RLA petition

I love how everyone these days is so quick to jump on the I hate ALPA, Unions, and now the RLA band wagon. I am seeing this all over being posted by people I know have no clue about why or how to even fix this supposed problem. Whoever came up with this needs to show a solid argument/plan of action before I would even consider signing this.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
I love how everyone these days is so quick to jump on the I hate ALPA, Unions, and now the RLA band wagon. In reality they have no idea why they are, nor do they have any better solutions. Easier to point blame than to take action (BTW, making a petition with no plan going forward is not taking action).
Click to expand...
I'm not an airline pilot, so I don't have a dog in the fight.
That said, I can see how having ALPA represent the regionals and the legacys is a conflict of interest. IMO it would be better to have someone else for the little guys.
 
jtrain609 said:
Can you explain this?
Click to expand...

Basically the theory goes that if we get merged into a union carrier, the union will have it's way with us non union types. I've heard everything from we would be stapled to just straight replaced. There's precedent in place to prevent both from happening.

Do I know what will happen in a merger? Of course not. I believe what us more important in determining who gets screwed is not whether you are a union carrier or not, but instead how financially strong your company was at the time of the merger (combined with which one was acquired).

It could end up that being non union is a major disadvantage, but I would rather remain non union, and accept any consequences.

I just find it frustrating when people act like they "know" what will happen. No one does, even with two union carriers. Watch what happens with US Airways. That's going to be interesting.
 
jtrain609 said:
Why can't there be a third act?

First, because there are gramatical mistakes in the petition. How does anybody expect to be taken seriously if they can't proof read their petition?

Second, what would the new law be? Has anybody drafted any proposals? Considered how they'd be adopted?

Third, if there aren't any proposals, then what amendments would be made to the NLRA? As I said to Jimmy earlier in the thread, I think there would need to be amendments due to the nature of how this job functions, but if that didn't happen, what would the result be?

I'm all for changing laws to our advantage, but quite frankly we don't know what we're screwing with when it comes to this stuff. I'm not saying the RLA is exactly advantageous to pilot groups, but I AM saying that things could be MUCH, MUCH worse.
Click to expand...

Oh so this is assuming I'm supporting and arguing in favor of the petition? I'm not. I didn't write the petition nor am I basing my position on the timing or the intent of the petition.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Basically the theory goes that if we get merged into a union carrier, the union will have it's way with us non union types. I've heard everything from we would be stapled to just straight replaced. There's precedent in place to prevent both from happening.

Do I know what will happen in a merger? Of course not. I believe what us more important in determining who gets screwed is not whether you are a union carrier or not, but instead how financially strong your company was at the time of the merger (combined with which one was acquired).

It could end up that being non union is a major disadvantage, but I would rather remain non union, and accept any consequences.

I just find it frustrating when people act like they "know" what will happen. No one does, even with two union carriers. Watch what happens with US Airways. That's going to be interesting.
Click to expand...
Isn't the precedent, more or less, that the Union acquiring carrier basically tells the non or different union how it will go? If JB gets scared enough by threats of non integration I could definately see a screw job. If it gets to arbitration then ya, you might fare well but without protection you are at will of the new union or mainly the new company. Don't forget that most of JB senior Captains have most likely already been screwed before and will do whatever it takes to protect themselves before the JR folk. Merger policy would be helpful...
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Basically the theory goes that if we get merged into a union carrier, the union will have it's way with us non union types. I've heard everything from we would be stapled to just straight replaced. There's precedent in place to prevent both from happening.

Do I know what will happen in a merger? Of course not. I believe what us more important in determining who gets screwed is not whether you are a union carrier or not, but instead how financially strong your company was at the time of the merger (combined with which one was acquired).

It could end up that being non union is a major disadvantage, but I would rather remain non union, and accept any consequences.

I just find it frustrating when people act like they "know" what will happen. No one does, even with two union carriers. Watch what happens with US Airways. That's going to be interesting.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this will happen, and I can't even tell you that what I'm about to say is possible, but consider this for a moment.

Bond-McCaskill says that the integration of seniority lists must be "fair." It does not define what that means, but I think it's safe to say that it means that there won't likely be a staple of two seniority lists.

But other than fair, what does it mean? A 2 to 1 integration? A 3 to 1 integration? If your management group is the agent bargaining with the union carrier you merge with for the seniority list integration, what's to stop the union from agreeing to a pay cut in order to make gains in seniority? Again, it has to be fair, but if I were in management, I would stretch that to the absolute limit. And if I was running the other union, I'd off to take a 10% pay cut across the board in order to get big gains in seniority. Your pilots may take pay cuts in their categories, but if everybody upgrades, then who cares. And if the non-union pilot group doesn't like it, there's likely nothing they can do about it.

Further, I don't think that the financial strength of the companies has anything to do with how the integration goes, but again, I'm not positive enough to say that with a high level of certainty. I will say I've never read of that happening when a case has gone before a tribunal of some sort.

EDIT: I should also add, if you say that management won't do something like this because "they care, and wouldn't want to piss us off," then how would they respond to a share holder that claims that they have breached their fiduciary responsibility to the share holders to maximize the return on their investment? Sure, there's the business judgement rule, but if you could create hundreds of millions in savings by hosing one pilot group, does it still fall within that scope? To be honest, I don't know, but if I was a CEO, I wouldn't want to find out.
 
falconvalley said:
Oh so this is assuming I'm supporting and arguing in favor of the petition? I'm not. I didn't write the petition nor am I basing my position on the timing or the intent of the petition.
Click to expand...

Well, you used the term "we" to describe an association with this concept, so I figured it was safe to assume that since you were ascribing membership in that group of people, that you were in agreement with these ideas.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Do I know what will happen in a merger? Of course not. I believe what us more important in determining who gets screwed is not whether you are a union carrier or not, but instead how financially strong your company was at the time of the merger (combined with which one was acquired).
Click to expand...

Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with how anyone fares in a seniority integration. The financial strength of the carriers is usually given little weight, unless one of them was in bankruptcy and teetering on Chapter 7, and who was acquired is usually completely ignored.

What will matter is how you are represented in the proceedings. Without a union, you are dependent upon management to represent you in negotiations and arbitration. Of course, management's interests are not aligned with your interests. Their interests are aligned with the interests of the acquiring carrier, who they probably have secured jobs or high-dollar consulting agreements with and don't want to piss off.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Most union contracts don't allow for this. Agency shop is standard, which requires you to pay agency fees which are identical to union dues.
Click to expand...

At ASA, the guys who opted out of the union when it was brought onto property never have to pay anything, even though it is an agency shop now. Not many are left, but they do exist.
 
z987k said:
I'm not an airline pilot, so I don't have a dog in the fight.
That said, I can see how having ALPA represent the regionals and the legacys is a conflict of interest. IMO it would be better to have someone else for the little guys.
Click to expand...
Funny, there's a vocal minority of Delta pilots who think the same way.

(They're incorrect.)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Thankfully, most of your fellow pilots are smarter than this.
Click to expand...

Principles are only principles if you keep them when they are also not in your favor.

I'm not a fan of unions, and haven't been since the first brick went through my windshield when I worked for a non union shop in Philly. It would be hypocritical of me to now favor a union simply because it is possibly in my best interest.
 
z987k said:
That said, I can see how having ALPA represent the regionals and the legacys is a conflict of interest. IMO it would be better to have someone else for the little guys.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. The bigger issue is though, how would the regional pilot's union be funded? ALL of the RJ carriers are cash negative. In other words, 1.9% of our meager wages doesn't even come close to funding our local activities, let alone the infrastructure needed to work at a national level. We rely on the 1.9% of the big boys wages to keep things moving along. And really, in the past few years I think that with the way scope has moved, ALPA has been way more beneficial to the regional carriers than the Mainline ones.



PhilosopherPilot said:
At ASA, the guys who opted out of the union when it was brought onto property never have to pay anything, even though it is an agency shop now. Not many are left, but they do exist.
Click to expand...

That's entirely up to the union when it is formed (or you are merged in). We had a list of guys who were exempt from agency shop but during this last section 6, we removed the list from the contract. Obviously, this was a no cost item to the company so they didn't care about it, but the one guy who was still left on the list now has to pay dues AND, also owes back dues (on a captain's rate for the last 18 years).

The real issue that I have isn't you don't like unions. I don't really care about your personal opinion. It's more that you are benefiting from the negotiating and the lobbying and the safety infrastructure that MY (and all the other union pilots in this country) dues dollars have bought. And it makes you greedy to enjoy those benefits with out paying your part. To be clear, I don't know you. I'm not attempting to insult you or call you a bad person. It's just that I think everybody should pull their weight and a pilot group that is non union and yet enjoys ALL the benefits negotiated and pushed for with union dollars frustrates the hell out of me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top