PNCL Files Chapter 11

[TUCKnTRUCK]

If someone doesn't pay me, haven't they broken the contract? Next Pinnacle contract - assuming they stay in business - would have to include "You screw up payroll, we miss work till it's fixed." And I would not negotiate on that item at all.

I believe that there are legal ramifications beyond "getting fired" Didn't american or one of those airlines sue the crap out some "team" memebrs it determined had taken illgeal job actoins? loss and dammage or something like that?

If we all just walk off, we are in more trouble than just "fired/not eligble for rehire"

this was actually supposed to quote Miked's question that you answered... oops

 

[WacoFan]

I believe that there are legal ramifications beyond "getting fired" Didn't american or one of those airlines sue the crap out some "team" memebrs it determined had taken illgeal job actoins? loss and dammage or something like that?

If we all just walk off, we are in more trouble than just "fired/not eligble for rehire"

this was actually supposed to quote Miked's question that you answered... oops

I think the APA was sued for gazillions and lost - but they were found to be complicit in some way. And, they were all paid on time. This, to me, is a material breach.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Second - I seriously don't think that they would fire everybody

They wouldn't have to. I've seen enough of these things to know what happens (and I've had to negotiate the back to work agreements to save their careers). What happens is that word starts to get around to do some sort of illegal job action (slow taxi, maintenance write-ups, sick-out, whatever), and the first few people start doing it. Management wastes absolutely no time. They fire the first couple of people who do it. They hold a quick sham disciplinary hearing (usually it lasts about 10 minutes, if that) to present their evidence (radar plots, ground times, write-up percentage increases, etc.), they ask you to explain yourself, and no matter what you say, you get fired. If you admit it, you're fired for an illegal job action. If you deny it, you're fired for lying about engaging in an illegal job action. Instantly, the entire pilot group finds out that a couple of pilots were terminated for alleged illegal job actions. It has a chilling effect. Everyone is too scared to be #3, so the job action dies right then and there. The first couple of sacrificial lambs? They either sign a draconian back to work agreement (usually imposing a long-term probationary period on them), or they go to arbitration and the arbitrator upholds the termination. Usually the best case scenario is to stonewall and delay the arbitration hearing, hoping that you can negotiate their jobs back as part of completing the contract. Of course, if it happens outside of contract negotiations, then that isn't an option.

It may feel good to puff out your chest and act tough. It rarely works out well for anyone, though.

and if it isn't an ALPA sanctioned event, then it would be interesting to take the chance

Doesn't matter whether it's ALPA-sanctioned or not. The courts have ruled that unions have an "affirmative obligation" to stop illegal job actions. It isn't enough to just not endorse them, you have to actually do everything you can to stop them. If you don't, the courts hold the union responsible. The first step is usually an injunction, which severely hamstrings what you can do for a long time. If the judge isn't very nice, then he may skip the injunction phase and skip right to the second step: a huge fine on the union. When the APA (pilot's union at American) engaged in an illegal sick-out back in '98, the APA claimed that they didn't lead it. The judge didn't care. He issued an injunction telling the union to cease and desist, and to get the job action to stop. The APA didn't comply. The judge was pissed. He fined them $40 million and told them (on the record) that if they defied him again, he would personally see to it that the "entire assets of the union would fit into the overhead bin of a Piper Cub."

You just don't screw with this stuff. The case law is bad. Really bad.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

If someone doesn't pay me, haven't they broken the contract?

Doesn't work that way. Under the RLA, there is no "material breach of contract." All there is is a "minor dispute." In RLA parlance, that means a grievance. Contracts are never void just because someone breaches their end of the deal. You go to an arbitrator and he decides who is right. And if he rules in your favor, there still isn't any punitive damages available. It's a "make whole" remedy only.

Next Pinnacle contract - assuming they stay in business - would have to include "You screw up payroll, we miss work till it's fixed." And I would not negotiate on that item at all.

Oh, Waco, you're so naive. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Negotiations in the air and rail industries are overseen by the NMB. If you say "no negotiations on that item," then the NMB gets pissed off, and they never release you. That means that you never get a new contract, and management gets to keep their lower costs forever. Besides, even if you did include the provision you're talking about, management would just claim to "interpret" it differently, and it's suddenly a minor dispute, which means you have to go to arbitration. That means you have to "fly it and grieve it." No staying home, you still have to go to work and wait for the arbitrator to rule on whether you're allowed to strike or not. Hint: he'll say that you can't. Doesn't matter what the language says. No arbitrator wants to be the guy who let an employee group strike based on some contract language. He'd never get any arbitration cases again, which means he doesn't get paid.

 

[MikeD]

The judge was pissed. He fined them $40 million and told them (on the record) that if they defied him again, he would personally see to it that the "entire assets of the union would fit into the overhead bin of a Piper Cub.".

Well.......point taken.

 

[Roger Roger]

Forget work actions, not paying people on time or properly is kneecap-busting level stuff.

 

[inigo88]

Doesn't work that way. Under the RLA, there is no "material breach of contract." All there is is a "minor dispute." In RLA parlance, that means a grievance. Contracts are never void just because someone breaches their end of the deal. You go to an arbitrator and he decides who is right. And if he rules in your favor, there still isn't any punitive damages available. It's a "make whole" remedy only.

I've just been reading from the sidelines, but that sucks! I didn't know much about the details of the Railway Labor Act and your efforts to educate are very appreciated. After reading a few paragraphs it seems like the RLA (which was amended to include airline employees in 1936) is the end result of 40 years of legislative response (from the 1880s to 1926) to The Great Railroad Strike of 1877. (<- A really good read, I can't believe I'd never heard of it before.)

So in other words, Airline Pilots in 2012 are being punished for the actions of railroad workers in 1877, with a piece of legislation that hasn't been so much as amended in 76 years. That makes a ton of sense...

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I've just been reading from the sidelines, but that sucks! I didn't know much about the details of the Railway Labor Act and your efforts to educate are very appreciated. After reading a few paragraphs it seems like the RLA (which was amended to include airline employees in 1936) is the end result of 40 years of legislative response (from the 1880s to 1926) to The Great Railroad Strike of 1877. (<- A really good read, I can't believe I'd never heard of it before.)

So in other words, Airline Pilots in 2012 are being punished for the actions of railroad workers in 1877, with a piece of legislation that hasn't been so much as amended in 76 years. That makes a ton of sense...

Work now, grieve later, to prevent "economic disruption."

Wait, isn't that the point of a job action?


Sent from Seat 3D

 

[jynxyjoe]

I don't know how anyone goes to work when you don't get paid. How doesn't that make you sick to your stomach? The majority of pilots at this company really don't care what their paycheck looks like and it's embarrassing. Management doesn't care at all about the company.

Where exactly do we go from here? Toilet.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So in other words, Airline Pilots in 2012 are being punished for the actions of railroad workers in 1877, with a piece of legislation that hasn't been so much as amended in 76 years. That makes a ton of sense...

Well, I don't want to give everyone the impression that the RLA is horrible piece of legislation. It's not. The overriding idea behind the Act, to resolve disputes without involving disruptions to service, is a good goal, and doing it in the way that the Act intended was a good way to handle that. The problem isn't the Act, the problem is really the case law that came later. In fact, most of the bad case law has happened in the past 30 years. Most of the really draconian stuff in the past 15-20 years. The reason is simple: hordes of conservative, anti-labor, pro-business judges in the courts. They have twisted an otherwise good piece of legislation into an anti-labor monstrosity.

Unfortunately, case law can't just go away tomorrow. It's settled law. So the only way to fix it is to pass new legislation, or at least amendments to the existing Act. The only way to do that is to get a Democratic majority in the House, and a 60+ seat majority in the Senate. Since that isn't likely to happen anytime soon, we're pretty much stuck with the Act as it is with all of the bad case law, and we have to figure out how to make that work for us.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Well, I don't want to give everyone the impression that the RLA is horrible piece of legislation. It's not. The overriding idea behind the Act, to resolve disputes without involving disruptions to service, is a good goal, and doing it in the way that the Act intended was a good way to handle that. The problem isn't the Act, the problem is really the case law that came later. In fact, most of the bad case law has happened in the past 30 years. Most of the really draconian stuff in the past 15-20 years. The reason is simple: hordes of conservative, anti-labor, pro-business judges in the courts. They have twisted an otherwise good piece of legislation into an anti-labor monstrosity.

Unfortunately, case law can't just go away tomorrow. It's settled law. So the only way to fix it is to pass new legislation, or at least amendments to the existing Act. The only way to do that is to get a Democratic majority in the House, and a 60+ seat majority in the Senate. Since that isn't likely to happen anytime soon, we're pretty much stuck with the Act as it is with all of the bad case law, and we have to figure out how to make that work for us.

Oh the democrats would still screw it up even if there were no republicans left in the country. Maybe we should focus our attention on the republicans in this country that labor isn't evil.

My understanding is that the railway labor isn't under the RLA, why are we? The current use of the RLA is anti labor, which you admit above, yet there is no push to get out of it. Why don't you just accept a simple reality that the RLA isn't getting any better an we need to move on as other labor groups have? Contracts should expire, not be amended, and this 3-5 year negotiating stint should happen BEFORE the contract expires (of course then it wouldn't take for ever). There will be disruptions, there should be disruptions, and management needs to plan in advance so their business isn't disrupted.

 

[WacoFan]

Oh the democrats would still screw it up even if there were no republicans left in the country. Maybe we should focus our attention on the republicans in this country that labor isn't evil.

My understanding is that the railway labor isn't under the RLA, why are we? The current use of the RLA is anti labor, which you admit above, yet there is no push to get out of it. Why don't you just accept a simple reality that the RLA isn't getting any better an we need to move on as other labor groups have? Contracts should expire, not be amended, and this 3-5 year negotiating stint should happen BEFORE the contract expires (of course then it wouldn't take for ever). There will be disruptions, there should be disruptions, and management needs to plan in advance so their business isn't disrupted.

Everyone wants to focus attention on "Republican's" and I know you are probably thinking of some Republicans, or the caricature of Republican's that the DNC would like you to see. I would tell you that by far most business owners I know of all sizes are Republicans. And all of them feel some variation of what I wrote above regarding keeping your committments to employees. Admittedly, I do not know any airline executives.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Everyone wants to focus attention on "Republican's" and I know you are probably thinking of some Republicans, or the caricature of Republican's that the DNC would like you to see. I would tell you that by far most business owners I know of all sizes are Republicans. And all of them feel some variation of what I wrote above regarding keeping your committments to employees. Admittedly, I do not know any airline executives.

Well I don't disagree. My father was an owner at a consulting firm, never treated his employees like Pinnacle treats them. My business partner owns a medical supplies distribution company, never treated his employees like Pinnacle treats them. My uncle owns a well drilling business, never treated his employees like Pinnacle treats them. My uncle owns a seeding company that bids state contracts, never treated his employees like Pinnacle treats them. They were/are all small business owners though, and I think that's sometimes why things are so different in their worlds.

They are all republicans, they all hate organized labor. There's no real reason for the hate, it's just ingrained.

 

[WacoFan]

Well I don't disagree. My father was an owner at a consulting firm, never treated his employees like Pinnacle treats them. My business partner owns a medical supplies distribution company, never treated his employees like Pinnacle treats them. My uncle owns a well drilling business, never treated his employees like Pinnacle treats them. My uncle owns a seeding company that bids state contracts, never treated his employees like Pinnacle treats them. They were/are all small business owners though, and I think that's sometimes why things are so different in their worlds.

They are all republicans, they all hate organized labor. There's no real reason for the hate, it's just ingrained.

They all hate organized labor because of an individual mindset, independence, and the fact that they are self-starters. Nobody starts a small business just to start one and say they did it. They either have an idea that is good and do not want others to reap most of the benefits of their idea...so they risk all their capital to start a business. OR, the take over an existing business because they can do it better and do not want to run things somebody elses way. There are many reasons - but most of them look at things such as control, etc. Organized labor generally wants you to cede control of who works for you - which impacts the customer experience, your bottom line, etc. Almost every business owner I know is hostile to this. Go back to the "pee in the fridge" thread - ATN, true to his union training, took offense when I said "I'd fire them both - the guy who put the bio-hazard in the fridge as well as the guy who was stealing from co-workers." This didn't even require a lot of thought on my part - in a time of such high unemployment I guarantee I could replace both of them - and probably with cheaper, more qualified help. This caused a great level of hysteria and the thread went pear shaped after that. But, I can do that now - no organized labor in my shop - but with organized labor? I'd have to "re-train", "counsel" and a bunch of other crap that doesn't make me money...which is the entire point of business. The republican thing - I'm not sure that "republican" is so much viewed as an ideal, but there is less hatred for them than democrats by a large margin - due to regulation, tax, etc. But, Republican's also are woefully disappointing - small business just doesn't hate them to the same level as Democrats. Just giving a general overview - and about small business, not large ones (GE) or Wall Street firms which overwhelming prefer democrats - but for much the same motivation - Dems generally help them. It all comes down to self-interest.

 

[BE19Pilot]

It is even more of a dichotomy when you belong to organized labor and dislike them as much as you dislike the company you work for! Not a perfect world in which we live, but the problem as I see it is ALPA"s. Failure to adapt to the airline business model as it continues to evolve. I realize they are forced to be more reactive than proactive with their policies. However, the network of individual associations with a national office and not becoming a true trade union has as much to do with our continuing race to the bottom as any airline board of directors.

 

[jynxyjoe]

They all hate organized labor because of an individual mindset, independence, and the fact that they are self-starters. Nobody starts a small business just to start one and say they did it. They either have an idea that is good and do not want others to reap most of the benefits of their idea...so they risk all their capital to start a business. OR, the take over an existing business because they can do it better and do not want to run things somebody elses way. There are many reasons - but most of them look at things such as control, etc. Organized labor generally wants you to cede control of who works for you - which impacts the customer experience, your bottom line, etc. Almost every business owner I know is hostile to this.

Sure and it comes down to control, illusion of sometimes, and a mindset. It's a foreign concept to me, even as a business owner, because a tribe/family has leaders and followers. One is not better than the other, although in some ways a leader may be able to create all his/her own productivity and exist wholly independent of others. Productivity comes into play next, and since there are no infinitely productive people (in this case leaders) more people must be brought in to help with the workload. Revenue, followup, followthrough, productivity, customer service, image is everyone's focus, and I don't know how all of those can excel without a good working relationship with your labor (organized or otherwise).

The belief that organized labor is somehow handicapped with regard to Revenue, productivity, customer service, or image flies in the face of factual evidence. I'm willing to admit happily there are examples that can go both ways, but it's the active choice to only look at the negative examples that irks me. Even when we, as professional pilots, choose to act professionally and do everything we can for the company, we will still be seen as a hindrance to the bottom line. Maybe we should turn this place into a giant hole (Menke surely trying to steer us that direction) just like Colgan where professionalism and safety are a punchline and productivity of the workforce and cutting corners is the only push. I understand that REVENUE is the attitude indicator by which every business flies, and orders the altimeter and deliveries the speed indicator, but if we could look more than one quarter ahead it's clear that long term strategy includes whatever labor force you have (organized or otherwise) and their strengths.

The republican thing - I'm not sure that "republican" is so much viewed as an ideal, but there is less hatred for them than democrats by a large margin - due to regulation, tax, etc. But, Republican's also are woefully disappointing - small business just doesn't hate them to the same level as Democrats. Just giving a general overview - and about small business, not large ones (GE) or Wall Street firms which overwhelming prefer democrats - but for much the same motivation - Dems generally help them. It all comes down to self-interest.

Sure, democrats are always looking for the social equation which includes regulation and wealth seizure. Small businesses have to find the lesser of two weevils and that is normally the republicans.

 

[WacoFan]

Sure and it comes down to control, illusion of sometimes, and a mindset. It's a foreign concept to me, even as a business owner, because a tribe/family has leaders and followers. One is not better than the other, although in some ways a leader may be able to create all his/her own productivity and exist wholly independent of others. Productivity comes into play next, and since there are no infinitely productive people (in this case leaders) more people must be brought in to help with the workload. Revenue, followup, followthrough, productivity, customer service, image is everyone's focus, and I don't know how all of those can excel without a good working relationship with your labor (organized or otherwise).

The belief that organized labor is somehow handicapped with regard to Revenue, productivity, customer service, or image flies in the face of factual evidence. I'm willing to admit happily there are examples that can go both ways, but it's the active choice to only look at the negative examples that irks me. Even when we, as professional pilots, choose to act professionally and do everything we can for the company, we will still be seen as a hindrance to the bottom line. Maybe we should turn this place into a giant hole (Menke surely trying to steer us that direction) just like Colgan where professionalism and safety are a punchline and productivity of the workforce and cutting corners is the only push. I understand that REVENUE is the attitude indicator by which every business flies, and orders the altimeter and deliveries the speed indicator, but if we could look more than one quarter ahead it's clear that long term strategy includes whatever labor force you have (organized or otherwise) and their strengths.



Sure, democrats are always looking for the social equation which includes regulation and wealth seizure. Small businesses have to find the lesser of two weevils and that is normally the republicans.

Excellent retort - and not to get the thread too far off-track - or perhaps it is its own thread - but many, many small businesses have 1-50 employees. If I want to talk to the employees I talk to them. I have individual reviews and their pay increase is an individual thing based upon their performance. Discipline, likewise, is an individual thing handed down by me or whoever I tell to "Yell at them/discipline them/document their misdeed" or whatever. A union, in my perception, gets in the way of that. Case in point - we have a receptionist/patient check-in type of girl that was rude to customers on three different occasions over the last two weeks. That is unacceptable to me and counter to the perception we have in the community. So, she's toast. I'll fire her Monday (because firing on a Friday is generally not good for the person being fired - they have tall weekend to stew and yet can't look for a job, etc - it's somewhat inhumane). But, bottom line - I can't have that and won't tolerate it. So she's gone. It will also serve as an excellent teachable moment for the others. The neat thing - I can make this decision - no union grievance, no "re-training", no nothing - she's been talked to before, it didn't take, we are going to excrete her like a turd.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Excellent retort - and not to get the thread too far off-track - or perhaps it is its own thread - but many, many small businesses have 1-50 employees. If I want to talk to the employees I talk to them. I have individual reviews and their pay increase is an individual thing based upon their performance. Discipline, likewise, is an individual thing handed down by me or whoever I tell to "Yell at them/discipline them/document their misdeed" or whatever. A union, in my perception, gets in the way of that. Case in point - we have a receptionist/patient check-in type of girl that was rude to customers on three different occasions over the last two weeks. That is unacceptable to me and counter to the perception we have in the community. So, she's toast. I'll fire her Monday (because firing on a Friday is generally not good for the person being fired - they have tall weekend to stew and yet can't look for a job, etc - it's somewhat inhumane). But, bottom line - I can't have that and won't tolerate it. So she's gone. It will also serve as an excellent teachable moment for the others. The neat thing - I can make this decision - no union grievance, no "re-training", no nothing - she's been talked to before, it didn't take, we are going to excrete her like a turd.

Well, I wouldn't few it quite as turd excretement, I completely understand your point. However, if your same company had a talented engineer who was a bit curt or reproachful to a customer who you know to be a problem customer (and we all have them) would you excrete them in a similar fashion? What if it was your highest performing sales rep/manager. Your example here oversimplifies your message to highlight a simple point, employees are replaceable. What if an employee who brings you a great deal of revenue or innovation is the jerk to a customer? Wouldn't it be better to retrain and refine him/her?

 

[WacoFan]

Well, I wouldn't few it quite as turd excretement, I completely understand your point. However, if your same company had a talented engineer who was a bit curt or reproachful to a customer who you know to be a problem customer (and we all have them) would you excrete them in a similar fashion? What if it was your highest performing sales rep/manager. Your example here oversimplifies your message to highlight a simple point, employees are replaceable. What if an employee who brings you a great deal of revenue or innovation is the jerk to a customer? Wouldn't it be better to retrain and refine him/her?

A certain amount of that is up to you as a manager/owner. That's really the key point though - whatever the answers to those decisions (and they would vary) - it would be up to ME - not a union's representation. That's the entire point. I've been in those situations in the past and have handled them differently. But, with a union, you aren't always allowed that leeway (to handle people differently). This are all assumptions of course - but they are shared with a vast majority of the business owners out there. Bottom-line is, if someone wants decision-making input into how the business is run, etc - they can purchase stock from me (if I choose to sell it) - and they can also absorb the risk for the business decisions. Other than that...no, I don't want the input. I'm just telling you the general source of hostility to unions among business owners.

 

[jynxyjoe]

A certain amount of that is up to you as a manager/owner. That's really the key point though - whatever the answers to those decisions (and they would vary) - it would be up to ME - not a union's representation. That's the entire point. I've been in those situations in the past and have handled them differently. But, with a union, you aren't always allowed that leeway (to handle people differently). This are all assumptions of course - but they are shared with a vast majority of the business owners out there. Bottom-line is, if someone wants decision-making input into how the business is run, etc - they can purchase stock from me (if I choose to sell it) - and they can also absorb the risk for the business decisions. Other than that...no, I don't want the input. I'm just telling you the general source of hostility to unions among business owners.

Waco, I wouldn't hear the hostility if there was one anyway, this is all just words on a screen. You can make your points to me without having to apologize while you make them. Continuing on.

I counter that you are free to treat the employees differently. With proper documentation you can exact certain punishment as well as termination to an employee, however that requires managers to do their jobs. We've downgraded and fired pilots at this company, and I would say we have strong union reps. If you have a complaint directed at a particular pilot you have to go through the process, there are few shortcuts when you have a CBA (in which the CBA has outlined an agreed course of punitive actions). The process is fair and treats pilots fairly, however it does not treat them equally. There used to be a lot of contraband magazines pictures in the cockpit years ago, many of those pilots had a letter in their file and a suspension as a result, that it certainly something that will stick with them as they move forward in their career. Some pilots have multiple failures in the sim, that will stick with them. I know of instances where a few pilots wouldn't come to work on reserve (commuters), the union and management couldn't kick them out fast enough. In one particular instance they told the guy he was fired but they were so short staffed they'd let him know when he was fired at a later date so get back to work, that's absolutely inexcusable, you can't have guys in safety roles working while they know they are going to be fired soon. The pilot was treated fairly and fired (I think he quit first) in a timely manner.

You're points all revolve around control, and mine revolve around a fair process. I don't know what this has to do with the inept inbreds that run my company, maybe this should get splintered off into another thread or PM, but it's probably about time we brought it back onto topic.