NWA Pilots Sue NWA

[finman]

ALPA Files Lawsuit Over Incentive Programs, EITs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Friday, ALPA filed a lawsuit in US Bankruptcy Court in New York against Northwest Airlines, alleging that Northwest has violated the Railway Labor Act by implementing certain incentive and reward programs and through the establishment of an Employee Involvement Team open to pilot participation.

The complaint alleges that NWA breached the Railway Labor Act in four areas:

Voluntarily implementing the airline’s performance incentive program in August, 2006 rather than wait to begin it in January, 2007 and meeting and conferring with ALPA on the plan as specified in the ALPA collective bargaining agreement. Under the 2006 program, NWA employees earned approximately $6.7 million that is to be paid out in March.

Voluntarily implementing a holiday appreciation program for all employees for the period December 20th through January 7th. This program earned employees approximately $5.6 million in recognition of their work through the holiday period.

Voluntarily recognizing and rewarding through gift cards those pilots involved in the October 2006 typhoon that forced lengthy diversions of several Northwest flights to Japan. The gift cards, in keeping with the company’s recognition program, were also give to flight attendants involved in the weather event.

Voluntarily creating employee involvement teams and soliciting pilots to participate in those teams. To date, more than 50 such teams have been created throughout the company to address workplace, operational and business issues.

In response to media inquiries on the lawsuit, the company provided a statement: "We are disappointed that ALPA is opposing the company's efforts to enable our pilots to share in the airline's success and to be recognized and rewarded for providing great customer service. We believe the ALPA lawsuit is without merit and that we will be able to continue rewarding our pilots for a job well done."

___________________________________________________________


I'm curious what you all think about this. It seems quite baffling to me that a union would sue their employer over getting more money than they contractually agreed to. If ALPA is so upset about getting profit sharing payments a year earlier than was agreed upon, then I propose that ALPA mandate that their members not participate in the 2006 profit sharing, and the rest of us will divy up what they are supposed to get. The judge will get a kick out of this one.

 

[ExAF]

ALPA Files Lawsuit Over Incentive Programs, EITs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Friday, ALPA filed a lawsuit in US Bankruptcy Court in New York against Northwest Airlines, alleging that Northwest has violated the Railway Labor Act by implementing certain incentive and reward programs and through the establishment of an Employee Involvement Team open to pilot participation.

The complaint alleges that NWA breached the Railway Labor Act in four areas:

Voluntarily implementing the airline’s performance incentive program in August, 2006 rather than wait to begin it in January, 2007 and meeting and conferring with ALPA on the plan as specified in the ALPA collective bargaining agreement. Under the 2006 program, NWA employees earned approximately $6.7 million that is to be paid out in March.

Voluntarily implementing a holiday appreciation program for all employees for the period December 20th through January 7th. This program earned employees approximately $5.6 million in recognition of their work through the holiday period.

Voluntarily recognizing and rewarding through gift cards those pilots involved in the October 2006 typhoon that forced lengthy diversions of several Northwest flights to Japan. The gift cards, in keeping with the company’s recognition program, were also give to flight attendants involved in the weather event.

Voluntarily creating employee involvement teams and soliciting pilots to participate in those teams. To date, more than 50 such teams have been created throughout the company to address workplace, operational and business issues.

In response to media inquiries on the lawsuit, the company provided a statement: "We are disappointed that ALPA is opposing the company's efforts to enable our pilots to share in the airline's success and to be recognized and rewarded for providing great customer service. We believe the ALPA lawsuit is without merit and that we will be able to continue rewarding our pilots for a job well done."

___________________________________________________________
I'm curious what you all think about this. It seems quite baffling to me that a union would sue their employer over getting more money than they contractually agreed to. If ALPA is so upset about getting profit sharing payments a year earlier than was agreed upon, then I propose that ALPA mandate that their members not participate in the 2006 profit sharing, and the rest of us will divy up what they are supposed to get. The judge will get a kick out of this one.

Nobody would expect you to understand finny. It's a labor kind of thing. If they have enough money to throw around in programs like this, then they obviously reached much farther than they needed to in the bankruptcy concessions. The unions would rather see them do some repair work on the contracts and quality of life issues rather than toss a few peanuts their way. Think about it.

 

[FWAAA]

One reason that unions don't like incentive programs like these is that the recipients don't pay dues out of the awards. Another reason is that they aren't awarded uniformly to everyone, regardless of effort or merit.

 

[finman]

Nobody would expect you to understand finny. It's a labor kind of thing. If they have enough money to throw around in programs like this, then they obviously reached much farther than they needed to in the bankruptcy concessions. The unions would rather see them do some repair work on the contracts and quality of life issues rather than toss a few peanuts their way. Think about it.

A labor kind of thing? So offerering incentives for good performance and profit sharing is "throwing money around"? Since when do the pilots get to decide how NWA is operated and how scarce resources are invested. The last I checked, they were front-line employees that are working under a ratified contract. If they don't like participating in a profit sharing plan over and above their contract(which for them will not be peanuts; likely about $4,000 for 2006), then they should reject it.

As far as the incentive piece of the lawsuit, ALPA has no leg to stand on. Their sick call frequency has been through the roof since late last year ( about 15% of their paid hours have been for sick pay), which has cost NWA dearly in cancellations and incremental payroll over that period. ALPA chose to maintain their generous and toothless sick contract language over other concessions, so they have no right to complain when NWA does what it can to incentivise pilots to show up to work when scheduled.

This whole thing exposes the true colors of the nature of modern-day unionism. If I were a pilot, I'd be embarrassed that this lawsuit made it to the paper, because it makes them look ridiculous in the public eye. You can't deny that.

 

[Stratocruiser]

Nobody would expect you to understand finny. It's a labor kind of thing. If they have enough money to throw around in programs like this, then they obviously reached much farther than they needed to in the bankruptcy concessions. The unions would rather see them do some repair work on the contracts and quality of life issues rather than toss a few peanuts their way. Think about it.

You're right; we don't understand. The same people who were chastising the pilots for crossing the mechanics' picket lines are now cheering ALPA on for pursuing this ridiculous lawsuit.

One thing I'm sure the MEC doesn't understand is the Catch-22 they've put themselves in by this laughable action. If the judge throws the lawsuit out (which I think he should...I can just hear him now; "let me get this straight; you want me to prevent the company from paying your members bonuses?!?!"), they're going to have lost a great deal of credibility. However, on the off chance the ruling is in ALPA's favor, are they going to require the pilots to pay the bonuses back? That'll go a long way toward convincing them that the union is on their side.

This whole stupid saga is about one thing only; fear. ALPA is simply concerned that the rank-and-file are going to start thinking "if the company can pay me bonuses without ALPA's consent, what the h*ll am I paying these clowns dues for?!?!"

 

[Kev3188]

I don't think ALPA is against these incentive programs (EIT issues aside)per se, but rather, they want them incoporated into their CBA....My guess would be that way at least the terms would be consistent from year to year...At least that's what I gathered after reading the court document.

EX AF also brings up a valid point, and one that needs to not be so easily dismissed by everyone on here.

Here's an interesting article on the whole thing.

Lastly, what I'd like to know is this: After spending the last 4 days digging out my station from the worst blizzard in years, where's my $100 gift card for my "can do" attitude?!

 

[UAL_TECH]

I don't think ALPA is against these incentive programs (EIT issues aside)per se, but rather, they want them incoporated into their CBA....My guess would be that way at least the terms would be consistent from year to year...At least that's what I gathered after reading the court document.

EX AF also brings up a valid point, and one that needs to not be so easily dismissed by everyone on here.

Here's an interesting article on the whole thing.

Lastly, what I'd like to know is this: After spending the last 4 days digging out my station from the worst blizzard in years, where's my $100 gift card for my "can do" attitude?!

Kev,

Level headed and very well stated as usual.

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[Spock]

I don't think ALPA is against these incentive programs (EIT issues aside)per se, but rather, they want them incoporated into their CBA....My guess would be that way at least the terms would be consistent from year to year...At least that's what I gathered after reading the court document.

EX AF also brings up a valid point, and one that needs to not be so easily dismissed by everyone on here.

Here's an interesting article on the whole thing.

Lastly, what I'd like to know is this: After spending the last 4 days digging out my station from the worst blizzard in years, where's my $100 gift card for my "can do" attitude?!

...."The Air Line Pilots Association International called the programs violations of collective-bargaining requirements in a complaint filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. Lawsuits filed against companies under Chapter 11 protection are often filed as part of the bankruptcy case...."

I say go far it! Show the double standard. It's OK to violate of collective-bargaining requirements of the F/A's CBA (i.e. the judges disregard to let them strike after Co. imposes contract). So by this, the ALPO folks can rightly sue (by-pass the RLA, CBA greivance and arbitration procedures)! Let's see what happens. Any bets Kev?

 

[ExAF]

A labor kind of thing? So offerering incentives for good performance and profit sharing is "throwing money around"? Since when do the pilots get to decide how NWA is operated and how scarce resources are invested. The last I checked, they were front-line employees that are working under a ratified contract. If they don't like participating in a profit sharing plan over and above their contract(which for them will not be peanuts; likely about $4,000 for 2006), then they should reject it.

As far as the incentive piece of the lawsuit, ALPA has no leg to stand on. Their sick call frequency has been through the roof since late last year ( about 15% of their paid hours have been for sick pay), which has cost NWA dearly in cancellations and incremental payroll over that period. ALPA chose to maintain their generous and toothless sick contract language over other concessions, so they have no right to complain when NWA does what it can to incentivise pilots to show up to work when scheduled.

This whole thing exposes the true colors of the nature of modern-day unionism. If I were a pilot, I'd be embarrassed that this lawsuit made it to the paper, because it makes them look ridiculous in the public eye. You can't deny that.

Like I said Finney, I don't expect you to understand. Keep proving me right. They aren't protesting extra money, just the way it is distributed and the priciples mgt has ignored in the process. ALPA is not trying to tell NWA how to operate, they just want compensation to be included in the contract with all empployees as the laws supposedly require. I do agree with you in that I don't think they have a chance of actually winning this suit. I think it is more of a communication tool to let mgt know that they are serious about addressing QOL issues and repairs to the contract after mgt overreached their needs vs wants. The financials (newfound profits and new mgt compensation plan) and the fact that they have the money to "throw around" at these incentive programs that they NEVER would have considered pre-bankruptcy are a testament to that. If they are so flush with cash that they WANT TO GIVE $4000 back to each pilot, then they must have cut too much in the first place. Kev 3188 and Piney Bob make good points along these lines qas well. As far as the 15% sick, you can thank the contract for that. When you continuously extend duty days and trip lengths, fatigue sets in. It is cumulative and gets worse as time marches on. Fatique reduces the body's ability to fight disease and infection and before you know it...guys are getting sick. Like I said Finney, I don't expect you to understand beacause I know you just won't get it. Cheers.

 

[Kev3188]

Kev,

Level headed and very well stated as usual.

Take Care,
B) UT

Thank you very much!

 

[finman]

Like I said Finney, I don't expect you to understand. Keep proving me right. They aren't protesting extra money, just the way it is distributed and the priciples mgt has ignored in the process. ALPA is not trying to tell NWA how to operate, they just want compensation to be included in the contract with all empployees as the laws supposedly require. I do agree with you in that I don't think they have a chance of actually winning this suit. I think it is more of a communication tool to let mgt know that they are serious about addressing QOL issues and repairs to the contract after mgt overreached their needs vs wants. The financials (newfound profits and new mgt compensation plan) and the fact that they have the money to "throw around" at these incentive programs that they NEVER would have considered pre-bankruptcy are a testament to that. If they are so flush with cash that they WANT TO GIVE $4000 back to each pilot, then they must have cut too much in the first place. Kev 3188 and Piney Bob make good points along these lines qas well. As far as the 15% sick, you can thank the contract for that. When you continuously extend duty days and trip lengths, fatigue sets in. It is cumulative and gets worse as time marches on. Fatique reduces the body's ability to fight disease and infection and before you know it...guys are getting sick. Like I said Finney, I don't expect you to understand beacause I know you just won't get it. Cheers.

You can justify it all you want. The end results is that this will blow up in their face as they will lose all credibility going forward. Hopefully this will snowball as the court becomes aware of the obstructionist agenda of both ALPA and AFA, and will rule against them at every turn for the remainder of the bankruptcy process. After this little stunt, the unions certainly have had their reputation deservedly damaged in the public eye.

NWA wants to be able to incentivise employees on their own terms and when it is most effective. Putting something like that into a contract turns in into an entitlement, and thus makes it meaningless and burdensome to manage. NWA chose to start the profit sharing in 2006 rather than 2007 because there was a profit in 2006 which was not expected at the time the contracts were ratified. Most reasonable people would see this move as a sign of good faith by NWA, rather than sue NWA for their actions.

The recent pilot sick "epidemic" is ALPA's way of trying to flex some muscle. They have the gall to claim the airline is understaffed, when their own version of a sick-out is the sole drive of the pilot shortage. This, combined with the intentional deterioration by pilots of the B0 performance, has cost NWA tens of millions of dollars over the last few months. They are certainly playing hard ball, and hopefully they get their asses handed to them.

 

[Kev3188]

Let's see what happens. Any bets Kev?

I think EX AF hit it on the head with this...

... I don't think they have a chance of actually winning this suit. I think it is more of a communication tool to let mgt know that they are serious about addressing QOL issues and repairs to the contract after mgt overreached their needs vs wants. The financials (newfound profits and new mgt compensation plan) and the fact that they have the money to "throw around" at these incentive programs that they NEVER would have considered pre-bankruptcy are a testament to that. If they are so flush with cash that they WANT TO GIVE $4000 back to each pilot, then they must have cut too much in the first place.

I think *everyone* (and, yes, I'm counting Finman in this) would prefer to have wage/benefit rates close to if not equal to we did pre BK as opposed to these programs. Don't get me wrong, they're nice and all, but can't hold a candle monetarily/QOL-wise to what we all once had.

For me to "come out ahead" on all of this would mean getting roughly $28000 gross over the life our CBA (and that's counting straight hourly wages alone).

So far I've received approx. $475 pretax (from the holiday attendance program), and am expecting roughly $600 pre-tax from both the Profit and Success sharing programs on the 6th.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for the rest....

In the meantime, these programs seem analguous (sp?) to someone punching you in the mouth and then getting you and ice pack; while it might be a nice gesture, you'd still rather have your teeth, you know?

 

[finman]

I think EX AF hit it on the head with this sentence...

How so? Please explain how making a profit is a sign that the concessions were too steep. Do you think NWA should not make a profit? What, in your mind, is the allowable profit that NWA should be allowed to make? When NWA makes a profit, as a company needs to do in order to survive, and then gives some of that back to employees, how is that a bad thing? I would expect a little more clarity of thought from you, rather then the unsolvable logic presented here. If/when NWA makes a consistent profit for a few years, then the unions will have leverage in getting some of their losses back (the losses that weren't recouped as part of the claim that everyone except the FA's will get). Until then, it is way too premature to make any claims about whether too much or not enough was done on the labor cost cutting.

 

[finman]

I think EX AF hit it on the head with this...
I think *everyone* (and, yes, I'm counting Finman in this) would prefer to have wage/benefit rates close to if not equal to we did pre BK as opposed to these programs. Don't get me wrong, they're nice and all, but can't hold a candle monetarily/QOL-wise to what we all once had.

For me to "come out ahead" on all of this would mean getting roughly $28000 gross over the life our CBA (and that's counting straight hourly wages alone).

So far I've received approx. $475 pretax (from the holiday attendance program), and am expecting roughly $600 pre-tax from both the Profit and Success sharing programs on the 6th.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for the rest....

In the meantime, these programs seem analguous (sp?) to someone punching you in the mouth and then getting you and ice pack; while it might be a nice gesture, you'd still rather have your teeth, you know?

I think the expectations might be a little askew here. Yes, everybody makes a lot less than we used to. That is done and over with, and now we move forward with that. Just because these incentives don't "make up" the difference, they are still incremental income that we would not have gotten if not for these programs. Poo-pooing them because they don't get you back to where you were is counterproductive and silly. They are not intented to do that; since the whole point of this restructuring process was to reduce costs, not just move them from base pay to incentive pay.

In the end, all of us need to evaluate if the amount we now earn is worth our time/effort and if we can do better elsewhere. If you are still with NWA at this point, then you have already come to terms with that and it makes no sense to do these silly comparisons to your old contract vs the incentive/profit sharing payments that now supplement your base income.

 

[Kev3188]

How so? Please explain how making a profit is a sign that the concessions were too steep.

It should have read, this paragraph, but I was specifically referring to EXAF's mention of using the lawsuit as a "tool to communicate with mgmt. that they're serious about improving their cba." This was my response to Spock asking what I thought of the lawsuit.

Do you think NWA should not make a profit? What, in your mind, is the allowable profit that NWA should be allowed to make?

That's a ridiculous question, and you know it.

Of course they should make money. One of the best ways to do so is by treating employees with respect, but I digress...

When NWA makes a profit, as a company needs to do in order to survive, and then gives some of that back to employees, how is that a bad thing?

Also a silly question. No, it's not bad. In fact, I mentioned that it was nice. But the fact is it's intended to "quiet the masses" for lack of a better term. I highly doubt there's an alturistic motive behind it.

I would expect a little more clarity of thought from you, rather then the unsolvable logic presented here.

Likewise, after all this time despite being idealogically opposed on most things, I would have thought you'd know where I was coming from (sometimes I forget that email/postings lack the nuance that normal conversations do). Frankly, I thought I was clearer than normal. Unsolvable logic? Not from my point of view.

If/when NWA makes a consistent profit for a few years, then the unions will have leverage in getting some of their losses back (the losses that weren't recouped as part of the claim that everyone except the FA's will get).

Well, they're certainly planning on it, so I guess we'll see.

Until then, it is way too premature to make any claims about whether too much or not enough was done on the labor cost cutting.

We gave *plenty.*



P.S. My city's expecting another round of snow tonight. Where's my gift card for my "can do" attitude?