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.
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.
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.