Contract 2015 Chairman’s Update #2
Fellow Pilots of Council 66,
This is my second Chairman’s Update regarding my decision on the tentative agreement (TA). In the first, I provided a transcript of my speech to the MEC just prior to casting my “no” vote on the TA. In case you missed it, here is a link. I have been overwhelmed with your positive response to this speech. Thank you for taking the time to read my remarks and contacting me via phone or e-mail, and please forgive me if I have failed to respond to you in a timely manner.
This update is based upon my views formed from four decades in the business, my service to you as your C66 chairman, and witnessing firsthand the mechanisms of your MEC as one of only two second-term reps (of 19) also seated on the MEC during C2012 negotiations. The goal of my updates, presented over the coming weeks, will be to offer you honest, unbiased facts and afford you the opportunity to examine both the pros and the cons of the TA, from a bird’s-eye view. Please keep in mind I’m just one man.
In my previous Chairman’s Update I discussed my stance on self-respect. That your mandate and the direction given to the negotiators never included making drastic sacrifices to important sections of our contract during such prosperous times. I stated that if the TA does not match the wishes of the line pilots and does not follow the direction of the MEC, it should have been voted down. Now, before we get down into the weeds of the TA details, I’d like to use this update to compare negotiating approach differences between C2012 and C2015 and then address the politics and power of fear, which I believe contributed to getting us to where we are today.
I would like to start this update with two technical clarifications. First, the MEC’s 11-8 vote was a resolution to forward the TA to the Delta pilots. It was not a vote of acceptance of the TA as presented by the Negotiating Committee. That is a very subtle, but important, difference.
The vote breakdown was as follows:
For: LAX (2), Instructors (1), SEA (F/O), SLC (2) CVG (CA), ATL (4)
Against: MSP (2), DTW (2), SEA (CA), NYC (2) & CVG (F/O)
My “no” vote was cast due to the significant shortcomings of the agreement, not to deny the membership a vote. There are honest differences of opinion about a representative’s role in these circumstances. In my view, voting “yes” to punt the TA to the membership sends a whole host of mixed signals to the various parties. Some incorrectly interpret this type of “yes” vote as an endorsement. I do not believe the MEC should be a rubber stamp and abdicate its responsibility as gatekeeper. This agreement, in my opinion, was not sufficient to justify passing it to the members, hence my “no” vote.
The second clarification is the voting status of C66 representatives. C66 enjoys two status representative positions (CA and F/O with voting rights) and one non-status representative position (secretary-treasurer with no voting rights). Neither C66 voting representative supported the TA itself and voted against the resolution. Our C66 secretary-treasurer is on record for supporting the tentative agreement itself, but cannot and did not cast a vote at the MEC level.
The full TA language has been made available to you by starting here or at
http://www.alpa.org under MEC/LEC/DAL MEC/Negotiations Contract 2015/Membership Ratification (MEMRAT)/C15 Tentative Agreement. While you are there, you may wish to review the updates from other councils on their individual webpages. Your due diligence in reviewing this TA is the only way to come to an informed decision. Please, have the college debates, but never in a way that compromises your work and professionalism.
C2012 vs. C2015—Many, including me, viewed the approach by senior management in C2012 (on which I voted “yes”) to be a welcome olive branch of sorts. The Company had turned the corner thanks in great part to our sacrifices and hard work and an early negotiation was seen as a big step in repairing our relationship and our own balance sheets. Fast-forward to C2015 and management’s sudden need to get an early TA seems to have turned into leverage to beat us down, lower our expectations, and cause us internal fighting like I’ve never witnessed before. Instead of using management’s urgent needs to our advantage, that cudgel somehow turned against us—the party holding the most leverage. Somehow proactive engagement morphed into docile appeasement.
The Bogeymen and the Politics and Power of Fear—As I mentioned in my speech to the MEC, I believe management has greatly overreached and we must not reward that overreach. That overreach is being validated through overt fear campaigns; including the “You have a whole lot of money in one pocket with a hole in it” promo. Fear must never drive our business decisions. Once the other side of any business transaction senses fear is motivating your decision making, they have won. Some are behaving as if the sky will literally fall if we don’t conclude an agreement five months early. I respectfully disagree.
Three bogeymen were trotted out for the MEC and those same bogeymen are being used to instill fear in the ranks.
1. The threat the company will disengage from negotiations if this TA is rejected.
2. The threat the National Mediation Board (NMB) will frown upon a rejected TA and drag its feet in helping us to achieve a settlement, resulting in a PEB (Presidential Emergency Board).
3. The Time Value of Money (TVM)
The first two “threats” might have some limited degree of validity, but the “fear” or “danger” associated with these hypothetical scenarios is being greatly exaggerated. Let’s also keep in mind federal law requires both sides to bargain in good faith, not just us.
With respect to the company disengaging and deliberately dragging out negotiations (and violating federal law in the process), please remember, the company approached us for an early agreement and I have yet to see any change in that sentiment. I believe the motivation to maintain labor peace and conclude an early deal still exists and may, in fact, grow more urgent in the coming days or weeks. We are still more than six months away from the amendable date. There is no rush.
Recent history shows there are alternative responses from management other than taking their ball and going home. The AA flight attendants rejected their TA in December last year and were, essentially, given two raises back to back within a week to resolve their contract. I cannot guarantee that will happen, of course, any more than those who promise we will get “parked.”
The NMB is also being used as the bogeyman. Rubbish. Taking the Delta pilots to the NMB will be seen as a failure of leadership for both ALPA and the company and throw a giant wrench in the collaborative, positive atmosphere that has started to gain traction.
The third bogeyman, Time Value of Money (TVM) is often used to justify a less-than-desired negotiating outcome. TVM has legitimate, measurable ramifications when properly weighed. But, ask yourself—is the 8% raise (minus any concessionary offsets) enough, in the short run, to permanently devalue our self-worth? Should we fall prey to instant gratification, choose now-for-tomorrow, while we degrade our quality of life and work rules, during these times? Should we subject ourselves to punitive sick-leave parameters, which open up a Pandora’s box chock full of concerns? Is the time value of short money worth what we are being asked to pay for it, considering the contributions and sacrifices we have made? Concessions are easy to give away, but darn near impossible to recover.
Allow me to state some obvious facts:
First, we are the most important strategic partners management has and we certainly need one another. We are their single-source vendor, if you will, for flying Delta airplanes. Unlike the Boeing v. Airbus negotiations, management cannot move beyond our existing Scope clause and choose some other entity.
Second, we are in a much different situation than we’ve faced in the past: bankruptcy is well behind us; the company is not just profitable—it is wildly profitable; the company is hiring with no end in sight; the training pipeline is full at the bottom and middle (as witnessed by chronic category short-staffing) and will start filling at the top as retirements begin to accelerate exponentially; there’s movement available to a vast majority of pilots; and, we have some upside protections with 3.B.4. Looming pilot shortages also factor in.
Let there be no misunderstanding; like you, I want Delta to be successful and profitable. Future negotiations need not be contentious, or confrontational—we simply need to go back and get it right. We can. We must.
What, exactly, are we fearing? Here are some facts that seem to be overlooked when trying to instill fear: If we do reject the TA and it drags out, we maintain our existing profit-sharing formula, we maintain our current stable state sick-leave provisions, we maintain our current scope protections, we maintain OE trip awards, current TLV, etc., etc.
Here is my greatest concern about using fear as our prime motivator: It is my distinct impression that some within our ranks are conditioning you to be driven by fear rather than the more traditional trade union concepts of self-worth, brotherhood, and strength through unity.
We must reject fear.
Your reps will be available in the crew lounges in the coming days and weeks. The Pilot 2 Pilot (P2P) volunteers, wearing red lanyards, will be there as well. These volunteers are not reps, but work at the direction of the MEC chairman. Their mandate is that they will not be “selling” the TA to you. They do not speak for your reps, and were not an integral part of the entire process as your reps were. Their position is to only provide data about the TA. They are not there to give opinions or speak for or against the TA in any way. They may or may not provide all the data you need to make a decision. If anyone witnesses a volunteer advocating one way or another, let me know with names, dates, and times.
You are the final arbiters. You must determine if this TA meets your standards and your principles. The devil is in the details. Seek out the voice of reason. Ask the tough questions. Demand crystal-clear answers.
We have a compressed timeframe to vote, which starts on Wednesday and ends on July 10. In the immediate future I’ll be providing a thorough discussion of the TA details, such as pay, profit sharing, JV and scope, widebody jobs, sick leave, OE flights, TLV, work rules, etc., both pro and con. And I’ll remind you, yet again, of how difficult it is to regain those items we allow to be dealt away. Stay tuned, and stay engaged.
Finally, an important reminder: The NYC road show will be held at the LGA Airport Marriott, 102‐05 Ditmars Blvd, East Elmhurst, this coming Monday, June 22, from 1500 to 1800. Many of the individuals who have had a part in crafting the TA will be present to address your questions and concerns. You don’t want to miss this one.
Respectfully,
Tom
