skydog
New Member
When it comes to deciding the question of whether or not to go with union representation, there is one very important thing to remember, and it is this:
Unions cant "give" you anything. Nor can they "get" you anything.
Everything that a union member has, they have because someone in management decided to give it to them. Remember, unions don't sign your paychecks. Management does that. And if managment decides that a certain demand is unacceptable, then they are not going to give it, pure and simple. One need look no further then the 2001 Comair strike as proof of that. Management decided that the pilot group's demands were too much, and opted to take a strike rather than acquiesse. In the end, I'm sure the pilot's got what some of what they wanted, but they didn't get it all. And even if they did, the 3 month strike and the concessions taken later probably cost them all they had gained, if not more.
Another thing to consider: Why does AWAC have what is generally considered a "good" contract, while Mesa has a "bad" contract? I think the difference lies in the people who negotiated it. AWAC is, or at least was, run by good, decent people. No, they did not give their employees everything they wanted, but they offered them a fair deal for the work they do. During negotiations and difficult times, they did their best to work together and do reasonable things. Most importantly, they treated their people fairly and decently. During the whole United/USAir/ALPA concessions dust-up, they comported themselves with decency. They could have declared bankruptcy. They did not. They could have formed an alter-ego. They did not. Instead they committed to working with their employee groups to get consensual solutions to the problems at hand.
Contrast that with MESA, and Jonathon Ornstein. He is the kind of man who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants, regardless of the consequences to others. Nor is he above breaking the law if it suits his interest. Honoring contracts and agreements means nothing to him. Simply put, he is evil. And as long as he and people like him are in charge, that won't change.
My point is this: When I look at SKYW, I see a profitable, successful company that is also, to the greatest extent possible, trying to do right by their employees. That is something you don't often find in this industry. Be thoughtful before voting one way or the other. Are the little things you are pissed off about worth risking the rest of it?
It seems to me that the Skywest organzing drive is being spearheaded by a minority of pilots, perhaps disgruntled by previous employers, or events in their careers. Don't let them speak from the majority.
One last thought. It occurs to me that an unorganzied (read: non-union) Skywest pilot group is more of a threat to ALPA than it is to Skywest pilots.
Unions cant "give" you anything. Nor can they "get" you anything.
Everything that a union member has, they have because someone in management decided to give it to them. Remember, unions don't sign your paychecks. Management does that. And if managment decides that a certain demand is unacceptable, then they are not going to give it, pure and simple. One need look no further then the 2001 Comair strike as proof of that. Management decided that the pilot group's demands were too much, and opted to take a strike rather than acquiesse. In the end, I'm sure the pilot's got what some of what they wanted, but they didn't get it all. And even if they did, the 3 month strike and the concessions taken later probably cost them all they had gained, if not more.
Another thing to consider: Why does AWAC have what is generally considered a "good" contract, while Mesa has a "bad" contract? I think the difference lies in the people who negotiated it. AWAC is, or at least was, run by good, decent people. No, they did not give their employees everything they wanted, but they offered them a fair deal for the work they do. During negotiations and difficult times, they did their best to work together and do reasonable things. Most importantly, they treated their people fairly and decently. During the whole United/USAir/ALPA concessions dust-up, they comported themselves with decency. They could have declared bankruptcy. They did not. They could have formed an alter-ego. They did not. Instead they committed to working with their employee groups to get consensual solutions to the problems at hand.
Contrast that with MESA, and Jonathon Ornstein. He is the kind of man who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants, regardless of the consequences to others. Nor is he above breaking the law if it suits his interest. Honoring contracts and agreements means nothing to him. Simply put, he is evil. And as long as he and people like him are in charge, that won't change.
My point is this: When I look at SKYW, I see a profitable, successful company that is also, to the greatest extent possible, trying to do right by their employees. That is something you don't often find in this industry. Be thoughtful before voting one way or the other. Are the little things you are pissed off about worth risking the rest of it?
It seems to me that the Skywest organzing drive is being spearheaded by a minority of pilots, perhaps disgruntled by previous employers, or events in their careers. Don't let them speak from the majority.
One last thought. It occurs to me that an unorganzied (read: non-union) Skywest pilot group is more of a threat to ALPA than it is to Skywest pilots.
Let's not make too much of it. I used to work for SkyWest, they are a pretty darn' good company from the ground side. We didn't have a union. Why is it that the quality is different?
