US Pilots' Labor Discussion 11/17-11/30..ALL Pilot Labor Issues Discussed HERE

[BoeingBoy]

Funny indeed, considering that was brokered under the internal merger process of our (your) old failed union.

Yet there were few complaints on the US side. Abandoning the "Gold Standard" didn't lead to marches in Herndon, kicking ALPA off the property, or anything else. Most US pilots seems pretty content ignoring that "Gold" in them there hills. Maybe, just maybe because the "Gold Standard" is only the rallying cry when it benefits the US pilots and forgotten when it doesn't...a sort of situational standard.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Funny how it wasn't the "gold standard" when the integration with the Shuttle pilots came along...

Jim

Also with the IAM and the Shuttle mechanics, the IAM did not want to dovetail them and the IAM got sued and lost after the fact

 

[BLT]

All this talk of a non-union shop? As Arte Johnson would say....."veeerrry interesting,,,,,but stupid."

If you "can't think of a single improvement" that union organization has made to your airline career, you are not looking at the obvious, while highlighting all the negatives that have occured in the industry since deregulation and blaming those regressions on organized labor.

The single most important function a union has is to protect the individual worker from wrongful termination. This is all the more critical in a safety related industry such as ours, where common everyday decisions would risk your employment if it were not for this protection.

I think I said that unions can't be given credit for the good times or blamed for the bad. I believe they can make things better in good times, but worse during bad times.

I don't think they have much affect at all. Except to take 2% of my money.

As to the wrongful termination. Perhaps the strawman organization that Boeing mentioned could provide such a service. Their sole purpose would be to be a watchdog and fight against any injustice toward our pilots. I bet it would be a lot less expensive (0.2%?) and probably rarely used, unless the company wanted to invite unionism back.

 

[BLT]

Just ask the agents of HP what Parker pay them before they came in under USAirways agent’s union contract. The agents of US had to take a strike vote and negotiate and bargain with management just not to be lowered to HP bottom of the industry agent pay. Thank God we had a union or agents would be making $10.00 an hour and work rules of Wal-Mart


That's great! And how many happy gate agents have been replaced by electronic kiosks? The gate agents who lost their jobs to kiosks. Are they happy about their union representation?

You force the company to pay you more and they find a way to get rid of you. Union awesomeness!

 

[700UW]

Guess BLT wasnt around in 92 to witness what the company did to the non-union ramp and csa.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Perhaps the strawman organization that Boeing mentioned could provide such a service. Their sole purpose would be to be a watchdog and fight against any injustice toward our pilots.

Nope. They would either be the union representing the employee group or nothing - there is no middle ground. Either the "strawman" organization would have all the rights and powers of a union or no powers at all. You'd either have a contract guarded by the union or you're an at will employee with whatever rights the company wants to give you.

Jim

 

[BLT]

Guess BLT wasnt around in 92 to witness what the company did to the non-union ramp and csa.

And the unionized pilot group has fared much better over the past 15 years because................? I can't see how things could be any worse then they currently are without more job losses. What has being in a union done to help over the past few years? I guess it gives you someone to point your finger at. Someone to blame for your problems other than the company and the economy.

 

[BLT]

Go survey any non-contract employee and ask them:

After you are done asking them, ask those no longer employed because they:
1. Didn't kiss their boss' a** as well as their cubicle mate.
2. Didn't have a Mumsy or Dadsy who got them their job.
3. Didn't have a Dad that plays golf with ______. (Fill in the blank)
4. Didn't tow the company line and saw the BS for what it was and went elsewhere.
5. Didn't fit into the office "click".
6. Aren't here to make a quick buck (feed) off the host, (USAirways in this example), then move on to find a new host like the locusts that they are.
7. _______. More examples that my meager mind cannot plumb at this time. Please feel free to add your own.

Some of the core tenets of unionism in this country were designed to ameliorate, if not irradicate those problems listed above. Support unionism or not, when making a point it is acceptable to only address the top of the rock. To understand the entire story, one must flip the rock over and observe all of that yuckiness underneath.
But of course, I could be wrong, and those not still employed were poor employees and are now just disgruntled ex-employees with an axe to grind. 🙄

I'm not sure I get your point here. Are you saying that lazy, anti-social people should be treated like those who are actual assets to the company? That it is wrong to use a network of friends and family to gain employment?

 

[john john]

That's great! And how many happy gate agents have been replaced by electronic kiosks? The gate agents who lost their jobs to kiosks. Are they happy about their union representation?

You force the company to pay you more and they find a way to get rid of you. Union awesomeness!

What an uninformed statement that if agents made less there would be less kiosks and more agents. Do you live under a rock?

 

[john john]

And the unionized pilot group has fared much better over the past 15 years because................? I can't see how things could be any worse then they currently are without more job losses. What has being in a union done to help over the past few years? I guess it gives you someone to point your finger at. Someone to blame for your problems other than the company and the economy.

They could all be making PEOPLExpress and express pay
You know like hp use to

 

[luvn737s]

Under current rules the union loses - thanks because I forget to mention that. But you've got to get the NMB to hold the election first, which is where the "strawman" opponent to the incumbent union comes in. Under current rules there is just no way to get around having to have some organization or individual challenge the incumbent union because it's the only way to get an election.

Jim

The consideration of abandoning all representation is a harsh indictment of USAPA and their inability to lead. That folks would rather have no union than the money-gulping monster (how many more assessments will the pilots have to face) that can only exist if it keeps the pilots divided is shocking and should be a wake-up call to all those who sit idly by and think that things will get better once the appeals are completed.

Things will only improve once USAPA is dismantled and can no longer inflict damage to this pilot group. A new union formed with bipartisan participation in crafting it's rules, and free of the baggage that the founders and current custodians have saddled it with, may have a chance.

Sure it's risky. Sure it will set back negotiations a while. But Cleary and company have shown absolutely no willingness to bring the east and west together. The east pilots, who are unwilling to recall them and replace them with competent leaders, share equal blame.

The west pilots have experience with the present management and have proven their ability to lead, but the message they send is filtered through Cleary and his type who feel that doing nothing is sufficient as long as it twarts the Nicolau decision. When the breech know as USAPA was birthed, it was a choice, not between east and west, but between USAPA and an organization that was deemed to have failed them. USAPA has been give ample time and money, but they lack the will and ability to lead. It is time to move on.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Under current NMB rules, it is impossible to decertify a union because there is no official mechanism to do so - and that is straight from the NMB.

If a union is already representing an employee group there is an unofficial workaround. Another organization or individual indicates their desire to become the bargaining agent by submitting an "Application for Investigation of Representational Dispute" along with a sufficient number of authorization cards signed by members of the employee group (which is what USAPA did to have an election and replace ALPA). If the new organization or individual wins the election, they can then voluntarily surrender their authority to represent the employee group and the group becomes unrepresented. In other words, a "strawman" opponent to the incumbent union is used to get a representational election and if the "strawman" wins it relinquished it's role as CBA.

Jim

Decertification

Decertification is the loss of its NMB certification (representation rights) by an incumbent union or individual. The NMB does not have a union-decertification process per se. However, if less than a majority of eligible voters votes in favor of representation, the NMB issues a dismissal, and the incumbent organization or individual loses its representation status. In determining whether a majority of employees voted, all votes for representation are totaled.

http://www.nmb.gov/helpdesk/helpdesk_union...esentation.html

Decertification.
There is no express provision in the Railway Labor Act for decertification
of a certified representative. Although, the Mediation Board once took the view that the
Act favors the organization of employees, and would not entertain decertification
petitions, this position was struck down by the Fifth Circuit on the grounds that the Act
also protects employee freedom of choice. Russell v. NMB, 714 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1204 (1984). See also In re Chamber of Commerce,
14 N.M.B. 347 (1987).

Historically, RLA employees have pursued decertification by means of a
straw-man election, a proceeding in which an employee or group seeks certification as a
new representative solely for the purpose of ousting the incumbent. Once certified by the
Board, the new representative disclaims his status and the employees are then
unrepresented.

In Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 8 N.M.B. 469 (1981), the Board refused to
process a “straw-manâ€￾ application. The Fifth Circuit subsequently ordered the Board to
process the application, stating:

The Act supports but does not require collective
bargaining, and in our view, the implicit message
throughout the Act is that the “complete independenceâ€￾ of
the employees necessarily includes the right to reject
collective representation.
Russell, 714 F.2d at 1343 (footnote omitted).

 

[end_of_alpa]

All this talk of a non-union shop? As Arte Johnson would say....."veeerrry interesting,,,,,but stupid."

If you "can't think of a single improvement" that union organization has made to your airline career, you are not looking at the obvious, while highlighting all the negatives that have occured in the industry since deregulation and blaming those regressions on organized labor.

The single most important function a union has is to protect the individual worker from wrongful termination. This is all the more critical in a safety related industry such as ours, where common everyday decisions would risk your employment if it were not for this protection.

Second, the union bridges the gap between managements as they come and go. Sure, your getting along fine with the current management when times are good and they are treating you right, but when things go South and the board appoints a new CEO, you would wish there was a contract in place to at least have something to negotiate, rather than be dictated to. Things do not even have to go bad, the new CEO may just want a bigger bonus paid out of your pocket.

Third, in our case, it is not that the union is a bad thing, it is that the bad thing became the union. To paraphrase J. Prater, "what kind of union is founded on the idea of failing its own members", answere of course usapa. All this nonsensical BS they argue is just an after the fact excuse of why it is okay to break the law. Does not change the fact that the law was broken, and what they are trying to do is the absolute "Gold Standard" of unpricipled union misconduct.

To sum, I do not have a bumper sticker on my bag. I do not wear a lanyard. I do not treat my fellow employees with anything less than common courtesy. I do not support this anti-union organization that discriminates against its members. But, I must be the "one in a million", because if I see a picket line at the Fry's grocery store, I go and buy milk and bread from Basha's.

How many years do you have with this company???

 

[cactusboy53]

Perhaps you better check out the AOL 24 Nov update for some tough love on just "who pays." You continue to extrapolate a lot of fantasy judicial rulings going forward based on the actions of a single Federal Judge.

RR

I did Bubba. That update pertains ONLY to the requested 1.8 million dollars in legal fees incurred by AOL. Here's the part that you may be referring to:

USAPA will pay the attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses incurred in defending this action from membership dues and agency fees. By operation of the RLA, USAPA can assess membership dues or agency fees against the entire bargaining unit. In effect, therefore, the entire bargaining unit (including West Pilots) must share the burden of USAPA’s attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses.

In pursuing this action, Plaintiffs incurred attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses comparable to those incurred by USAPA. In contrast to USAPA, however, Plaintiffs cannot assess the members of the entire bargaining unit to pay those fees and expenses. They can pay only from voluntary donations, largely made by West Pilots. Hence, absent a fee and expense award by this Court, West Pilots will bear a share of the attorneys’ fees and expenses from both sides while East Pilots will bear only a share of the attorneys’ fees and expenses from the defense of USAPA. West Pilots, therefore, would bear a substantially greater burden than East Pilots. Surely, as the prevailing parties, as parties who bear no responsibility for this litigation or for its excessive expense, West Pilots ought not to bear a greater burden than the East Pilots.

If the Court awards Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses, the burden will be evenly distributed among all members of the bargaining unit. West Pilots will bear no greater or lesser burden than East Pilots. Attorneys’ fees and other expenses from both sides will be paid from membership dues and agency fees assessed by USAPA. That is surely an equitable result."

It does not address any damages (since the damages trial will not take place until next spring). I know that I am looking forward. I am simply trying to draw out a line of possible events, and hopefully find some east pilots that are willing to help stop this train wreck. So far it's no looking too good.

 

[nic4us]

How many years do you have with this company???

Same as you.