Question for Union people

WacoFan

Bigly
I am not sure where to post this thread that would be appropriate, so I am dumping it in the Lav.

To those much more knowledgable about unions - has there ever been a situation in labor history that parallels the ALPA/USAPA deal? I am not talking about moving from one union to another, or going from a union to an in-house union, but a move to create a union based upon a division of employee interests?

Just trying to learn, not flame - if appropriate lock the thread and PCL and others can PM me the answers. Thanks!
 

MQAAord

Scheherazade
Staff member
I actually think it's a very fair, appropriate and legit question.

Here's hoping for a quality, respectful discussion :)
 

WacoFan

Bigly
Also, it doesn't neccesarily have to be in the airline biz. Mostly looking for similiar fact patterns and what the outcome of those moves were - what were the outcomes for both groups, particularly the disenfranchised group. Thank you - looking forward to learning.
 

OldTownPilot

Well-Known Member
I think NWA's mechanics did same thing.
The union went on strike, a bunch of scabs came in. They might have organized an inhouse union. I don't know.

Or would this have been a red book/blue book deal back in the days of the 'real' republic airlines?
 

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
The closest thing *I* can think of is the split of American Airlines from ALPA to form APA. Really formed an in-house union, but there was a chunk of American pilots that were against it. Some even still paid dues to ALPA, and ALPA kept them on as members.
 

WacoFan

Bigly
The closest thing *I* can think of is the split of American Airlines from ALPA to form APA. Really formed an in-house union, but there was a chunk of American pilots that were against it. Some even still paid dues to ALPA, and ALPA kept them on as members.
Why the division? Also, how long did ALPA keep them as members, and did they offer to allow AWA guys to stay in ALPA?
 

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
Why the division? Also, how long did ALPA keep them as members, and did they offer to allow AWA guys to stay in ALPA?
Division was political. I'm sure PCL_128 knows a bit more on the subject, but this is how I understand it. AA used to be the bulldogs in ALPA, but they never held the presidency. They felt the other airlines were keeping them down and essentially took their ball and went home in huff. The MEC made some backdoor deals with management over some issues I can't recall off the top of my head that went against ALPA policy, and that was that. ALPA kept the pilots that wanted to stay members for as long as they wanted. Most stuck with ALPA all the way until retirement. Not sure if ALPA offered to let the AWA guys stay, but it's a different era now, so probably not.
 

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
Flying The Line Vol I covers the American split from ALPA.

I have a copy that'll end up going up for a free offering here shortly.
 

IrishSheepdog

Sitting in the median
What about FedEx? Didn't they go from ALPA to their own in-house union, only to come back to ALPA in recent times?
 

WacoFan

Bigly
OK, this will be controversial.

APA going from ALPA I can kind of understand as well as the FedEx guys. There were some that didn't agree, but I don't think either was done to segregate a portion of the group and enforce things that benefited one group over the other - correct? The guys who formed APA didn't want to be vindictive to the AA guys who voted for ALPA by placing them lower on the seniority list, etc.

OK - here is the controversial part. CAL still has many SCABS on property, the union has "forgiven" them, and I believe many are active in the CAL MEC(or have been in the past). Could a parallel be drawn by having SCABS on the MEC that work for sub-standard contracts to what USAPA is doing? Sorry if the logic meanders.
 

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
Could a parallel be drawn by having SCABS on the MEC that work for sub-standard contracts to what USAPA is doing? Sorry if the logic meanders.
I'm really not following that one.

USAPA was formed because the majority of the AAA guys felt that ALPA had failed them over the years and it was time for something different. The issue they catalyzed around was their perceived loss of seniority due to the Nic award.

CAL has/had a bunch of scabs on property because ALPA needed money so they decided to selectively forgive guys who crossed lines in order to retain their income stream.

I don't see a commonality.
 

WacoFan

Bigly
I'm really not following that one.

USAPA was formed because the majority of the AAA guys felt that ALPA had failed them over the years and it was time for something different. The issue they catalyzed around was their perceived loss of seniority due to the Nic award.

CAL has/had a bunch of scabs on property because ALPA needed money so they decided to selectively forgive guys who crossed lines in order to retain their income stream.

I don't see a commonality.
No real commonality except for undesirable union leadership. USAPA wants to staple AWA. I have heard many CAL guys talk about the substandard contract negotiated by people that were SCABS, and implying that they were "in managements back pocket". Thoguht being, if that is true you have two groups that are working in opposition to the group. My question has always been though - how did the CAL SCABS get elected to any union post to begin with? Doesn't it take a majority vote?
 

SlumTodd_Millionaire

Evil Landlord Capitalist
USAPA was formed because the majority of the AAA guys felt that ALPA had failed them over the years and it was time for something different.
uSAPa was formed because the Easties couldn't accept that they screwed themselves over in how they handled the SLI arbitration, and they wanted an easy scapegoat.

CAL has/had a bunch of scabs on property because ALPA needed money so they decided to selectively forgive guys who crossed lines in order to retain their income stream.
Come on, you're smarter than this. Money had absolutely nothing to do with it. ALPA was doing quite fine on revenue at the time. You should talk to some of the reps that were on the BOD at the time. This wasn't about money, it was about showing loyalty to the good strikers who stood their ground the entire strike, even though they knew they were being beaten. They wanted back in ALPA bad, and the only way to make that happen was to get the SCABs on board also. So, the compromise had to be made, otherwise the vote would have failed. There were simply too many SCABs to win the vote without their support.

My question has always been though - how did the CAL SCABS get elected to any union post to begin with? Doesn't it take a majority vote?
Believe it or not, the SCABs were the majority for a while. There are still hundreds of them on property even now, 25 years after the start of the strike. Remember, there were thousands of them in the beginning.
 

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Come on, you're smarter than this. Money had absolutely nothing to do with it. ALPA was doing quite fine on revenue at the time. You should talk to some of the reps that were on the BOD at the time. This wasn't about money, it was about showing loyalty to the good strikers who stood their ground the entire strike, even though they knew they were being beaten. They wanted back in ALPA bad, and the only way to make that happen was to get the SCABs on board also. So, the compromise had to be made, otherwise the vote would have failed. There were simply too many SCABs to win the vote without their support.
Todd I know you are smarter than this. My CA this trip is a hard core ALPA man. He has the battle star for his work. His dad worked for CA Rickenbacker. The man has taken me to school about ALPA and Unions, and has help me see the light. He was telling me it was all about the money with CAL.
 
Top