All unions must eventually support ALPA
- Thread starter sabre
- Start date
This being a hypothetical situation lets take it a step further. Suppose all four Unions form a coalition and create certain set of standards that would work for every member within their respective Union's.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I hate to bring up 1992 again, but if my memory serves me correctly, we tried formed a coalition with the three unions that were on the property. Two of the unions stuck together and the third, well we know the story.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I hate to bring up 1992 again, but if my memory serves me correctly, we tried formed a coalition with the three unions that were on the property. Two of the unions stuck together and the third, well we know the story.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/5/2003 1:18:01 PM diogenes wrote:
Folks, this round is lost. Management caught the right politico-socio-economic environment, and landed a haymaker.
Going forward, it would be wise to;
1. Have all unions agree among themselves to a basic 'Bill of Rights' for all employees. Among those rights should be a framework for wages, pensions, health care, and a safe work environment. Also to protect collective bargaining, and improved means of enforcing contracts.
2. Having agreed upon the framework, work within each union, and with all other unions, to protect that framework. No divide and conquer. No elitism. All for one; one for all.
3. Politically, concentrate on bread and butter issues, and cultivate friends in both parties. Understand the membership is on all sides of social issues such as abortion, prayer in school, or gun control, and stay out of those arenas. Focus on the economic issues we join the union for in the first place.
Just a thought.
[/blockquote]
Ohhhk...
This being a hypothetical situation lets take it a step further. Suppose all four Unions form a coalition and create certain set of standards that would work for every member within their respective Union's.
Now U steps in and is presented with the coalitions issues but said issues interfere with U's strategy to come out of bankruptcy.
From what Ive seen so far U can either give into the coalition forcing ch 7 liquidation because they cant meet the ATSB's requirements, or they can take those issues to the bankruptcy judge and tell him they've done everything required by law to negotiate with the coalition but are facing mass opposition and require all contract's abrogated.
Granted this is a watered down version of how it actually play out but Im sure you get the gist of it
How can the Unions forming a coalition over come the power of a Bankruptcy Judge whose main concern is that of the creditors??
Someone please ... enlighten me. What am I missing here?
----------------
On 2/5/2003 1:18:01 PM diogenes wrote:
Folks, this round is lost. Management caught the right politico-socio-economic environment, and landed a haymaker.
Going forward, it would be wise to;
1. Have all unions agree among themselves to a basic 'Bill of Rights' for all employees. Among those rights should be a framework for wages, pensions, health care, and a safe work environment. Also to protect collective bargaining, and improved means of enforcing contracts.
2. Having agreed upon the framework, work within each union, and with all other unions, to protect that framework. No divide and conquer. No elitism. All for one; one for all.
3. Politically, concentrate on bread and butter issues, and cultivate friends in both parties. Understand the membership is on all sides of social issues such as abortion, prayer in school, or gun control, and stay out of those arenas. Focus on the economic issues we join the union for in the first place.
Just a thought.
[/blockquote]
Ohhhk...
This being a hypothetical situation lets take it a step further. Suppose all four Unions form a coalition and create certain set of standards that would work for every member within their respective Union's.
Now U steps in and is presented with the coalitions issues but said issues interfere with U's strategy to come out of bankruptcy.
From what Ive seen so far U can either give into the coalition forcing ch 7 liquidation because they cant meet the ATSB's requirements, or they can take those issues to the bankruptcy judge and tell him they've done everything required by law to negotiate with the coalition but are facing mass opposition and require all contract's abrogated.
Granted this is a watered down version of how it actually play out but Im sure you get the gist of it
How can the Unions forming a coalition over come the power of a Bankruptcy Judge whose main concern is that of the creditors??
Someone please ... enlighten me. What am I missing here?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 7:12:52 PM pitguy wrote:
Piney,
I pay almost $600 a year in dues and yes I do feel it is 'taxation without representation'.
-------------------------------------------------------
Some pilots believe we in the mechanic group should forgot about 1992 , but I can assure you that most mechanics will never forget the problems the pilots caused during that strike. The actions of the pilots was "unforgivable". We all know if you are going to go out on strike you must be able to go it alone. Meaning you actually have to have a position that can not readily be filled or you can have issues for a successful strike. The pilot group will not strike on the pension issue due to the fact they truly know the monies are needed for keeping this company afloat. The number one reason to have a successful strike is for 'job security'. People will stay out if they feel they would have no job otherwise. Our pilot group does not have the resolve or the reason to have a successful strike and therefore it will never come to be over today's issue. They would cross their own lines in droves.
-I do find it funny how one pilot in here has denied doing any struck work in 1992, but he himself has previously admitted on this very same board that he re-positioned aircraft which is normally done by the mechanics. He also stated that he did 'whatever' was needed to be done such as cleaning planes, etc...
-I have know clue why this is, but in speaking to people who work in hotels and drive the hotel vans and in speaking to others that deal with pilots most say that pilots are arrogant and cheap. They also normally add that there are a few nice ones though. Why this is I do not know, but I have even heard it from military folks too.
----------------
[/blockquote]
BIG AMEN MY BROTHER!
----------------
On 2/6/2003 7:12:52 PM pitguy wrote:
Piney,
I pay almost $600 a year in dues and yes I do feel it is 'taxation without representation'.
-------------------------------------------------------
Some pilots believe we in the mechanic group should forgot about 1992 , but I can assure you that most mechanics will never forget the problems the pilots caused during that strike. The actions of the pilots was "unforgivable". We all know if you are going to go out on strike you must be able to go it alone. Meaning you actually have to have a position that can not readily be filled or you can have issues for a successful strike. The pilot group will not strike on the pension issue due to the fact they truly know the monies are needed for keeping this company afloat. The number one reason to have a successful strike is for 'job security'. People will stay out if they feel they would have no job otherwise. Our pilot group does not have the resolve or the reason to have a successful strike and therefore it will never come to be over today's issue. They would cross their own lines in droves.
-I do find it funny how one pilot in here has denied doing any struck work in 1992, but he himself has previously admitted on this very same board that he re-positioned aircraft which is normally done by the mechanics. He also stated that he did 'whatever' was needed to be done such as cleaning planes, etc...
-I have know clue why this is, but in speaking to people who work in hotels and drive the hotel vans and in speaking to others that deal with pilots most say that pilots are arrogant and cheap. They also normally add that there are a few nice ones though. Why this is I do not know, but I have even heard it from military folks too.
----------------
[/blockquote]
BIG AMEN MY BROTHER!
supercruiser
Advanced
- Dec 5, 2002
- 213
- 11
>>the Article 2b was contracting out of all the work, not just receipt and dispatch, and nowhere did US Air have cleaners doing push backs before the 1992 contract.[<
]>100s of grievances were filed during the 30 day cooling off period, not while we were on strike,
]>100s of grievances were filed during the 30 day cooling off period, not while we were on strike,
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
Well thanks there BOB for accepting my apology.
A320 Driver
A320 Driver
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 1
09 AM supercruiser wrote:
>>the Article 2b was contracting out of all the work, not just receipt and dispatch, and nowhere did US Air have cleaners doing push backs before the 1992 contract.[[
]]100s of grievances were filed during the 30 day cooling off period, not while we were on strike,
----------------
On 2/7/2003 1
09 AM supercruiser wrote: >>the Article 2b was contracting out of all the work, not just receipt and dispatch, and nowhere did US Air have cleaners doing push backs before the 1992 contract.[[
]]100s of grievances were filed during the 30 day cooling off period, not while we were on strike,
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 6:31:43 AM Biffeman wrote:
just like US pilots are doing now by not shutting down #2 engine till ground power is hooked up.
What EXACTLY does this mean?
A320 Driver
----------------
On 2/7/2003 6:31:43 AM Biffeman wrote:
just like US pilots are doing now by not shutting down #2 engine till ground power is hooked up.
What EXACTLY does this mean?
A320 Driver
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 9:58:58 PM tug_slug wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/5/2003 1:18:01 PM diogenes wrote:
Folks, this round is lost. Management caught the right politico-socio-economic environment, and landed a haymaker.
Going forward, it would be wise to;
1. Have all unions agree among themselves to a basic 'Bill of Rights' for all employees. Among those rights should be a framework for wages, pensions, health care, and a safe work environment. Also to protect collective bargaining, and improved means of enforcing contracts.
2. Having agreed upon the framework, work within each union, and with all other unions, to protect that framework. No divide and conquer. No elitism. All for one; one for all.
3. Politically, concentrate on bread and butter issues, and cultivate friends in both parties. Understand the membership is on all sides of social issues such as abortion, prayer in school, or gun control, and stay out of those arenas. Focus on the economic issues we join the union for in the first place.
Just a thought.
[/blockquote]
Ohhhk...
This being a hypothetical situation lets take it a step further. Suppose all four Unions form a coalition and create certain set of standards that would work for every member within their respective Union's.
Now U steps in and is presented with the coalitions issues but said issues interfere with U's strategy to come out of bankruptcy.
From what Ive seen so far U can either give into the coalition forcing ch 7 liquidation because they cant meet the ATSB's requirements, or they can take those issues to the bankruptcy judge and tell him they've done everything required by law to negotiate with the coalition but are facing mass opposition and require all contract's abrogated.
Granted this is a watered down version of how it actually play out but Im sure you get the gist of it
How can the Unions forming a coalition over come the power of a Bankruptcy Judge whose main concern is that of the creditors??
Someone please ... enlighten me. What am I missing here?
----------------
[/blockquote]
-------------------------------------------
Hi Tug Slug,
You're right, and that's why I began my rant with "...this round is lost." In the near to mid-term, we're toast.
What I'm talking about is what should have been done LONG ago. We have paid a huge price for our arrogance and disunity. That arrogance and disunity revealed itself when many union members and their leadership worked to shift the onus of concessions onto other union groups. And management, having taken Mgmt. 101 (Divide and Conquer), beat us like a drum.
So going forward, my question is do we stay arrogant and separated? Or have we learned something? From these posts, I'm not holding out a lot of hope.
----------------
On 2/6/2003 9:58:58 PM tug_slug wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/5/2003 1:18:01 PM diogenes wrote:
Folks, this round is lost. Management caught the right politico-socio-economic environment, and landed a haymaker.
Going forward, it would be wise to;
1. Have all unions agree among themselves to a basic 'Bill of Rights' for all employees. Among those rights should be a framework for wages, pensions, health care, and a safe work environment. Also to protect collective bargaining, and improved means of enforcing contracts.
2. Having agreed upon the framework, work within each union, and with all other unions, to protect that framework. No divide and conquer. No elitism. All for one; one for all.
3. Politically, concentrate on bread and butter issues, and cultivate friends in both parties. Understand the membership is on all sides of social issues such as abortion, prayer in school, or gun control, and stay out of those arenas. Focus on the economic issues we join the union for in the first place.
Just a thought.
[/blockquote]
Ohhhk...
This being a hypothetical situation lets take it a step further. Suppose all four Unions form a coalition and create certain set of standards that would work for every member within their respective Union's.
Now U steps in and is presented with the coalitions issues but said issues interfere with U's strategy to come out of bankruptcy.
From what Ive seen so far U can either give into the coalition forcing ch 7 liquidation because they cant meet the ATSB's requirements, or they can take those issues to the bankruptcy judge and tell him they've done everything required by law to negotiate with the coalition but are facing mass opposition and require all contract's abrogated.
Granted this is a watered down version of how it actually play out but Im sure you get the gist of it
How can the Unions forming a coalition over come the power of a Bankruptcy Judge whose main concern is that of the creditors??
Someone please ... enlighten me. What am I missing here?
----------------
[/blockquote]
-------------------------------------------
Hi Tug Slug,
You're right, and that's why I began my rant with "...this round is lost." In the near to mid-term, we're toast.
What I'm talking about is what should have been done LONG ago. We have paid a huge price for our arrogance and disunity. That arrogance and disunity revealed itself when many union members and their leadership worked to shift the onus of concessions onto other union groups. And management, having taken Mgmt. 101 (Divide and Conquer), beat us like a drum.
So going forward, my question is do we stay arrogant and separated? Or have we learned something? From these posts, I'm not holding out a lot of hope.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
Honest Biffeman, I have never heard of such a thing or even a rumor about it. I shut the #2 down ASAP because of the hazard to the ramp personnel. I'm sure the Chief pilots and ALPA Professional Standards would like specific flights/dates so they can deal with this. Also, Corporate Safety should be involved. Please don't sit on this info if you have access to it.
Thanks,
A320 Driver
Thanks,
A320 Driver
The pilot group is mad about the pension and the change to ACARS, they are leaving both engines running in order to show their displeasure with the above issues. Your alpa brothers and sisters believe this will increase the time of flight pay. By leaving the #2 engine running the ramp cannot begin the staging of equipment to the airplane in order to unload and utility cant service water or lavs until the shutdown, which delays the luggage to the passenger.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Aug 23, 2002
- 2,627
- 945
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 8
47 AM Biffeman wrote:
Straight from the Company and Ground Safety:
Here on the line we have seen an increase in the practice of leaving BOTH engines running on the 737 aircraft until the ground power is connected.
I visited the Assistant Chief Pilot to voice our concerns over this Safety Issue. He confirmed our fears that because of the new pay issues and the issues around the Pension plan changes that they have accepted, some pilots feel they can get 5 minutes more pay by not shutting down the # 2 engine until the ground power is connected.
This situation could result in ground personnel (who normally have accepted that the # 2 engine has been shut down on taxi in) approaching the aircraft bag bins and entering the Ingestion Danger Zones.
The following procedure was put in place several months ago as you may remember. If you encounter this problem inform the Supervisor with a/c # and flight # and time and date.
We have asked fleet service training personnel to warn the fleet service and catering folks of this danger.
Plz feel free to print and post this in your work centers.
Special Bulletin
POTENTIAL ENGINE HAZARD ISSUE
Procedural Change for Ground Power and Conditioned Air Hook-up
This information should be verbally briefed to all employee groups involved in aircraft
ground operations!
The 100 percent use of ground power and conditioned air on all aircraft became effective May 1. Flight crews are informed when ground power and conditioned air are available at the gate, and therefore will not start the APU on arrival. Because of this, the flight crews shut down the right engine (cargo door side) upon parking at the gate for all aircraft except B757, B767 and A330 aircraft. On B757, B767 and A330 aircraft, the flight crews shut down the left engine (main entry door side), due to the proximity of the left engine's intake to the passenger boarding bridge. This means that the right engine (cargo door side) on the B757, B767 and A330 aircraft will remain running until ground power is connected to the aircraft.
It is imperative that all ground personnel and equipment remain clear of the right engine
(both inlet and exhaust) on B757, B767 and A330 aircraft until ground power is hooked up to the aircraft, and the right engine is shut off and spooled down (approximately 60 seconds).
This information should be verbally briefed to each employee involved in aircraft ground operations. Station management should also ensure contract vendor personnel are made aware of this new procedure. Posting this bulletin in a visible area for employees to read is also encouraged after conclusion of your verbal briefings.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Biffe is making stuff up again. Engines running does not, and hasn't for a long time, have anything to do with pay time for pilots. Secondly, sometimes captains wait to see if they might need to shut down the #1 rather than #2 to facilitate hooking up ground power (at some gates the jetway has to be positioned to hook it up). Contrary to Biffe's anti pilot rhetoric there is NO conspiracy.
----------------
On 2/7/2003 8
47 AM Biffeman wrote: Straight from the Company and Ground Safety:
Here on the line we have seen an increase in the practice of leaving BOTH engines running on the 737 aircraft until the ground power is connected.
I visited the Assistant Chief Pilot to voice our concerns over this Safety Issue. He confirmed our fears that because of the new pay issues and the issues around the Pension plan changes that they have accepted, some pilots feel they can get 5 minutes more pay by not shutting down the # 2 engine until the ground power is connected.
This situation could result in ground personnel (who normally have accepted that the # 2 engine has been shut down on taxi in) approaching the aircraft bag bins and entering the Ingestion Danger Zones.
The following procedure was put in place several months ago as you may remember. If you encounter this problem inform the Supervisor with a/c # and flight # and time and date.
We have asked fleet service training personnel to warn the fleet service and catering folks of this danger.
Plz feel free to print and post this in your work centers.
Special Bulletin
POTENTIAL ENGINE HAZARD ISSUE
Procedural Change for Ground Power and Conditioned Air Hook-up
This information should be verbally briefed to all employee groups involved in aircraft
ground operations!
The 100 percent use of ground power and conditioned air on all aircraft became effective May 1. Flight crews are informed when ground power and conditioned air are available at the gate, and therefore will not start the APU on arrival. Because of this, the flight crews shut down the right engine (cargo door side) upon parking at the gate for all aircraft except B757, B767 and A330 aircraft. On B757, B767 and A330 aircraft, the flight crews shut down the left engine (main entry door side), due to the proximity of the left engine's intake to the passenger boarding bridge. This means that the right engine (cargo door side) on the B757, B767 and A330 aircraft will remain running until ground power is connected to the aircraft.
It is imperative that all ground personnel and equipment remain clear of the right engine
(both inlet and exhaust) on B757, B767 and A330 aircraft until ground power is hooked up to the aircraft, and the right engine is shut off and spooled down (approximately 60 seconds).
This information should be verbally briefed to each employee involved in aircraft ground operations. Station management should also ensure contract vendor personnel are made aware of this new procedure. Posting this bulletin in a visible area for employees to read is also encouraged after conclusion of your verbal briefings.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Biffe is making stuff up again. Engines running does not, and hasn't for a long time, have anything to do with pay time for pilots. Secondly, sometimes captains wait to see if they might need to shut down the #1 rather than #2 to facilitate hooking up ground power (at some gates the jetway has to be positioned to hook it up). Contrary to Biffe's anti pilot rhetoric there is NO conspiracy.
FWIW, I fully support each U ALPA member, and will even include Chip, to get a full hearing of the facts, and then act in their interests.
Even though there was a bunch of 'outside agitators', some with an ALPA card in their pocket, attempting to sway my vote, I informed myself as best I could, and voted as I saw fit.
It would be dishonorable to ask ALPA, or anyone else, to act differently.
Luck to us all.
Even though there was a bunch of 'outside agitators', some with an ALPA card in their pocket, attempting to sway my vote, I informed myself as best I could, and voted as I saw fit.
It would be dishonorable to ask ALPA, or anyone else, to act differently.
Luck to us all.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/6/2003 6:43:20 PM PineyBob wrote:
Biffe,
Help me out here please? Roughly how much are the monthly dues for a member of your union local?
Do the majority of you feel you got your monies worth for your dues?
Because I am trying to figure out exactly what those dues got you. If I took it in the shorts like you guys did, I'd be leading the charge to de-certify my union. That way I'd at least be able to buy food with my dues money or a couple cases of Iron City.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hi, PB,
Briefly, the IAM can piss me off mightily sometimes. Having said that, they are a necessary function if you work for U. I made the decision to go to work within the IAM, warts and all, to improve our lot.
And, as airlines organize under the RLA instead of the NLRA, where the rules are very different, decertification at this juncture is suicide.
----------------
On 2/6/2003 6:43:20 PM PineyBob wrote:
Biffe,
Help me out here please? Roughly how much are the monthly dues for a member of your union local?
Do the majority of you feel you got your monies worth for your dues?
Because I am trying to figure out exactly what those dues got you. If I took it in the shorts like you guys did, I'd be leading the charge to de-certify my union. That way I'd at least be able to buy food with my dues money or a couple cases of Iron City.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hi, PB,
Briefly, the IAM can piss me off mightily sometimes. Having said that, they are a necessary function if you work for U. I made the decision to go to work within the IAM, warts and all, to improve our lot.
And, as airlines organize under the RLA instead of the NLRA, where the rules are very different, decertification at this juncture is suicide.
