
If the assessment fails again, despite appearing to rig the process, does it come back at $4? There’s probably a lesson here for Delta Air Lines flight attendants who – despite total compensation at the top of the industry – are being asked to vote for a union.
Sara Nelson of AFA-CWA promised Delta flight attendants would be unionized within ‘months’ 15 months ago, right after losing reforms within her own union that leave crewmembers disenfranchised.
Ahh, union thuggery. Sounds like counting votes in California and Michigan. We will keep counting votes until we get the result we demand.
This is total BS. The MEMBERS make the motions and we get vote on them. The Union didn’t make these motions. These members who try to undermine our Local will go buy a cup of coffee but won’t shell out for money that goes directly and wholly to our negotiations (not the International). But I bet they’ll be the one to complain the loudest about how they want a better contract. Time to PUT UP or SHUT UP-or leave.
Big data point missing here. Is it $200 + $5 monthly or $20 + $5 monthly?
Travel and meeting expenses will chew up any gains won for the next few years. Lawyers are masters at this. I once had to paid $20,000 in legal fees fighting to save $6 per month that was computed by a formula anyway.
Do we not think it’s irresponsible journalism to present one side of this? This is wildly slanted and not at all representative of what’s actually going on here.
Unions aren’t evil at all, but folks who post here and bash unions are evil!
TWU 556 puts the Gestapo to Shame. They have routinely employed thuggery to get what the elites want. Membership be damned. Oh and on a separate note, Sara Nelson is a cancer on the industry.
This isn’t 1932. Most unions today serve little purpose other than perpetuating the union itself and protecting underperforming people who should be fired. There are very few truly unsafe workplaces anymore and federal standards have evolved (yes, thanks to unions back in the day) making most of those protections standard.
@ Michael Mainello — is it “California and Michigan” as you suggest, or is it the Republican strategy of making it really difficult for large segments of the electorate to participate? Like most issues, we all can find a political spin that suits our bias.
Union scum being Union scum. Time to make unions illegal.
1991 – liar shill.
Unions have become mostly a scam.
When you see a pattern of repeating a process until the desired result is obtained, then stopping, it’s safe to infer corruption.
The ones against 556 is actually a very small percentage of the 22k members. This article is a joke. This group needs to get a grip on reality.
1990: Eventually everyone will learn to ignore you if you keep spewing hateful nonsense like that.
Sounds like this was written by the admin in armed and cross check 2.0 or one of their minions. Alternate reality.
@Lance, I think your living voters already have IDs. Almost 80% of Americans want voter ID. Why do you think so poorly of your voters?
@1991 – The flight attendants spoke but the union didn’t listen.
Insert irrelevant low IQ comments about unions… Oh, too late.
Gary. What are the current monthly union dues for the Southwest Flight Attendants? It would be interesting to know the percentage increase. Thanks.
Sounds exactly like our current government on both sides . Why would someone ever want union thuggery instead of a free and fair democratic process is beyond wild.
Time to rid the disease.
I don’t see the need for unions. In a country where one hires on to a job, be it a flight attendant, a school bus driver, a teacher, et al, they know (or SHOULD know) what the job entails, what the rules are and what the salary is before they say “yes” to an employment offer. Going in “blind” opens up all kinds of disgruntled sentiments. Now, when management changes the job requirements, what the rules are and what the salary is going to be WITHOUT telling the employee, then the employee should quit and go elsewhere. Sadly, the seniority system has been, and will be, around forever. That’s fine. However, in the case of Southwest, it appears that the union is only thinking about protecting their pocketbook at the expense of the members. Hopefully, the members should make it a point to make every meeting possible and vote that union out. Sometimes unions (like in this case) are like herpes…the gift that keeps on taking.”
@1991 — At times, it feels like the site should be renamed ‘View from the (Right) Wing’…alas, the union-bashing continues.
@Common Sense — Wasn’t me, until now. You bet I still think organized labor, worker rights and consumer protections are essential for a balanced modern society. Unless you’re already a centi-millionaire, you, too, should care about workers, because you’re more like them than the owner class.
@1990 – What is your position on this? The “workers” have voted 3 times not to have their dues raised. Are the workers right or is the union right for forcing a 4th vote that they can monitor and intimidate? What if management was doing the same thing? Why are the employees / voters required to vote in person, a 4th time, is the mail in voting suspect?
Sounds like the union is facing some serious challenges. Wonder what the in-person meetings will change for the voting process?
Union leaders may be leaches by they’re our leaches
@1990 – So why have a vote if your leaches can’t accept the results? I guess you really are the dictator party.
So they are going to do an in-person no absentee voting election & check i.d.s?
@Michael Mainello — ‘1990.1’ is not me. I have no specific opinion on how they should vote on this particular issue. Usually these union-related posts and comments aren’t about actual issues, just pro-or-anti-union, generally. I think organizing remains beneficial to workers, though they have to elect quality leadership and vote for good policy, just like citizens voting in our elections more broadly.