US pilot labor thread 6/21-6/27
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
nycbusdriver
Veteran
If ALPA national felt that way, why the ALPA mandated "lock down" of the two MEC's to talk things out and compromise? Why the Blue Ribbon Rice Committee? If ALPA saw no problem with Nic, why would they bother? Why did they wait a full 7 months to present Nic to the company if they felt there was nothing wrong. Actions have always spoken louder than words. Listen to ALPA's actions.
elixir
Senior
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 0
NYC..your posting too many facts....you're overloading the west's server....stand by....
The irony of this debate is extraordinary.
Not to pick on you specifically, AAA73, but weren't all of you complaining just six months ago that your union was not representing you properly and that you owed no allegiance to that union? How is this situation any different?
Might does not always make right.
E
EastUS
Guest
E
EastUS
Guest
Alpa refused to represent the wishes of the line pilots....regardless of any/all efforts put into any "process". Alpa tap-danced over their own charter on many occassions, refused legitmate recall motions, "purged" elected reps at their whim, etc ad nauseum. This was done in clear oppostion to the membership's desires, and they knew it. USAPA's seeking to include the west pilots as voting and participating members. The current scenario's that the west's denying the very existence of the Union, or attempting to sabotage it by any means possible, and is refusing to participate at any level.
"How is this situation any different?" A better question would be "How is this situation in any, way, shape or form at all similar?..other than within some purely emotional, and irrational context.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
No one owes any sort of "allegiance" to the union. The union is here to serve it's members. In fact, dissent is the foundation of representative democracy. There's a huge difference between that and paying one's obligations. If you or any one else CHOOSE not to have representation, well, that's up to you. ALL LCC pilots have to pay for the services provided. They're there and available. If your "misinformation" campaign out west convinces you not to take part, so be it. You still have to pay or get a new job.
I actually think that your statement is ironic. I'm of the opinion that ALPA really did think that the pilot group worked for them, rather than ALPA working for the pilot group. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that some of them probably thought that pilots should have more allegiance to ALPA than to the company they work for.
I had no "allegiance" to ALPA either, but I paid my dues 'til the day they were gone.
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,513
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't see the irony yet. How long has ALPA been in my life? Oh maybe 21+ years. USAPA = 2 months and a few days.
You're not picking on me, during the campaign, your reference is absolutely correct. I owed no allegiance whatsoever to that floundering group in Herndon to even possibly vote for them. Just like the west guys owed no allegiance to possibly vote for USAPA. Well, the election is over, ALPA lost.
However, during that time I continued to stay dues current, maybe a little late, and when my notice came from ALPA I paid up, being dues current again. No threats, no nothing. Just paid in full when required. If ALPA had won the election, I was planning on withdrawing my membership and become a maintenance dues payer. Either way, I knew I had to pay dues to stay employed. Not a hard concept to grasp or understand.
Knowing full well that membership is optional. With ALPA, they did what they wanted anyway, no questions asked. Lots of examples have been floated on the board. Hence my lack of any allegiance to the former CBA. I don't expect you or any west pilots to join in the near future. Maybe some will, just to offer their input. Hopefully anyway.
Subject: U-Turn: The Furloughs and the Warnings
The Furloughs and the Warnings
Frank Helton and I warned everyone about furloughs back in September 2005 when we were the only Reps to vote against the Transition Agreement. We told you our main reason: no furlough protection in the TA.
So what did C-62 pilots decide to do? They recalled us because we voted against the TA! We were replaced by company/ALPA yes-men, Rick Pitt and CJ Szmal. So while you’re updating your resume, think of why you’re getting furloughed.
Guys, we had the leverage back then to protect everyone down to Dave O’Dell with a No Furlough Clause. ALPA National pushed the other West Reps and the MEC officers hard to cut the deal and we ended up with no furlough protection in the TA.
The East had about 1700 pilots on furlough on their list, but most of them had other jobs and weren’t coming back. They had almost 200 retirements a year. We had no furloughs and only about 25 retirements a year. In the next two years, the company recalled everyone who wanted to come back and upgraded over 400 east pilots mainly due to attrition, but also with expansion by picking up more East-West flying than we did. We upgraded only 30 and hired less on our side.
Frank and I wanted furlough protection. ALPA National and the MEC officers just wanted an agreement that protected the merger. Our Merger Attorney butted in with an August 29, 2005 email telling the MEC (not the Reps) that we needed an agreement more than the East did. The Reps only got copies of it by accident. On the no-furlough clause, Freund said: “Fourth, in an event, as I have explained, to the extent your objections are to the absence of a no furlough clause, I don’t think you will ever get one and I don’t think you want one.â€
These furloughs are bad news. But look what caused them, no furlough protection in the TA and four other big mistakes by the MEC.
The first mistake was not starting Section 6 in June 2006. Don’t blame the East for that one. Their MEC encouraged us to enter Section 6 with a resolution. But ALPA said NO and our MEC bought off on it. No telling what a Section 6 contract would have gotten us. Section 6 had leverage. JNC talks didn’t. We could have had a contract that the east might have agreed to before the NIC Award came out. Remember our “Leverage Lost†U-Turn? U-Turn warned you.
The second was not accepting the East’s 40% offer on the new B-757 slots in April 2006. That cost us 8 Captain and 8 FO slots, 16 furloughs. Instead we ended up with that useless B-757 LOU/IOU. Remember our very first email, before we used the name U-Turn? U-Turn warned you.
Third was not accepting the East’s 40% offer on the E-190. By turning that offer down, we lost in arbitration and got another IOU. If we had taken the E-190 deal, we could have gotten 40% of the Captain slots and with down-sizing, 40% of the FO slots. In the East’s 08-04 down-sizing bid, there are 229 E-190 positions in PHL/CLT. If we had agreed to East’s June ‘06 proposal, we would have locked in 40% of the slots or 91 fewer furloughs. Add those to the 16 B-757 positions and we would have only 68 furloughs, not 175. The additional 107 furloughs would have all come out of the East. U-Turn warned about the dangers of not accepting the East E-190 offer as talks broke down in late June ’06 over the Dotter/McIlvenna rotating bidding plan. But our MEC had a better plan. It didn’t work. U-Turn warned you.
The fourth mistake was not pursuing the East-West flying dispute. Even the East Reps thought the company was violating the TA when they first started flying LAS-LAX turns. Their pilots refused them until ordered to by the company. We’ll never know how many furloughs a TA dispute could have stopped, but the MEC refused to file one. Once again, U-Turn warned you.
Guys, the AWAPPA leaders are the same ones who messed up when they were in office. It’s time to stop listening to them. It may be too late now, but if you don’t get your heads out of your sand and file grievances with the union that we’re stuck with, how are they going to know where we are coming from and what we demand?
Just a reminder, with the ATA/AWA agreement (which was approved by the company) we had 18 months after the joint contract and single carrier which ever took longer.
Delta received furlough protection for 24 months after everything is done.
the Mighty U-Turn
The Furloughs and the Warnings
Frank Helton and I warned everyone about furloughs back in September 2005 when we were the only Reps to vote against the Transition Agreement. We told you our main reason: no furlough protection in the TA.
So what did C-62 pilots decide to do? They recalled us because we voted against the TA! We were replaced by company/ALPA yes-men, Rick Pitt and CJ Szmal. So while you’re updating your resume, think of why you’re getting furloughed.
Guys, we had the leverage back then to protect everyone down to Dave O’Dell with a No Furlough Clause. ALPA National pushed the other West Reps and the MEC officers hard to cut the deal and we ended up with no furlough protection in the TA.
The East had about 1700 pilots on furlough on their list, but most of them had other jobs and weren’t coming back. They had almost 200 retirements a year. We had no furloughs and only about 25 retirements a year. In the next two years, the company recalled everyone who wanted to come back and upgraded over 400 east pilots mainly due to attrition, but also with expansion by picking up more East-West flying than we did. We upgraded only 30 and hired less on our side.
Frank and I wanted furlough protection. ALPA National and the MEC officers just wanted an agreement that protected the merger. Our Merger Attorney butted in with an August 29, 2005 email telling the MEC (not the Reps) that we needed an agreement more than the East did. The Reps only got copies of it by accident. On the no-furlough clause, Freund said: “Fourth, in an event, as I have explained, to the extent your objections are to the absence of a no furlough clause, I don’t think you will ever get one and I don’t think you want one.â€
These furloughs are bad news. But look what caused them, no furlough protection in the TA and four other big mistakes by the MEC.
The first mistake was not starting Section 6 in June 2006. Don’t blame the East for that one. Their MEC encouraged us to enter Section 6 with a resolution. But ALPA said NO and our MEC bought off on it. No telling what a Section 6 contract would have gotten us. Section 6 had leverage. JNC talks didn’t. We could have had a contract that the east might have agreed to before the NIC Award came out. Remember our “Leverage Lost†U-Turn? U-Turn warned you.
The second was not accepting the East’s 40% offer on the new B-757 slots in April 2006. That cost us 8 Captain and 8 FO slots, 16 furloughs. Instead we ended up with that useless B-757 LOU/IOU. Remember our very first email, before we used the name U-Turn? U-Turn warned you.
Third was not accepting the East’s 40% offer on the E-190. By turning that offer down, we lost in arbitration and got another IOU. If we had taken the E-190 deal, we could have gotten 40% of the Captain slots and with down-sizing, 40% of the FO slots. In the East’s 08-04 down-sizing bid, there are 229 E-190 positions in PHL/CLT. If we had agreed to East’s June ‘06 proposal, we would have locked in 40% of the slots or 91 fewer furloughs. Add those to the 16 B-757 positions and we would have only 68 furloughs, not 175. The additional 107 furloughs would have all come out of the East. U-Turn warned about the dangers of not accepting the East E-190 offer as talks broke down in late June ’06 over the Dotter/McIlvenna rotating bidding plan. But our MEC had a better plan. It didn’t work. U-Turn warned you.
The fourth mistake was not pursuing the East-West flying dispute. Even the East Reps thought the company was violating the TA when they first started flying LAS-LAX turns. Their pilots refused them until ordered to by the company. We’ll never know how many furloughs a TA dispute could have stopped, but the MEC refused to file one. Once again, U-Turn warned you.
Guys, the AWAPPA leaders are the same ones who messed up when they were in office. It’s time to stop listening to them. It may be too late now, but if you don’t get your heads out of your sand and file grievances with the union that we’re stuck with, how are they going to know where we are coming from and what we demand?
Just a reminder, with the ATA/AWA agreement (which was approved by the company) we had 18 months after the joint contract and single carrier which ever took longer.
Delta received furlough protection for 24 months after everything is done.
the Mighty U-Turn
L
luvn737s
Guest
You might want to sit down and put on a fresh Depends, but I doubt there is a vertibrate mammal out there (which eliminates all easties) who has any concern over your contempt.
However, take a pause in your glee to terminate the opposition ust for a moment, and ask yourselves, "What if the company doesn't fire these people?" What if they drag their feet (it wouldn't be the first time) and they trade seeming progress on contract negotiations for a little more time for the non-payers. It would hurt the company much more than it would hurt USAPA to have to terminate a bunch of pilots (because they all are equally delinquent, there is no way to choose who is subject to termination without being capricious - which is different from most union delinquency cases which are far more random). Will they really cancel flights that these pilots were suppose to operate? Do they think their fellow pilots will pick up these trips? What if the solidarity of the west is sorely underestimated?
Where did that smile go?
E
EastUS
Guest
Ok..sigh..so it is indeed a case of "If, as rather seems the case...this is an issue of "Nyaah, Nyaah!"..."you can't catch ME!", school-kid antics, that will blow away at the "first shot fired..."
"What if the company doesn't fire these people?" Nice abstraction. What if you have a losing lottery ticket this round and they fire you?
"What if the solidarity of the west is sorely underestimated?" Place your bets.
Do as you think best.
PS: "a vertebrate mammal"?..ummm...is there another kind of mammal? Perhaps I can finally learn something from the west 😉
NiceLandingCaptain
Senior
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 0
I wonder what the fusapa deity thinks about this? Looks like no union dues required until a contract is in place, and audited financial information is provided. Here's the link:
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_r.htm#RTWstate
Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?
Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?
Answer: You cannot be required to be a union member, but you may be required to pay union fees.
Employment relations for employees in the railway and airline industries are covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Railway and airline employees are not protected by state Right to Work laws.
Under the RLA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.
Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee").
If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance) are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)
If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.
The Supreme Court, in Ellis v. BRAC, 466 U.S. 435 (1984), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonnmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.
Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.
Ellis makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the RLA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.
The union must establish certain procedures to safeguard your right to pay only a limited fee to the union. These safeguards include giving you:
audited financial information about how the amount of the agency fee was calculated;
an opportunity to challenge the amount of the agency fee before an impartial decisionmaker; and,
the right to place the contested amount of the agency fee in escrow so that the union will not be able to illegally use your money while a decision on the proper amount of the agency fee is pending.
Your right to proper safeguards is based upon Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986), another lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation. The lower courts agree that Hudson, which involved public employees, applies under the RLA.
INTEGRITY MATTERS
NLC
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_r.htm#RTWstate
Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?
Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?
Answer: You cannot be required to be a union member, but you may be required to pay union fees.
Employment relations for employees in the railway and airline industries are covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Railway and airline employees are not protected by state Right to Work laws.
Under the RLA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.
Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee").
If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance) are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)
If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.
The Supreme Court, in Ellis v. BRAC, 466 U.S. 435 (1984), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonnmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.
Except in extraordinary cases, the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment do not equal the dues amount.
Ellis makes clear that nonmembers required to pay union fees as a condition of employment have a right under the RLA to object and obtain a reduction of their compulsory payments so that they do not include union expenses for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.
The union must establish certain procedures to safeguard your right to pay only a limited fee to the union. These safeguards include giving you:
audited financial information about how the amount of the agency fee was calculated;
an opportunity to challenge the amount of the agency fee before an impartial decisionmaker; and,
the right to place the contested amount of the agency fee in escrow so that the union will not be able to illegally use your money while a decision on the proper amount of the agency fee is pending.
Your right to proper safeguards is based upon Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986), another lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation. The lower courts agree that Hudson, which involved public employees, applies under the RLA.
INTEGRITY MATTERS
NLC
E
EastUS
Guest
Whew!..That's a relief then..I needn't worry over you folks ever again... 🙄
Seriously...do what you feel you should. If any of your choices drives you off some lemming run to the nearest cliff...oh well.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
And now, here's the rest of the story:
http://www.nrtw.org/nce.htm
USAPA doesn't engage in any of these, so the audit should take all of about 5 minutes.
And the link you cited requires you to put any contested fees in escrow. I'm not USAPA staff, but I'll bet they'll happily go along with that. Have you sent your dues/germane fees to an escrow agent?
Oh, and there is a contract in place, BTW. If you think you can wiggle out of dues because USAPA didn't negotiate the contract, guess again. Using that logic, then you don't even have a contract. USAPA assumed every function of ALPA on April 18.
L
luvn737s
Guest
I think the bet is fairly hedged. As soon as the first person get their notice of dismissal and files suit for discrimination and a judge places a hold on terminations until all who are delinquent are treated equally, then we'll see what happens. If USAPA forces the company to dismiss all equally, then the company's response would be interesting to say the least. This may be the issue that causes USAPA to finally learn to stop bullying people and try to work with them rather than against them. Actually it might would be good for them in the long run.
Should things not go in the non-payers favor, then they can reconsider paying, but to do so one minute earlier seems foolish.
What is so ridiculous is that USAPA claims that Nic isn't their sole reason for existing, and if that was true and they abandoned their DOH stance, they probably could have rid themselves of ALPA (the most often cited goal of USAPA) with the help of the west. Instead they chose the route of confrontation and galvanized the west pilots against them in a dead-end strategy they can't get out of. The east missed at least 3 off ramps that they could have taken to avoid getting stuck where they are. Why didn't they choose a route that lead to success? And why should anyone in the west choose to follow such misguided "leaders" with the dismal track record they have?
Should things not go in the non-payers favor, then they can reconsider paying, but to do so one minute earlier seems foolish.
What is so ridiculous is that USAPA claims that Nic isn't their sole reason for existing, and if that was true and they abandoned their DOH stance, they probably could have rid themselves of ALPA (the most often cited goal of USAPA) with the help of the west. Instead they chose the route of confrontation and galvanized the west pilots against them in a dead-end strategy they can't get out of. The east missed at least 3 off ramps that they could have taken to avoid getting stuck where they are. Why didn't they choose a route that lead to success? And why should anyone in the west choose to follow such misguided "leaders" with the dismal track record they have?
- Status
