Union vs non-Union question...

[Cav]

I have worked at both union and non-union carriers. Only one had a commuter clause and CASS. The others were pre 9-11 so CASS was a non-issue. As far as a commuter clause goes, I have always chosen to live in base so commuting was never an issue for me. I don't believe in commuter clauses. To me, a commuter clause is one of those featherbedding work rules I talked about. To my knowledge it does not exist in any other industry or for any group of employees other than crew members. Its sole reason for existence is to give individual crew members a pass for missing work. I believe it is an individual's responsibility to show up for work, and if they do not, and there is no reasonable explanation for it, then they deserve whatever sanction their employer chooses to levy. An employer has to be able to rely on their employees showing up for work on time. A commuter clause does just the opposite. It protects employees from sanction from missing work because of a personal choice to live in out of base.

As to the healthcare or non-matching 401K employers. The answer is no, I have not worked for one. Not because I haven't had the opportunity, but because I made the choice not to. I once received an offer to go work for Ryan International. I declined it precisley for the reasons you mentioned.

Employers have no obligation to offer any kind of retirement or healthcare benefits at all. To my knowledge there is no law requiring it. Most do because they recognize that they need to in order to attract quality employees. Over the course of my career, most of my employers have been non-union, and nearly all offered at least a decent benefits package, including healthcare and a matching 401K.

Never got to sleep with a scheduler although there have been a few that I wished I could have.

Bottom line: If unions are needed in this industry, it is because there is such a surplus of labor falling all over themselvles and others for the chance to fly an airplane.

Wow, I didn't know that there were pilots out there that felt this way. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier working as a chief pilot?

As for the commuter clause stuff you do realise that many commuter clauses protect those of us that drive to work as well right? At XJT ours protects me from flat tires, accidents, etc. I don't think that we should be punishing people who chose to commute. Sure it is their obligation to get to work but unless they are a habitual offender and thus abuse the system I don't see a problem with having protections in place. In this day in age where carriers, especially regionals, open and close bases rather quickly commuting is a necessary evil.

 

[Baradium]

I am aware of how commuter clauses basically work. Perhaps "a pass" is not the best way to describe it. But it comes down to the the same thing. It is an excuse for missing work because your choice to live out of base worked against you that day. In your situation, where apparently you work for a company that opens and closes bases at the drop of a hat, I can see where a commuter clause can be a necessity. I don't know, I have never been in that situation.

Many airlines won't guarantee bases and you can be moved many times, especially in your first year. ALPA has worked for this because it's one of the advantages of the profession... actually having that choice. Sounds like you don't like clauses because it doesn't help you. Just becuase you don't take advantage of the opportunity doesn't mean that no one else should be able to.

I have not chosen to work at companies with good ALPA contracts. I have chosen to work at good companies that have ALPA contracts. It's a subtle difference perhaps, but a fundamental one. ALPA is at Mesa and TSA too, but I certainly wouldn't go to work at either one. Maybe I am naive, but I think the reason some companies have good ALPA contracts is because the company was good in spite of ALPA, not because of it.

So you've taken advantage of the union contracts but still profess that ALPA didn't do any good?

For any of you that said we don't know what it was like before unions, try reading "Flying the Line." It's a good book and gives a lot of insight into exactly what it took to get unions going. Airlines didn't welcome them with open arms by any means.

If you work for a company that had negotiations with ALPA for bankruptcy proceedings, you can thank ALPA that they didn't just impose much more stringent cuts on you.


And what is with this "if you don't like the pay, don't work for them" that I keep hearing. For someone who complains about unions so much, if you don't like unions then don't work for a union company. You're taking advantage of what the union gives, yet complaining about it for being there.

 

[derg]

Everyone who has read "Flying the Line" please raise your hand.

If your hand isn't raised, please exit the thread, thanks! Have a great day!

 

[cre8flyer]

Everyone who has read "Flying the Line" please raise your hand.

If your hand isn't raised, please exit the thread, thanks! Have a great day!

So. . . professor Doug. . . my hand is not raised. . . but humor me once more and pray tell from whence to obtain the source of wisdom "Flying the Line"?

 

[surreal1221]

So. . . professor Doug. . . my hand is not raised. . . but humor me once more and pray tell from whence to obtain the source of wisdom "Flying the Line"?

Search Flying the Line here on JC. It may not be too late for you to get on the list.

 

[cre8flyer]

. . . pilots are completely fungible. . . . an individual pilot has absolutely no (none, zip, zilch, nada) bargaining power. The only way airline pilots can improve their lot is through collective bargaining and, if necessary, collective job action (strike). An airline can replace one or two pilots easily enough. It can't replace 500.

Doctors and lawyers are fundamentally different because they can set themselves apart and create individual bargaining power for themselves. They can specialize, they can build a large and loyal client base, they can just be extremely good at their jobs.

Sorry to insist. . . but doctors, lawyers and accountants are just as fungible as pilots. Their specialization is like a type rating - in some ways it limits you, but in other ways it limits the competition. Overall, it should (and does) improve your position.

Individual doctors, lawyers, and accountants also do NOT have bargaining power. Most would go out of business if they raised prices above those of their peers (how's that for a "loyal" client base), and there are only very few doctors who are so extremely good at their jobs that they achieve real bargaining power. The big difference is that there is not such a surplus of them underbidding each other, which means that their wages are higher.

I've said it before, and I say it again, anyone who thinks they can get by in the airline environment without collective bargaining and protections needs to have their head examined.

Unions' propogate loyalty by having their supporters hurl insults and deny jumpseats to anyone who questions the justification for unions' existence. This may convince me to join (e.g. if I'm really dependant on a jumpseat), but a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still, i.e. I'm still looking for logical, substantive arguments supporting the value added by unions.

 

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Sorry to insist. . . but doctors, lawyers and accountants are just as fungible as pilots. Their specialization is like a type rating - in some ways it limits you, but in other ways it limits the competition. Overall, it should (and does) improve your position.

Individual doctors, lawyers, and accountants also do NOT have bargaining power. Most would go out of business if they raised prices above those of their peers (how's that for a "loyal" client base), and there are only very few doctors who are so extremely good at their jobs that they achieve real bargaining power. The big difference is that there is not such a surplus of them underbidding each other, which means that their wages are higher.

Right. A type rating (which can be had in a few weeks at any of a number of fine establishments) is the same thing as a specialty in, say, cardiothoracic surgery, which requires a mere 2 years of specialized residency after about 5 years of a general surgery residency. :rotfl:

Bottom line is skilled doctors and lawyers are much in demand and are compensated handsomely. Pilots -- not so much.

(By the way, I said nothing about accountants. Many lower level accountants are cogs, and they, too, could benefit from unionization.)

Edit to add: in some circumstances, it does also make sense for lawyers to unionize. Here, public defenders and many public prosecutors are union.

 

[jtrain609]

So. . . professor Doug. . . my hand is not raised. . . but humor me once more and pray tell from whence to obtain the source of wisdom "Flying the Line"?

Talk with Seggy.

 

[Baradium]

Unions' propogate loyalty by having their supporters hurl insults and deny jumpseats to anyone who questions the justification for unions' existence. This may convince me to join (e.g. if I'm really dependant on a jumpseat), but a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still, i.e. I'm still looking for logical, substantive arguments supporting the value added by unions.

ALPA's official policy is to not use the jumpseat as a political tool. IE, Skywest is non union, but we will let them jumpseat because we want to treat them well and hopefully they will eventually become union.

It's when you get to companies like GoJets and others that have contributed in union busting activities that you see it change.


I'm at a non union airline, work rules would make it all worth it.

 

[Velocipede]

ALPA's official policy is to not use the jumpseat as a political tool.

You should really bone up on Section 115 of the ALPA Admin Manual before you go telling people what the "official policy" is. For your edification, here are a couple direct quotes:

Denial of jumpseat privileges as a means of punishing, coercing or retaliating against other pilot groups or individuals is not supported by ALPA

"Not supported" does not mean prohibited. It means that as a National organization, ALPA says they do not condone this. However, Section 115 also says:

1. ALPA supports the Captain's authority to exclude any person other than required crew from the flight deck if, in his opinion, that person's presence will compromise safety.

Carrying a jumpseater who you are trying to "educate" on the benefits of Unionism is a cockpit distraction. It also says:

1. As representatives of their airline and profession, jumpseat riders must conduct themselves in a manner that is above reproach at all times.

You can make the argument that people who go to work for airlines undercutting your contracts are not conducting themselve above reproach.

1. Host Captains should recognize that a union membership card is another means of identity verification, although not all pilots of represented airlines are union members.

What this is saying is that you can discriminate against scabs and non-Union pilots if you want to.

2. Under the Captain's authority, entry to the flight deck will not be permitted for individuals with whom the Captain or his flight deck crew is not entirely comfortable.

Personally, I'm not comfortable providing free transportation to someone who is cutting my throat. And finally:
The Captain is, and shall always be, the final authority as to admission to the flight deck.
So, all this hogwash:

ALPA's official policy is to not use the jumpseat as a political tool.

is just that...hogwash. Section 115 of the Admin Manual gives Captain's enough outs that they can pretty much use the jumpseat weapon as they see fit.

Get it? Got IT? GOOD!!

 

[NJA_Capt]

The only reason carriers such as GoJets, Freedom, and Skybus are "wrong" is because ALPA has been very successful in seizing the moral high ground and painting those three carriers as evil, union busting.....

Wrong. The reason they are wrong is the GJ and Freedom 1.0 were formed specifically to circumvent established work rules and contracts agreed to by the same management entities. Regardless whether one or both companies are unionized, when one company is formed to circumvent agreements with a previous group it can only be viewed as evil intent.

What's next...TSA Holdings discovers they can cut (GoJet) pilot costs yet again, by hiring High School seniors to ride right seat in exchange for iPods and gas money?

Is there anything wrong with choosing a non-union job over a union job? Not until the non-union shop is merged with a union shop and the non-union guys are stapled to the bottom. But airlines never merge, so you should have nothing to worry about.

How many unions are there for doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, etc.? How is it that these professionals are able to negotiate their own salaries, perks, QOL, work schedules, grievances, etc. etc. on their own (note: without a union)?

Well for starters: The American Medical Association comes to mind.

I haven't seen any really convincing arguments from the many pro-union voices on this thread. Come on guys, give us some convincing reason to believe.

Slowing down the industry? Not quite. What is slowing down the industry is the pilots who are willing to work for free and who are willing to undercut their peers in order to advance themselves. Union or not, NOTHING is going to improve unless the up and coming pilots stop selling out for the promise of a bigger plane or turbine time. The "entitlement generation" is too good for paying dues and believes it deserves an airline job immediately, and they are willing to trade QOL/pay in order to get there sooner. The only thing they are truly advancing is the race to the bottom.

Riddle me this: If the NON-union airlines are so much better, what have THEY done to advance the industry?

 

[Baradium]

is just that...hogwash. Section 115 of the Admin Manual gives Captain's enough outs that they can pretty much use the jumpseat weapon as they see fit.

Get it? Got IT? GOOD!!

When it comes down to it YOU can use the jumpseat how YOU see fit. But NATIONAL says that on a NATIONAL level they are not going to use it as a political tool. That doesn't mean that YOU can't do it, but you are doing it on your own means at that point.

I *never* said that using a jumpseat as a political tool was prohibited.

Denial of jumpseat privileges as a means of punishing, coercing or retaliating against other pilot groups or individuals is not supported by ALPA

That's a policy. I never said it was prohibited. I apologize as I believe you misunderstood my point. I mean, I can find minor areas where I have a procedural disagreement with you on this, but you're arguing points that I never brought up.


Let me try to make this clear. I completely and 100% support your authority to deny boarding to anyone you are not comfortable with, especially jumpseaters. I might not agree with your decisions in using that authority, but I will still support your authority. This is also the position of ALPA National. They prefer it not be used but will not stop you from doing it. That's their policy, and that's all I said.


They do not prohibit anything in their policy, they just hold that they will not ask for it to be used that way.


Is this a better explanation?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Baradium, you need to read between the lines here. What ALPA puts out in official communications sometimes shouldn't quite be taken at face value. For instance, the TSA MEC put out a letter to their pilots with a "neutral" recommendation before the vote on the concessionary TA dealing with the GoJet fiasco. Do you think the TSA MEC was really neutral? Of course not. You're intended to read between the lines and realize that they really want you to vote NO, but it's not politically prudent for them to say that publicly.

Same thing here with the jumpseat issue. It wouldn't be politically prudent to issue official communications to the pilot group telling Captains to deny jumpseats to non-union pilots. Such an official position might make it difficult to organize said pilots later on. Does that mean that ALPA really doesn't want you to deny them jumpseats? You decide for yourself, but I'll say this: most union reps are very selective about who they let on their jumpseat. SCABs, Freedom-A pilots, and GoJet pilots were not welcome on my jumpseat.

 

[Baradium]

Same thing here with the jumpseat issue. It wouldn't be politically prudent to issue official communications to the pilot group telling Captains to deny jumpseats to non-union pilots. Such an official position might make it difficult to organize said pilots later on. Does that mean that ALPA really doesn't want you to deny them jumpseats? You decide for yourself, but I'll say this: most union reps are very selective about who they let on their jumpseat. SCABs, Freedom-A pilots, and GoJet pilots were not welcome on my jumpseat.

I do see your point, but I think they are trying to differentiate from being non union to being anti-union.

Here's my take on it:

ALPA doesn't like the idea of allowing scabs or other pilots who have done something anti union or belong to an anti union airline in the seat (see the movement to flat out not have agreements with gojets at all). However, non union airlines who they are trying to unionize is a different matter.

Here's the article that I mainly used to arrive to that conclusion:
http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/...View.aspx?itemid=3584&ModuleId=3052&Tabid=256

That is from the National Jumpseat Committee. The specific area it is addressed in is on page 2, second collumn.

Edits:

Something I feel strongly about here is that I do not believe someone at say skywest should be lumped together and given the same treatment as a pilot at gojets.

I'll give you an example that is a little closer to home as well. I work for a non union airline out of Fairbanks. That narrows it down exactly zero because we do not have a single union company operating out of Fairbanks. The only union pilots that ever come through are Alaska (which doesn't go to the bush) and Era (doing charters). So I work for a non union airline but I came on offering pretty darn close to zero competition to union pilots. I would like to see us unionized within the next year (and management does a really good job of making sure pilots wish one was around). I really would like to think that I can seperate where I am at from say a guy at Gojets who shafted TSA. I do not wished to be equated to anything like the likes of them and do not think it is neccessary.

I do apologize if I read into things wrong, but I've been trying pretty hard to stay on top of things.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I agree with you about not lumping pilots at non-union carriers into the same group as SCABs and GoJet pseudo-SCABs. Skywest and Colgan are perfect examples. They have active organizing drives going on, and sizable portions of both pilot groups are very pro-ALPA. I would never automatically deny pilots from these groups access to the jumpseat. However, they might get a few probing questions from me first.

Skybus and Virgin America are different cases, though. I've seen no evidence from these pilot groups that they are interested in organizing. Until they are, I see no reason to offer them a professional courtesy while they try to undercut me and destroy my profession.

 

[surreal1221]

So what happens if the hypothetical situation of SKW or Colgan voting No to ALPA?

Is that now the right time to cast stones? At least towards those who profess that they voted no? If you can find them?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

In that case, I would simply ask the guy how he voted. He can certainly lie, but I'll take him at his word. If he would admit to voting no, then no jumpseat for him.

 

[kellwolf]

Sorry to insist. . . but doctors, lawyers and accountants are just as fungible as pilots. Their specialization is like a type rating - in some ways it limits you, but in other ways it limits the competition. Overall, it should (and does) improve your position.

I'm with Minnesota Flyer here. Type ratings and doctor specializations are no where NEAR the same thing. I can go down to Bob's House of Flight Training with a CRJ sim, plop down $10K and walk away with a type rating. I still get paid the same as an FO, the only difference is I have a type rating. Look at all the guys that went through the CAPT program. They have DC-9 type ratings. One was in my class at PCL. They can't demand a higher pay rate b/c they have type ratings. The guy with the DC-9 type makes the same as I do even though he's got a type rating.

Individual doctors, lawyers, and accountants also do NOT have bargaining power. Most would go out of business if they raised prices above those of their peers (how's that for a "loyal" client base), and there are only very few doctors who are so extremely good at their jobs that they achieve real bargaining power. The big difference is that there is not such a surplus of them underbidding each other, which means that their wages are higher.

I disagree. If word gets out that a doctor is highly skilled and worth the extra money, people will pay it. I know people that fly from FL to see a Lasik specialist in CA and pay more just so they know the procedure is done correctly. Doesn't matter if I can grease a CRJ onto the touchdown markers without the passengers feeling a thing or if I can get through t-storms in the summer without any bumps. I still get paid the same as the guy that crunches it on and bounces people all over the place. My skill doesn't mean I can demand a higher salary. Doctors with a reputation of skill CAN demand higher salaries.

Unions' propogate loyalty by having their supporters hurl insults and deny jumpseats to anyone who questions the justification for unions' existence. This may convince me to join (e.g. if I'm really dependant on a jumpseat), but a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still, i.e. I'm still looking for logical, substantive arguments supporting the value added by unions.

I think you've confused some union MEMBERS with the union as a whole. As a memeber of ALPA, when I come across someone that wants to know more and how the union can help his standing at an airline, I don't say "Well, you need it or you're stupid." I ask for specific instances of what made him think of needing a union in the first place and address (honestly) what ALPA can (and more importantly CAN'T) do in those situations. I don't insult and I don't (or in my case won't) deny jumpseats to get a point across. That always does more harm than good.