Council 94 Letter To The Pilots

[oldiebutgoody]

PHL and PIT pilots knew about the lawsuit before the elections AND the recall. Therefore, there WAS NOT an appearance of impropriety in their eyes. If ALPA followed their own rules (I'm not an expert, so don't know whether they did or not) then they have NOTHING to fear from a lawsuit. If they didn't, as the guys involved are insinuating, then they do. That's the nature of law. if you're wronged, you can get satisfaction. Again, if you don't like the way the legal system works in the US, try moving somewhere else, then let me know which one you prefer.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

He is one of somehing like 100 (maybe more) pilots involved in that lawsuit. To my knowledge he is not even the organizer of it.

 

[Traveler]

I'm wondering WHY?

Why the need to defend your position in such a condescending and arrogant way?

Not saying the position is wrong but to stand on every letter of ALPA by-laws when the clock is ticking is an interesting manuever.

WHY, if what has been reported here is true, does everyone sit idly by when it appears that 2 members of the so called R/C 4 have pending litigation against ALPA and possibly the company are there no crys of Conflict of Interest?

If the 2 members of the R/C 4 do indeed have pending litigation against ANY of the parties to the negotiations they should as a matter of professional ethics recuse themselves from the negotiations.

Seems to this observer that IF (I don't know who or what to believe) the above is true then ALPA's N/C is populated with members who have the same lack of ethics that all unions claim US Airways has.

Once again no moral high ground for ALPA

[post="177279"][/post]​

You might examine the consistency of dealings of both parties when evaluating integrity.

One group of representatives are perhaps being made to answer before the courts for certain actions which depart from existing rules and which contravened the specifically expressed and written wishes of the Pilot group as a whole. As a result, the Pilots were not permitted to determine the fate of their Pension Plan.

Other representative objected to violating the expressed wishes of the Pilot Membership and was overruled. As a result the spirit and intent of the rules, which were designed to protect the membership was placed aside so as to satisfy the special intent of certain MEC representatives. The Pilots lost their Pension because a few Representatives took it upon themselves to enter into an agreement on behalf of the Pilots, ignoring the Membership Mandate for Pilot Ratification.

What’s left of the current, substitute Pension Plan, is now under attack by Airline Executives along with compensation and benefit packages far inferior to LCCs and nearly comparable to the Regional Commuters. These Executives refuse to speak to their own economic sacrifice to the new business plan. Gong so far as to even refuse to present their business plan.

One group of representatives, with consistency of integrity, want to again bypass the established rules for representation and negotiation. Rules designed to bring security, strength and order to the Negotiation Process.

There are obvious reasons why any member of any association in any organization would not want to encourage or reward Management for negotiating directly with employees. By doing so, these Managers inappropriately bypass both the Negotiating Committee and the MEC. If there is no Agreement reached by the Company and the Negotiating Committee, then there is no Agreement which can be presented to the membership for vote. However, if Management recognizes an advantage or benefit by avoiding exposure to the negotiation convention by simply halting the usual Negotiation Process and inserting a mid-course proposal directly to the Membership for an opportunistic probability of strategic gain, then the MEC is doing a great disservice to the Membership for disobeying rules designed to thwart such tactics.

Simply stated, the rules require that only Tentative Agreements be presented to the membership for a vote. This rule demands that Management conduct themselves properly in the Negotiation Process. No one can blame Management for using all the tools and strategies available to them. The employees, however must be resolute in overwhelmingly supporting those Representatives who most consistently represent the wishes of the Membership.

To date, the Pilots of USAirways have had two final offers by Management. Each time, Management has tried to insert these mid-course proposal to the employees. Consistently, the PHL and PIT representatives have instructed the Company that Negotiations will be conducted with the Negotiating Committee. Consistently, Other Representatives have tried to assist the Company in bypassing ALPA Rules. Lately, it seems, in written statements from Airline Executives, we are most likely to once again, get another final offer from Management. That’s fine. At least they are Negotiating with the Negotiating Committee.

Of course, as a matter of Integrity and consistency, there are other Representatives who would assist Management in interrupting the Process of Negotiations –Two final offers ago. Not only do they wish to depart from the rules, they additionally engage in painful, derisive, Public Political Campaigns which undermine the ability of the Negotiating Committee to obtain the best agreement for the Membership within the framework of ALPA laws.

Certain ALPA Representatives, consistently breaching specific rules and policies of the Association by Political Maneuvering. Representatives who hold office for a minority of Pilots. Representatives who are on record for violating the mandate of the Membership and are now defendants in a law suite.

Other ALPA Representatives, operating within the guidelines and spirit of Association rules and policies. These Representatives, who hold office for a vastly greater majority of Pilots. Representatives who were elected by a Majority of Pilots strictly for the purpose for upholding the Mandate of that Majority and following those rules and policies which will protect and defend their desire for fair treatment and good faith Negotiations.

As was stated in the top of this thread. The Mandate of the Majority of the Membership is to vote on a Tentative Agreement. We have none. The PHL and PIT Representatives have suffered unprecedented, viciously staged, public attacks, --A forum of Rage and Insult thrust upon men of reason and integrity. And at the head of the table, is the ALPA Chairman watching the slaughter –Hoping that these Men, representing the Majority of Pilots, will also agree to violate the Mandate of the Pilots. Hoping to send mere proposals to the Membership for ratification. Hoping to abrogate their responsibility to Negotiate an Agreement with the Company in good faith. Hoping to Violate the established Rules of conduct and procedure.

No... There has been no inconsistency in either side. It remains that both sets of Representatives have a consistent definition of Integrity, --Or lack thereof.

 

[wheels]

BROOKMAN, YOU DA MAN!!!

 

[hp_fa]

Well to others on the outside, ie; pilots from other locals, Customers, US, and industry analysts for Wall Street may have a different opinion. And that opinion should be considered.

[post="177292"][/post]​

Bob:

I fully disagree. It isn't anyone's business but the people in that Local. How or why decisions are made by the group are not truly a public matter as long as that group's rules and regulations have been met. No one has said that the RC4 have done anything outside the applicable provisions of the ALPA Charter, By-Laws, etc.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

PineyBob, I understand your frustration with the process. Bruce Lakefield is frustrated with the process because he, like you, comes from a business background that does not deal with union membership. That's fine. However, understand, this is what it is at the majority of airlines in this country. Its a process, a process that those with little patience cannot handle. I respect the union membership that stuck to the rules: THAT my friends shows integrity. What we are witnessing by the circumventing of the process is fear factor negotiating. This is a lose-lose situation for the employees, and the union process. Just my two cents.

 

[WorldTraveler]

As an outsider, I think what Brookman wrote makes a heck of a lot of sense and further clarifies for me that US employees have reached a point where it really is not in their interest to continue to work with or for the company.

It says an aweful lot about the state of US Airways when the labor unions are being torn apart in the court system. No one can truly expect much hope when the company can't get along with labor and labor can't even adequately represent its people.

What are your contingency plans for a new airline, PineyBob?

 

[Walmartgreeter]

As an outsider, I think what Brookman wrote makes a heck of a lot of sense and further clarifies for me that US employees have reached a point where it really is not in their interest to continue to work with or for the company.

It says an aweful lot about the state of US Airways when the labor unions are being torn apart in the court system. No one can truly expect much hope when the company can't get along with labor and labor can't even adequately represent its people.

What are your contingency plans for a new airline, PineyBob?

[post="177347"][/post]​

Thanks Traveler. John Brookman's letter to the PIT pilots is one of the finest and best compliations of U pilots current situation..how do they help a management that does not want to be helped? Working 95 hours. OK. Large paycut. OK. Pilots on the street. Not OK, but give them something to come back to. Taking the pilots to basically a slave labor situation (I am not talking about pay, only the fact that reserve pilots would be at the beck and call of the company for the entire month...and still not get full pay) from a scheduling standpoint is only the first of the attacks on U pilots lifestyles. Southwest pilots now make more than U pilots, and already work 4 to 6 days less. It is about accountability in the use of pilots as resources. Work rules were given away in the last round, and U pilots now fly 20 hour four days instead of 24 hour four day trips...with numerous 3.5 hours sits in the crew bases and lots of "2 hour" pay days. U pilots WANT to help. U pilots WANT to work. But giving management even more reasons to slack off is not going to give any pilot a company to work for, nor is taking the medical and dental programs away from pilots who already worked here 30 years, in retirement. Accountability is critical. U management must tow the line on doing what is right for the company, or (in my opinion) the professional airline pilots of U are ready to move on. If the time for accountability is not now...when would it be? sorry for the rant. Best to you. Greeter

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Did you ever hear of the concept of "The Appearance of Impropriety"? Meaning that the lawsuit may indeed be seperate from the issue at hand, but could be construed to exert undue influence.

Several on here not named A320 have raised the issue of Mr Freshwater placing his own best interests first in these negotiations as opposed to representing ALL the pilots in his local.

I remain unconvinced as to the agenda of the R/C 4 being all inclusive

[post="177286"][/post]​

Piney, I think I have posted to you about this before, but I am trying to find an analogy that would fit the situation. Say you were unhappy about the way the government treated you as a citizen and chose to sue (which I realize you cannot do in most cases, so bear with me.) You have been wronged, and the case is probably never going to amount to anything other than a gesture. Then you decide to run for office in said government and WIN, in an effort to change the circumstances leading up to your own problems. Do you now have to drop the case? I am having a hard time coming up with a credible expample....but if anything, PLEASE read the council 94 F/O reps letter at the top of this thread. It is a FINE inside report of what the U pilots are dealing with. Management has not negociated in good faith with a group who is MORE that willing to help, yet trys AGAIN to go around the negociating committee AND the MEC to present offers to the pilots. Uh Uh. Not the way it happens. Unions have rules of order just like companys do. U pilots want to do the right thing. U pilots want accountability for give backs, in both value of said concessions and in the way the company is run. After all. U pilots have alread given BILIONS. Thanks Piney, don't let the piss ants get in the way of the elephants! Best. Greeter.

 

[wings396]

How about that line that says they want to place up to 106 seat A/C at the Express?? That should be a wake up call to Everyone in every Union. This is something that should have never been permitted to exceed 50 seats period!
Having 70,90 and now over 100 seats, is not what Express is or ever was. This is nothing more than a tool to Screw as many as possilbe out of a decent wage.

 

[PITbull]

John Brookman, an honorable man acting honorably. My hat is off to you sir.

Denver, CO

[post="177204"][/post]​

Mine too!

 

[PITbull]

I'm wondering WHY?

Why the need to defend your position in such a condescending and arrogant way?

Not saying the position is wrong but to stand on every letter of ALPA by-laws when the clock is ticking is an interesting manuever.

WHY, if what has been reported here is true, does everyone sit idly by when it appears that 2 members of the so called R/C 4 have pending litigation against ALPA and possibly the company are there no crys of Conflict of Interest?

If the 2 members of the R/C 4 do indeed have pending litigation against ANY of the parties to the negotiations they should as a matter of professional ethics recuse themselves from the negotiations.

Seems to this observer that IF (I don't know who or what to believe) the above is true then ALPA's N/C is populated with members who have the same lack of ethics that all unions claim US Airways has.

Once again no moral high ground for ALPA

[post="177279"][/post]​

Bob,

You appear confused. The PIT and PHL ALPA Reps are not on the negotiating committee. They are members of the MEC who vote on whether a T/A is acceptable or not.

The FACTS are: There was no T/A brought forward by the negotiating committee. It was just a Company proposal with a deadline.

Sorry Charlie, but we no longer, as unions, negotiate and operate under threats of "deadlines". Management had initially promised concentual agreements and no threats.

 

[PITbull]

The Senior managment has a Defined Contribution retirment plan as well. ....where is THEIR proposal for relief for the company from their DC plan?


Heck, has anyone seen mangement's overall concession proposals? They just added another VP hired from the outside. That's another $$quarter of a million to throw over to senior management.

 

[hp_fa]

If I'm looking at buying Airways up out of a C7 and I'm willing to keep the employees, Fred Freshwaters integrity may be of primary interest since I will need to know the character of the players involved.

[post="177380"][/post]​

Bob:

Unless you are buying the Company with public (government) dollars, this is still a private matter. If you want to know about Mr. Freshwater's integrity, past, etc., do what any company or employer would do. Due Diligence.

Have a private investigator (or three) check out his past, including lawsuits, divorce and other public records Have someone hired to speak with co-workers. Hire outside experts to advise you, and have a lawyer or two around to help.

I still will argue that what Mr. Freshwater, et al., did was a private matter and his only responsibility is to the people in the Local that he represents. From all I have read, he has fulfilled that responsibility.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Bob:

Unless you are buying the Company with public (government) dollars, this is still a private matter. If you want to know about Mr. Freshwater's integrity, past, etc., do what any company or employer would do. Due Diligence.

Have a private investigator (or three) check out his past, including lawsuits, divorce and other public records Have someone hired to speak with co-workers. Hire outside experts to advise you, and have a lawyer or two around to help.

I still will argue that what Mr. Freshwater, et al., did was a private matter and his only responsibility is to the people in the Local that he represents. From all I have read, he has fulfilled that responsibility.

[post="177398"][/post]​

==================================================

WOW, 30+ posts on this topic, and NO reply from "Sky King"

NH/BB's