RAH management says no to extending FO pay rates
- Thread starter SoCalAprch
- Start date
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
In that case, if his career expectations are not playing out as he had fantasized, he can always turn in his badge and equipment.
Is that too much?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Management did you a favor. Your bargaining position in Section 6 would have been weakened if you had agreed to this extension. To be honest, your bargaining position is already weakened just by your union proposing it, but it would have been worse if it had been signed. Such an agreement could be seen by the NMB as a tacit approval by the union that such rates are considered somewhere within the acceptable range, and I certainly hope that's not the case.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Agree. They tried this on us a couple of years ago when we couldn't get FOs to stay past 6 months. They thought "Hey, we'll toss the FOs some money and they'll stay." Their goal was basically to split the union so they could drag their feet in negotiations some more. Well, that didn't work. BUUUUT, come TA time and the FO rates weren't where the union kept stating they were gonna be, the "signing bonus" did a much better job of splitting us up. Then the true colors really started coming out. A lot of the senior guys that were telling the FOs to "hang in there in unity" during the pay rates thing were telling the FOs "If you vote no, you'll be furloughed" since they had a nice, cushy bonus check coming to them. Tables were turned really quick, and once the almighty dollar was in the other hand, things changed. Watch out for THAT trick down the road.
Personally, I think you guys can (and should) do better than the LOA that was out. Like Baronman, I thought it was MANAGEMENT trying to sneak that by you in order to fly the 190s on the cheap for a while longer.
falconvalley
Absentee Dad of the OOTSK, Runner, Cat Frustrator
Huh? How would that set precedence? The LOA was regarding the current CBA, not the goal of the next CBA. Are you saying there's no possibility this LOA proposal would actually be a message to management that they want the FOs to have an 8 year payscale rather than a 4 year while negotiations take place? To me, this sent a message to management that we are in NO HURRY to sign a new CBA and in the mean time, the FO's are all topping out from a CBA that was agreed to under an OBSOLETE business plan. That's the message I see there. They already agreed to the old payscale. Can't lose any more leverage in that department. Now we're moving on to the next CBA. The company already doesn't want to give out a raise. I don't think a proposal of payscale adjustment is going to make their "no" to a raise any more epic. I would definitely want a better payscale while this new agreement is worked on. And THEN I want a raise. Is that too much to ask?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Unfortunately, what you want would hurt your position at the bargaining table with the NMB (you know, if the idiots at the IBT ever actually file for mediation 
). An agreement to these rates would likely be seen by the mediator as something close to what you would accept in a new agreement. After all, if it wasn't acceptable, you wouldn't agree to it, right? That's how it will be seen, anyway. The PCL pilots are going to have a very difficult time getting improvements to their -900 rates for a very similar reasons, although the exact circumstances are a bit different. Their rate was determined by an arbitrator, but it was only a year ago, so the NMB looks at that rate and deems it to be a relatively recent rate, and therefore not needing much adjustment. Any demands at the bargaining table by the union for a large increase will be viewed by the NMB as unreasonable. The same could happen in your case if you accept this rate now, and then try to demand large adjustments to it at the bargaining table just months later. Bad strategy.
This is why you need experienced negotiators with you. Unfortunately, you don't have any. The guys that are leading airline negotiations for the IBT are former ALPA reps, but none of them are professional negotiators. That's a recipe for disaster when dealing with the NMB.
). An agreement to these rates would likely be seen by the mediator as something close to what you would accept in a new agreement. After all, if it wasn't acceptable, you wouldn't agree to it, right? That's how it will be seen, anyway. The PCL pilots are going to have a very difficult time getting improvements to their -900 rates for a very similar reasons, although the exact circumstances are a bit different. Their rate was determined by an arbitrator, but it was only a year ago, so the NMB looks at that rate and deems it to be a relatively recent rate, and therefore not needing much adjustment. Any demands at the bargaining table by the union for a large increase will be viewed by the NMB as unreasonable. The same could happen in your case if you accept this rate now, and then try to demand large adjustments to it at the bargaining table just months later. Bad strategy.This is why you need experienced negotiators with you. Unfortunately, you don't have any. The guys that are leading airline negotiations for the IBT are former ALPA reps, but none of them are professional negotiators. That's a recipe for disaster when dealing with the NMB.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Todd,
For the record, the IBT is paying for a "professional" negotiator for our contract, excuse me, for the kum-bah-yah contract for AAWH. The funny thing is he over-promised on things he obviously couldn't deliver on.
The great QoL contract that was signed under ALPA I'm living under was negotiated without professional negotiators.
The first holding company scope, which incidentally is why Bedford can't move the cheese at RAH, was done without professional negotiations.
I will state again, regardless of the "higher" affiliation, an airline's union and contract is only as strong as it's local members.
We could tit-for-tat all day, and all it would do is prove my point.
For every great ALPA contract you would point out, I'd point out where it failed, then add a crappy contract to that pile. Then you'd point out some crappy IBT contract, then I'd point out one that works out good for their pilots. So this paragraph just saved all kinds of pointless posting.
So, instead of just knocking people down, you could perhaps swing around and provide positive input instead of continually pointing out the obvious negatives that even the most uneducated of the ranks can plainly discern.
Whether you like it or not, right now, as goes the RAH labor agreement, goes the rest of the passenger agreements. Until the momentum swings, they are the bellweather, and the only place in the industry that can fix the scope issue, and the internal whipsawing.
For the record, the IBT is paying for a "professional" negotiator for our contract, excuse me, for the kum-bah-yah contract for AAWH. The funny thing is he over-promised on things he obviously couldn't deliver on.
The great QoL contract that was signed under ALPA I'm living under was negotiated without professional negotiators.
The first holding company scope, which incidentally is why Bedford can't move the cheese at RAH, was done without professional negotiations.
I will state again, regardless of the "higher" affiliation, an airline's union and contract is only as strong as it's local members.
We could tit-for-tat all day, and all it would do is prove my point.
For every great ALPA contract you would point out, I'd point out where it failed, then add a crappy contract to that pile. Then you'd point out some crappy IBT contract, then I'd point out one that works out good for their pilots. So this paragraph just saved all kinds of pointless posting.
So, instead of just knocking people down, you could perhaps swing around and provide positive input instead of continually pointing out the obvious negatives that even the most uneducated of the ranks can plainly discern.
Whether you like it or not, right now, as goes the RAH labor agreement, goes the rest of the passenger agreements. Until the momentum swings, they are the bellweather, and the only place in the industry that can fix the scope issue, and the internal whipsawing.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
ALPA is definitely no panacea to our industry problems. As you said, they're only as good as the local members. Our idiots decided not to give the FOs pay raises in 07, and that came back and bit them in the butt swinging the votes of the FOs who wanted to see a bonus, but got less because of the W2 method (and losing out on the temp raise).
And, I will continue to vote no on our contract unless the 900 rate is brought up again.... a 2 dollar an hour difference was piddly-squat.
I'm unimpressed by the union's work thus far, from negotiations to communications. Funny thing is, when you disagree and you say something, the unionistas responses are:
1) "you shouldn't complain, you should volunteer"
2) when one attempts to volunteer: "your views are considered rogue because you blast the work of volunteers, so we're keeping our hands clean of you"
Our new NC is good, but we still need to remove the politicians.
Todd, other ALPA guys here: I don't care if you're elected or you choose to use your personal time as a volunteer..... if you don't do your job, everyone should know about it and you should be removed.
And, I will continue to vote no on our contract unless the 900 rate is brought up again.... a 2 dollar an hour difference was piddly-squat.
I'm unimpressed by the union's work thus far, from negotiations to communications. Funny thing is, when you disagree and you say something, the unionistas responses are:
1) "you shouldn't complain, you should volunteer"
2) when one attempts to volunteer: "your views are considered rogue because you blast the work of volunteers, so we're keeping our hands clean of you"
Our new NC is good, but we still need to remove the politicians.
Todd, other ALPA guys here: I don't care if you're elected or you choose to use your personal time as a volunteer..... if you don't do your job, everyone should know about it and you should be removed.
Polar742's comments are right on the mark. Todd, with limited regional experience and even less at ATN speaks as not from extensive experience, but with what he's told to say. To the detriment of those who believe he has decades of experience, he passes himself off as a knowledgeable person.
Any person with true real world experience sitting across the table from management and negotiations, would know that every meeting is a negotiation. And they would also know that there are numerous properties that have done LoA's during negotiations and the LoA's have had positive outcomes. He would know that arbitrations often do better when there is a track record of trying to work well with the other side. He would also know...and admit...that mediations can add years to a negotiation, and arbitrations don't fall on the facts. They fall on the intent of the arbitrator to continue finding employment...therefore they tend to do things that are not overly favorable to either side. The objective is for the arbitrator to not tick off labor or management so badly that they are stricken form future lists of potential arbitrators. It's not about right or wrong, it's about their future employment.
Todd keeps going back to Prater and York's mantra that the only good negotiators are ALPA negotiators...there are a few pilot groups that might have other opinions. Fact is, IBT's negotiators have many years of airline experience, including their lead in house negotiator with over 23 years of ALPA experience, quite a few contracts and a very successful litigation record on grievances as a contract administrator.
What the IBT does not have is a team of people headed by York and Jalmer Johnson who will tell a pilot group that if they don't sell the T/A, that ALPA might just have to cut their funding. Again, Todd will say otherwise, showing his lack of experience.
What IBT and ALPA do have in common is the fact that contracts are negotiated by the individual pilot groups. ALPA pilot groups for decades have debated hiring outside professional negotiators. They have them in house, and some of the best have been cut back on hours. That has not happened at IBT.
While contracts must be signed by the Airline Division Director at IBT, or the President of ALPA (since they are the registered bargaining agents), what IBT does not have is someone who has agreed to sign a contract that will allow whipsawing of pilot groups. In a desire to win a decertification drive at an IBT carrier, apparently the ALPA President has agreed to sign a contract that would move jobs and flying from ABX to this other carrier. The IBT Airline Division has made it clear that they would agree to NO contract that allowed any management to whipsaw any pilot groups...regardless of union affiliation.
They also don't believe in agreeing to a TA that has a substantial risk of failure...as recently occured at a ALPA property. What happened at ATN appears to be less known...publicly anyway. What happened to the TA their negotiators and ALPA agreed to?
Now again...I don't fault him for his lack of experience...like wisdom, it comes with time. In ten or twenty years, he may well have learned enough to be the President of a union. The mistake is repeating what your told by people who treat their own employees the way management treats pilots.
The first axiom of business is to observe how a management treats it's employees...it's a mirror to their soul and how they treat will treat their customers.
ALPA's customers are the pilots who pay dues. ALPA's track record of how they have treated their employees in the past few years has been abysmal.
And just as the pilots of Air Wisconsin, TWA and so many others have learned...including Midwest Express; who was promised by the ALPA president that he'd "change his zip code," to come support them...actions...in this case, inactions...speak much louder than words.
He will no doubt, post the response to this that he is told to post. What would be nice would be for him to answer those from TWA, Air Wisconsin and others...or tell the Midwest Express pilots when to expect the moving vans from 1625 Massachusetts Avenue with the Presidents belongings.
Any person with true real world experience sitting across the table from management and negotiations, would know that every meeting is a negotiation. And they would also know that there are numerous properties that have done LoA's during negotiations and the LoA's have had positive outcomes. He would know that arbitrations often do better when there is a track record of trying to work well with the other side. He would also know...and admit...that mediations can add years to a negotiation, and arbitrations don't fall on the facts. They fall on the intent of the arbitrator to continue finding employment...therefore they tend to do things that are not overly favorable to either side. The objective is for the arbitrator to not tick off labor or management so badly that they are stricken form future lists of potential arbitrators. It's not about right or wrong, it's about their future employment.
Todd keeps going back to Prater and York's mantra that the only good negotiators are ALPA negotiators...there are a few pilot groups that might have other opinions. Fact is, IBT's negotiators have many years of airline experience, including their lead in house negotiator with over 23 years of ALPA experience, quite a few contracts and a very successful litigation record on grievances as a contract administrator.
What the IBT does not have is a team of people headed by York and Jalmer Johnson who will tell a pilot group that if they don't sell the T/A, that ALPA might just have to cut their funding. Again, Todd will say otherwise, showing his lack of experience.
What IBT and ALPA do have in common is the fact that contracts are negotiated by the individual pilot groups. ALPA pilot groups for decades have debated hiring outside professional negotiators. They have them in house, and some of the best have been cut back on hours. That has not happened at IBT.
While contracts must be signed by the Airline Division Director at IBT, or the President of ALPA (since they are the registered bargaining agents), what IBT does not have is someone who has agreed to sign a contract that will allow whipsawing of pilot groups. In a desire to win a decertification drive at an IBT carrier, apparently the ALPA President has agreed to sign a contract that would move jobs and flying from ABX to this other carrier. The IBT Airline Division has made it clear that they would agree to NO contract that allowed any management to whipsaw any pilot groups...regardless of union affiliation.
They also don't believe in agreeing to a TA that has a substantial risk of failure...as recently occured at a ALPA property. What happened at ATN appears to be less known...publicly anyway. What happened to the TA their negotiators and ALPA agreed to?
Now again...I don't fault him for his lack of experience...like wisdom, it comes with time. In ten or twenty years, he may well have learned enough to be the President of a union. The mistake is repeating what your told by people who treat their own employees the way management treats pilots.
The first axiom of business is to observe how a management treats it's employees...it's a mirror to their soul and how they treat will treat their customers.
ALPA's customers are the pilots who pay dues. ALPA's track record of how they have treated their employees in the past few years has been abysmal.
And just as the pilots of Air Wisconsin, TWA and so many others have learned...including Midwest Express; who was promised by the ALPA president that he'd "change his zip code," to come support them...actions...in this case, inactions...speak much louder than words.
He will no doubt, post the response to this that he is told to post. What would be nice would be for him to answer those from TWA, Air Wisconsin and others...or tell the Midwest Express pilots when to expect the moving vans from 1625 Massachusetts Avenue with the Presidents belongings.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
What I hate is the "my wang is bigger than your wang" competition between these huge national unions. APA, SWAPA, FAPA, not huge national unions. They're only there for the interests of their particular airline pilot group... who they represent internally is another matter.
Dear Union,
I want fair pay, fair rules, and a good retirement. If you can't get that for me, or if you tell me that's the best you can get, you suck.
Dear Union,
I want fair pay, fair rules, and a good retirement. If you can't get that for me, or if you tell me that's the best you can get, you suck.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
727to7400,
I've seen some posts from you, and from the POV, I'm sure we have the same abusers from NY.
How about a bit of background on yourself, so we can see where you're coming from?
Perhaps you've already done that, and I missed it. If so, I apologize in advance.
Thanks,
Polar
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That depends on your definition of "professional negotiator." The IBT is using the former NC Chair from Midwest Airlines to handle a lot of their negotiations work, and he is far from being a professional negotiator. A former MEC Chair from UAL is also a lead negotiator for the IBT, but again, he is not a professional negotiator. His work was always in ALPA political positions. What you really need is an attorney that has specialized in contract negotiations and enforcement for most of his life. Someone like Bruce York, the guy that John keeps attacking in his posts out of pure ignorance.
Not true. ALPA always has a professional negotiator working on every contract negotiation. Usually several in the latter stages.
I don't believe that's the case at all.
Agreed.
Nope. I'm done dealing with you.
I doubt he'll post it. He's trying to be anonymous, posting on about 3 or 4 different forums under different screen names, but most of us know who he is. Just a disgruntled former MEC Officer from Atlas.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
Out of curiosity, who is the professional negotiator working for the Pinnacle MEC? As you know, we just removed PF and ZC.... replaced with CT and PH)
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Dan Froehlick, with the assistance of Jim Wilson. Both are ALPA attorneys/professional negotiators, and Jim is the Assistant Director of Representation.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
I agree!
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I'm willing to see what's gonna happen. The new NC seems to be already on the ball. Not sure if you got the e-mail they sent out, but based on that, they've already surpassed the previous NC on communications. There's actually an e-mail address set up people can e-mail questions, comments and concerns to in order to get info on negotiations. Previously, it was try to catch PH or ZC in the crew room, and take what they said with a grain of salt. I know there were several things POST TA that I was told was "in there" that I never could find. Most had to do with job protection stuff or reserve rules. Either that or there was "An LOA coming to fix it."
It's good to see you on the P2P team, too. You're now part of the "communications" part that goes out to the rank and file. I've seen who we've got running for MEM CA and MEM FO rep, and I have to say I'd be happy with ANY of them. Things are starting to change, and I almost wonder if the apathy majority would have continued if the TA wasn't so bad.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Failboat Skipper 09,
Also look into the national education committee. . .great opportunity awaits there as well.
Also look into the national education committee. . .great opportunity awaits there as well.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I can tell you know nothing about my organization other than what you hear from national.
Since we have a small company, I know for a fact the guys that signed our contract negotiated it. They may have had help gathering data or whatnot from ALPA, but they negotiated it. If you'd like to get in touch with the guy that negotiated our 1999 contract and is one of the negotiators for this combined contract, I'll provide his email to you so you can ask him face to face. Quite honestly, he is one of the smartest people I know, and I'd hate to be sitting across the table from him.
So, if you want to tit-for-tat about stuff you know less than you'd like to admit you know about, please.
How about for once, you listen to someone instead of trying to tell me I'm wrong?
Did Mesa have a professional negotiator? How about the TSA contract that those are living under? How about the PCL contract that is being amended? Did you have a professional negotiator for that?
If you did, then it seems that we all end up in the same place. And again, it all falls on the pilot group at the individual airline.
You can believe or not believe as your heart desires. Just show me another organization, right now, that has the ability to bring all the flying under one scope clause.
It's just one organization. That's it. Can you find it? I'm not talking about what XYZ's pilots are considering or what they are proposing or not acting on. I'm looking for an organization that is currently acting to bring all the brand's flying onto one list.
So, again, why not bring some positivity instead of turning it into a bashfest, as commonly happens?
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
Martin,
from what I can tell, our "Professional Negotiator" hasn't done s* except for collect a paycheck from ALPA. If Froehlich (whatever it's spelled), was really worth the kings ransom he's being paid, after all he is a lawyer, we wouldn't have had to reject the contract. I didn't see him at the TA Road Show.
I'm not saying all ALPA MEC's have this problem, but I know that ours does. I'm pretty disappointed in this guys work.
I don't know anything about IBT, I haven't worked under an IBT contract with IBT representation, so my opinion about IBT is worthless. Todd hasn't either, IIRC.... so, why bother worrying about his opinion about your union?