ALPA/USAPA Topic for week of 1/24 to 1/31

[BoeingBoy]

SkyWest....... 65% voted against ALPA representation.

Colgan Air pilots reject ALPA

Actually, in both cases less than 50% bothered to vote - hence no union was elected CBA. Of course, one could leap to the conclusion that all the non-votes were actually "No" votes, but that is merely conjecture.

Jim

 

[end_of_alpa]

I find your story highly suspect AWA320. First, I flew all week last week and never had anyone approach me in the jetway or otherwise. Secondly, why would someone fill out a card to avoid a "conflict"? Would it not be easier to just say, "I already sent one in yesterday"? To be able to get 3000 replacement cards in one weeks time should tell you that there is finally some real solidarity on part of this property.

Solidarity...now that is the concept that BAFFLES AWA320....he doesn't recognize it, ergo the short circuit in his defamation role. Typical liberal. Shoot the messengers. It's the lawyers fault! USAPA clowns. Turn coats.

It's LABOR making descisions about who is going to represent them. If you wish to accuse us of being crooks....PLEASE POST IT NOW SO I CAN SHOW IT TO MORE EAST PILOTS AND GET MORE VOTES! Thanks for your recruiting effort on our behalf.

By the way, what happened to you USAPA/ALPA goat recuiting tape on u-tube?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Actually, in both cases less than 50% bothered to vote - hence no union was elected CBA. Of course, one could leap to the conclusion that all the non-votes were actually "No" votes, but that is merely conjecture.

Jim

If the majority did bother to vote I would count that as a no vote.

 

[end_of_alpa]

This is a warning to everyone who posts in this thread to stay on the topic & do NOT make it about other posters. Time off awaits.

We ALL could use some of that thar cornnnnfielllddd lick-her! What happened to Richard? He on vacation?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Hot off the ALPA web boards. A poster with the same avatar as AWA320 posted this comment:

Great news just in. USAPA has committed VOTER FRAUD identified by the NMB. They are begging for cards because they realize they may face racketeer charges concerning the illegal use of union dues money to union bust. We can PETITION in numbers here out West for an investigation. Since the East has nothing going on (JNC) maybe the East will join us since USAPA has grafted money from East pilots by making false claims such as overturning a final and binding arbitration award.

I knew you are a ALPA supporter so I thought I would let you know first.

Thanks for your ALPA support.

Support the West pilots whom are petitioning for an investigation concerning illegal use of union dues money. (Racketeering) Join the West and lets seek damages.

If the moderators on this forum think the personal attacks and in-fighting are bad here you should be playing on the "professional" web-boards ALPA has. The reason FEW, if ANY, East pilots even engage on THAT forum is their names are REVEALED.

So as to NOT allow their names to denigrate their postings like this example, they WON'T post! Others, however, have no respect for their own names and therefore get no respect. The problem with this forum is that the motives of a few post on here to try and DIVIDE the overwhelming UNITY of the US Airways pilots...pariahs among the pilot unions for so long. Well, no longer.

We'd rather rule in he'll than serve in heaven...especially with the respect we've been getting on this forum and the ALPA forum.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Another beautiful ALPA forum post:

"DAL, NWA and UAL should be concerned with what US Airways East ALPA reps are promoting (USAPA) with ALPA dues money (ALPA communications)

USAPA supporters have "crossed our negotiating picket line" Lorenzo would be proud.

http://www.dailymotion.com/ImpactCom/video...s-alpa_business

PROUD TO BE REPRESENTED BY ALPA and fight picket line crossing "goat herders" (USAPA)"

He must be a member of the AWA Concerned Pilots Committee.

Don't bother clicking on the link, however....ALPA took it down.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Actually, in both cases less than 50% bothered to vote - hence no union was elected CBA. Of course, one could leap to the conclusion that all the non-votes were actually "No" votes, but that is merely conjecture.

Jim

A true Participative Democracy works with reverse effects as well! If the majority of eligible voters doesn't want it, they simply don't vote. The intent of the majority is protected. SHOULD work that way at the Federal and State levels as well. Then if you don't vote you go unrepresented. That might even make politics better...forcing better people to sell you on why you SHOULD vote.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If the majority did bother to vote I would count that as a no vote.

And you would be right.....if the majority did bother to vote as you said.

I suspect, however, that you omitted one word - "did not bother to vote" - from your reply. If that suspicion is correct, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Particularly in the Colgan case, however, merely 4 people neglecting to vote for whatever reason - even if they'd voted "no" or for a different union (as some did) - changed the outcome. Could it be that 4 eligible voters just neglected to vote for some reason besides dislike of ALPA (or wanting to remain non-union)?

It'll be interesting to see what percentage of eligible voters in the USAPA election don't vote. Would you consider them as "No" votes for USAPA, especially if they plus the ALPA voters represent a majority of eligible voters?

Jim

ps - just so the record is complete, over 98% of votes cast in the Colgan election were for ALPA. At Skywest, it was over 99%.

pps - didn't see your 2nd reply until I posted this. Are you saying that the only reason anyone doesn't cast a vote in a representational election is because they don't want the representation listed on the ballot? There can never be any other reason?

 

[end_of_alpa]

And you would be right.....if the majority did bother to vote as you said.

I suspect, however, that you omitted one word - "did not bother to vote" - from your reply. If that suspicion is correct, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Particularly in the Colgan case, however, merely 4 people neglecting to vote for whatever reason - even if they'd voted "no" or for a different union (as some did) - changed the outcome. Could it be that 4 eligible voters just neglected to vote for some reason besides dislike of ALPA (or wanting to remain non-union)?

It'll be interesting to see what percentage of eligible voters in the USAPA election don't vote. Would you consider them as "No" votes for USAPA, especially if they plus the ALPA voters represent a majority of eligible voters?

Jim

ps - just so the record is complete, over 98% of votes cast in the Colgan election were for ALPA. At Skywest, it was over 99%.

pps - didn't see your 2nd reply until I posted this. Are you saying that the only reason anyone doesn't cast a vote in a representational election is because they don't want the representation listed on the ballot? There can never be any other reason?

I'm not attributing anything more than what YOU said. In fact, I agree with you. I'm simply looking at the EFFECT, not the cause. There could be any number of reasons why SOMEONE doesn't vote. What I would imply is that if you don't vote you are in effect voting no. But that would depend.

For example, a craft or class has 101 eligible voters. 51 vote. 50 yes for ANY union and 1 no for no union. The force of those who DIDN'T vote had the effect of a NO vote. There simply wasn't enough interest in the representations you mentioned to overcome the obstacle. I don't know why they didn't vote either. It is inferrence. I'm just referring to effect. This is different than, say voting a contract in where simple majority votes and wins. That is why in our TA it IS important to vote yes or no because simple majority wins it. I would suspect, however, that the guys and gals at Colgan and Skywest knew the effect of not voting in a Representational election. In short, they were educated on the process.

As far as a vote for USAPA, I agree with you. The result COULD be the same. However, I understand the card count replenishment is over +3,000 now. I am not inferring anything here more than an election is very likely to occur. If it took only one and a half weeks to replenish the cards to the level we had with the NMB filing a strong case could be made as to how these pilots will vote.

However, well have to wait for the election to find out.

Gotta go. Nice job.

 

[BoeingBoy]

What I would imply is that if you don't vote you are in effect voting no.

In this we agree - in a representational election the effect of not voting is the same as voting for no representation.

However, what you said - "If the majority of eligible voters doesn't want it, they simply don't vote. The intent of the majority is protected" - implies that not voting has a direct correlation with intent, since "intent" is protected. It is that blanket statement which I question, although I'm sure it is the intent behind some portion of non-voters (especially with only one choice is listed on the ballot).

Jim

 

[sharktooth]

So you are stating here on open forum that usapa supporters did not use catcrew to locate pilots that had not turned in cards then met those pilots in the jetway when they arrived or were taking off for a flight. I want you to post how usapa did not use this tactic for card gathering...

Seems like a lot of work, using catcrew to "locate" pilots. Would you not have to go, trip number by trip number, each day?

Do you use catcrew? Tell us how you would go about locating pilots that would not take all day, please.

 

[sharktooth]

They both had to vote against the merger to veto it, Peterpaul(the IAM board member) voted for it, the rest as they say......is history.

As I said, Capt. Dubinsky did not have veto power. He did have "super-seniority" in that respect but not veto power.

 

[end_of_alpa]

In this we agree - in a representational election the effect of not voting is the same as voting for no representation.

However, what you said - "If the majority of eligible voters doesn't want it, they simply don't vote. The intent of the majority is protected" - implies that not voting has a direct correlation with intent, since "intent" is protected. It is that blanket statement which I question, although I'm sure it is the intent behind some portion of non-voters (especially with only one choice is listed on the ballot).

Jim

Yeah, I see what you mean. It is hard to "sift" intent from a non-voter...so I guess it should be refraised. I guess though the case could be made that if the eligible voters we educated on their non-vote being considered a no vote then the intent could be presumed without having to "vote no". The point I guess I was trying to make was that it is normally required for you to vote no in a simple majority vote that we're all used to. That's all. In a representational election it is unlike or normal political election system. That's all.

 

[EastUS]

Actually, in both cases less than 50% bothered to vote - hence no union was elected CBA. Of course, one could leap to the conclusion that all the non-votes were actually "No" votes, but that is merely conjecture.

Jim

What's not subject to conjecture is that the group did indeed reject Alpa. What might make for more interesting conjecture is WHY?

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Interesting post from another web board. If USAPA's attorneys are suspect in ALPA's eyes, I suggest you look at your own house first before slinging propaganda.

................ you're right. 3000 pilots stepped up once again. It sends a message to Herndon about our resolve and the "other guys" ability to communicate and get a response.

"American Airlines adopted the benchmark B-scale in November 1983..."

It was amazing (amusing) to read through the latest ACPC attack ad on Seham. The B-Scale was a plague. But APA pilots made the choice, not their attorneys. The choice was between protecting their own wages at the expense of pilots not even hired. Especially in light of Braniff's failure despite pay cuts in 1982 and Lorenzo's destruction of CAL the same month they accepted the "B" Scale, both of which ALPA handled so well (not). You've got to love the wording:

"...permanently reducing pay for newly hired pilots by 50 percent. In fact, under the AA system—negotiated while the Seham firm sat on the labor side of the table—pay rates and pensions for new employees would never merge with those of then-current employees."

So full of misrepresentations. First, at a time when no major (except CAL) was hiring and Paul Rice was still furloughed at UAL, Crandall promised doubling in size in four years if they accepted the "B" Scale. He delivered. Second, no attorney crammed the "B" Scale down AA's throats. Their pilots voted for it. Third, it wasn't "permanent" at all. By 1989 (six years later), the "Killer-Bs" controlled the majority vote and voted out the "B" Scale. What goes around, comes around.

"ALPA pilots throughout our industry are working to rebuild our contracts after the era of bankruptcy and ATSB constraints."

$160/hour is "working to rebuild our contracts?" They've got to be kidding.

"Simply put, USAPA’s law firm acts in a way that seeks to divide and conquer labor and, at the same time, helps management undermine contract standards and set legal precedent that is favorable only to management."

At least no Seham attorney ever pled guilty to a felony involving a case of laundering illegal management contributions into a Teamster presidential election campaign.

Fifth, Charney, Pleads Guilty in Teamsters Scandal
The lawyer who represented the disgraced and expelled Teamsters President Ron Carey in his 1996 reelection pled guilty Oct. 1 to one count of conspiracy for making false statements to a court-appointed officer. It’s the fifth guilty plea, with one indictment, in the money-laundering scheme which funneled over $538,000 into Carey’s campaign. Nathaniel Charney, of the labor law firm of Cohen, Weiss & Simon, admitted in U.S. Dist. Court in Manhattan to lying to former election officer Barbara Zack Quindel about contributions and to concealing that two employers had sent his law firm checks for the Carey campaign. It’s illegal for employers to contribute to union candidates. Reportedly, Charney vetted contributions to a special fund that took donations from non-Teamsters. He faces 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. He acknowledged in court that he is cooperating with prosecutors, which implies that more indictments are likely. [N.Y. Times 10/2/98]

And while the ACPC is at it, maybe they will explain why Cohen, Weiss and Simon had to return their $4.1 million "success" fee in the UAL ESOP deal, after that little tidbit was discovered in:

"An internal pilots' union report by Thomas Sullivan (U.S. Attorney for northern Illinois), revealed that "pilot union leaders made secret agreements in 1989 and 1994 to pay millions of dollars in fees to lawyers already on the union's staff or on retainer. They did not disclose these fees to the rank and file.

"That Sullivan report said that Roger Hall, the United-ALPA-MEC chairman, had authorized a payment of $2 million to Charles Goldstein, who was the union's own staff lawyer, but he did not reveal that to his board. The report also concluded that Hall and Goldstein had violated union rules, and many of United's pilots openly complained that the advice from Goldstein could hardly have been objective if he knew the ESOP had to be successful in order to receive that $2 million fee. Union leaders agreed to let Goldstein keep $750,000 of that $2 million, after he threatened a lawsuit. Hall's predecessor, Frederick Dubinsky, also did not reveal to the rank and file that he had authorized a payment of $375,000 to Goldstein after the failed ESOP attempt of 1989. Both Hall and Dubinsky denied they ever did anything wrong, but Hall did resign upon request of the pilot union board.

"The Sullivan report also uncovered a $4.12 million "success" fee to be paid to Cohen, Weiss & Simon, which had been receiving hourly billing payments from the union for its work on the ESOP buyout. Again, that fee wasn't common knowledge until after the ESOP was completed. Once that became known, Cohen, Weiss & Simon agreed to return the entire $4.12 million."

http://www.skeysource.com/SEResource-7/united_airlines.php



"For example, in future issues, you’ll see that the firm has also worked to undermine other AFL-CIO unions like the IAM through their representation of AMFA..."

Yeah, I can hardly wait for the next spin cycle. ACPC is going to try to sell you on the evils of independent, non-AFL-CIO affiliated, legally elected unions like AMFA. What they won't tell you is how ALPA told NWA pilots to cross that picket line to break AMFA strike in August 2005. But then ALPA doesn't even honor the picket lines of fellow AFL-CIO unions. No better example than TWA pilots being ordered to cross the TWA flight attendant picket lines in March 1986.

But speaking of the evils of independent unions: APA, IPA, SWAPA. Who has better contracts?