RLA petition

BobDDuck said:
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.
Click to expand...
Having worked at an ALPA carrier, and now working at a non-ALPA one, I'll say this: the benefits of the Association are far beyond the mere representation and collective bargaining (e.g., the 'union' stuff). The professional services and safety-related things that ALPA does for its membership are pretty awesome, and while certain carriers may have similar programs, they're not on an equal footing.

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).
Click to expand...
That last part seems pretty lousy, really. I understand it, but it seems sort of thuggish or otherwise nasty. 18 years worth of dues is a not inconsequential sum of money, even at CRJ rates.

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.
Click to expand...
See paragraph 1--we definitely do not enjoy 'all' the benefits negotiated and pushed for with union money.
 
jtrain609 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Layers of specificity, Mr Lawyer Guy! I'm not totally against a complete repeal because I think it is recognized that we have our own legislation for a good reason and that will be in mind, BUT if amendment is to happen, it would probably be less complicated. Besides, how many times have laws been "overlooked" in cases like this. I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't risks or that groups will not attempt to capitalize on opportunities to dilute our bargaining power, but I'm not in favor of status quo.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Your definition of principle leaves much to be desired.
Click to expand...


My point is that it's pretty darn easy to stick to your beliefs or principles if they align with your interests. The real test comes when they do not perfectly align, right? How can I be anti-union my entire adult life, then vote yes to one now that it could serve my interests? Doesn't that sound hypocritical?
 
jtrain609 said:
I'd be real interested to know the details on that one, because something tells me there's more to the story.
Click to expand...


I wasn't there at the time, so I don't know the whole story. But there were a significant number of guys that opted out, and did not pay anything. The next contract voted in agency shop, and they were grandfathered in. No idea how/why.
 
BobDDuck said:
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.
Click to expand...


I understand your position. I'm also frustrated by having to pay money to an organization that I do not agree with. I was willing to accept it at the regional I worked for because I went there knowing the union existed. But now I've been able to get hired at a non-union place. It seems fair to me that if I vote no, and don't join the union, I shouldn't have to pay the agency fees that I voted no on.

That being said, if/when a union is voted onto property, I will join the union because if one cent of my pay is going to the union, I want to have say into how it operates (a vote).

I hold no ill-will towards any union promoters. To each, his own.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
My point is that it's pretty darn easy to stick to your beliefs or principles if they align with your interests. The real test comes when they do not perfectly align, right? How can I be anti-union my entire adult life, then vote yes to one now that it could serve my interests? Doesn't that sound hypocritical?
Click to expand...
I respect that. I know that doesn't mean anything but I like your morals.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
See paragraph 1--we definitely do not enjoy 'all' the benefits negotiated and pushed for with union money.
Click to expand...

We've seen this conversation before.

FTDT. TCAS. GPWS ASAP. FOQA. EMAS. Cabotage protection. McCaskill-Bond merger protection. Your current pay rates. Positive aeromedical changes (anti depressants, yearly 1st class for under 40 etc.)

I think you enjoy most of them.
 
BobDDuck said:
We've seen this conversation before.

FTDT. TCAS. GPWS ASAP. FOQA. EMAS. Cabotage protection. McCaskill-Bond merger protection. Your current pay rates. Positive aeromedical changes (anti depressants, yearly 1st class for under 40 etc.)

I think you enjoy most of them.
Click to expand...
Can't (won't) argue that.

It's by no means feature parity.
 
HVYMETALDRVR said:
This came up on our union forums today, I didn't write it but have permission to post it on here. And yes, I'm aware of the misspellings also (again I didn't write it). If I understand correctly if we get the required 25,000 signatures, the white house is required to respond.

For the betterment and safety of our industry! :D

http://wh.gov/Snd1
Click to expand...

Both the railroad and aviation industry are bound by rules that forbid them to take action when their Companies drag their feet for years at the negotiating table instead of improving the workers' wages and life by increasing pay to meet today's cost of living. We need improved regulation because the current Railway Labor Act (under which the aviation industry is bound as well) was written in 1926 and last amended in 1936. 77 years later we still work under these old rules.

I find the premise interesting. The petitioner posits the false premise that the RLA was meant serve the interest of workers. It was designed to meet the needs of the country at large. It was based on the idea that an interupption in rail service (air service was added later) was deemed to be too detrimental to the economic and strategic needs of the country, and that every effort should be made to avoid a strike. There is nothing "wrong" with the RLA. It work exactly as intended to work, given the relatively few number of strikes we have had.
 
rocketman5150 said:
Both the railroad and aviation industry are bound by rules that forbid them to take action when their Companies drag their feet for years at the negotiating table instead of improving the workers' wages and life by increasing pay to meet today's cost of living. We need improved regulation because the current Railway Labor Act (under which the aviation industry is bound as well) was written in 1926 and last amended in 1936. 77 years later we still work under these old rules.

I find the premise interesting. The petitioner posits the false premise that the RLA was meant serve the interest of workers. It was designed to meet the needs of the country at large. It was based on the idea that an interupption in rail service (air service was added later) was deemed to be too detrimental to the economic and strategic needs of the country, and that every effort should be made to avoid a strike. There is nothing "wrong" with the RLA. It work exactly as intended to work, given the relatively few number of strikes we have had.
Click to expand...

The petition will fail because the guy knows very little about the RLA (among other reasons why many randomly created petitions fail). He started this petition because he was frustrated that his airing of grievances with the process was met with "what are YOU doing to help?" So he threw this together.
 
falconvalley said:
The petition will fail because the guy knows very little about the RLA (among other reasons why many randomly created petitions fail). He started this petition because he was frustrated that his airing of grievances with the process was met with "what are YOU doing to help?" So he threw this together.
Click to expand...

Maybe he should do something productive instead.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
My point is that it's pretty darn easy to stick to your beliefs or principles if they align with your interests. The real test comes when they do not perfectly align, right? How can I be anti-union my entire adult life, then vote yes to one now that it could serve my interests? Doesn't that sound hypocritical?
Click to expand...

No. Changing your opinions based upon new facts and information is what we call learning.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No. Changing your opinions based upon new facts and information is what we call learning.
Click to expand...

I'm opposed to unions for philosophical reasons. Like I said, I'm opposed to them in principle. If anything, my experience with the airline type unions has only reinforced my position.

So take your condescension, and shove it.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No. Changing your opinions based upon new facts and information is what we call learning.
Click to expand...

You're confusing a change in information with a change in interest.

If the only change is that my interests have changed, I should not change my position.

I guess the "me" generation runs strong here.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm opposed to unions for philosophical reasons. Like I said, I'm opposed to them in principle. If anything, my experience with the airline type unions has only reinforced my position.

So take your condescension, and shove it.
Click to expand...

What's your philosophical opposition to unions?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The next time you get your paycheck, remember to thank a union thug. You wouldn't have a fraction of it without us. I think you know where you can put your "principles."
Click to expand...

I never said union thug...

In any case, part of the problem in our industry is a disregard for principles. Hell, it's a problem with our modern culture.

So you just keep on acting without principle. I would expect nothing less.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm opposed to unions for philosophical reasons. Like I said, I'm opposed to them in principle. If anything, my experience with the airline type unions has only reinforced my position.

So take your condescension, and shove it.
Click to expand...
A union is essentially the same exact thing as most corporations. A group of people coming together for economic and financial reasons to accomplish something together that they cannot accomplish alone.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
A union is essentially the same exact thing as most corporations. A group of people coming together for economic and financial reasons to accomplish something together that they cannot accomplish alone.
Click to expand...

A union is not at all like a corporation. A corporation is a group of people working together in a common interest to make a profit. A union is a group of people coming together for the purpose of taking that profit from the corporation. The former produces something; the latter does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top