US Pilots' Labor Discussion 10/27-11/?

[BoeingBoy]

You sure about that? Not from what I've heard.

Out of curiosity, how does USAPA handle the "covered pilots" as far as base assignment - i.e. training department? That could make the difference since the bid that's out shows 880 line pilot positions and I'd expect that most of the BOS/LGA flying would go to PHL/DCA (the Shuttle time).

Jim

 

[Waketurbulence]

If PHX ever gets enough members, they could easily have their three reps. It's too bad that the new LAS rep will be losing the position. It appeared he was going to be a real asset to the BPR.

He will become a Rep in PHX either way.

 

[boeingplt]

You sure about that? Not from what I've heard.

100% sure? No. It's what I hear but I haven't had the chance to verify.

 

[nycbusdriver]

CLT is below 1000 members, so won't they lose a rep?

If that's the magic number, then they would lose one. But let's wait and see what Permanent Bid 10-02 does to CLT staffing. They have to send the LGA and BOS pilots somewhere. I would think SOME of the time will end up in CLT.

(BTW, Bid 10-02 is not out yet....that's just the next number in the sequence.)

 

[nycbusdriver]

You know that he was the co-founder of Leonidas, LLC, right?

So what? I never expected the west pilots to do anything different than what has already transpired. And, except for the high-school pranksters, I don't begrudge the west pilots their day in court. If this guy is the co-founder of Leonidas, it sounds to me like he at least has leadership initiative.

He will become a Rep in PHX either way.

Only if the PHX members in good standing elect him. And PHX doesn't get an extra rep simply because LAS closes.

But, then again, the shoes did work for Dorothy.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If that's the magic number, then they would lose one.

Just for philosophical discussion, that's one of the things I find troubling about USAPA's representation format - especially since it reversed course on roll call voting.

Each base having the same number of reps protects the small bases against the whims of the hubs - how many times over the years of concessions have IAM members at outstations complained about being thrown under the bus by the hub vote?

That is offset by roll call voting, which protects the hubs from a coalition of small bases (admittedly there'll be only one smaller base soon but that may change again in the future).

In effect, normal voting with equal votes for each base is the Senate version of representation while the roll call provides the House version.

And that doesn't even go into the ever changing representation of any bases that hover around some magic number of members - such a base could have multiple rep elections every year.

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

Just for philosophical discussion, that's one of the things I find troubling about USAPA's representation format - especially since it reversed course on roll call voting.

Each base having the same number of reps protects the small bases against the whims of the hubs - how many times over the years of concessions have IAM members at outstations complained about being thrown under the bus by the hub vote?

That is offset by roll call voting, which protects the hubs from a coalition of small bases (admittedly there'll be only one smaller base soon but that may change again in the future).

In effect, normal voting with equal votes for each base is the Senate version of representation while the roll call provides the House version.

And that doesn't even go into the ever changing representation of any bases that hover around some magic number of members - such a base could have multiple rep elections every year.

Jim

Scroll down to the middle of this link for a three part essay on how USAPA came up with its voting and representational procedures. I challenge you to come up with a better and more well thought out system.

http://unfactualbias.com/wordpress/?m=200909

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

That's all well and good, but doesn't address the concern I expressed. I personally have no problem with the roll call vote and am glad that USAPA incorporated it. My problem is with the "semi-roll call" nature of the BPR makeup, where the number of members in a base determines how many reps that base has. In effect, USAPA has no real "Senatorial" process or voting. I consider that a shortcoming.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but ignoring non-members when arriving at the number of reps a base gets is also a problem in my estimation. Is not USAPA supposed to represent all pilots in contract matters? Is not the "agency fee" something like 90+ percent of normal dues by USAPA's calculation? Does that not infer that the vast majority of USAPA business is representing all pilots? Yet USAPA gives no representative voting power to non-members - they effectively don't exist for both the number of reps a base gets or the roll call voting process is used.

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

That's all well and good, but doesn't address the concern I expressed. I personally have no problem with the roll call vote and am glad that USAPA incorporated it. My problem is with the "semi-roll call" nature of the BPR makeup, where the number of members in a base determines how many reps that base has. In effect, USAPA has no real "Senatorial" process or voting. I consider that a shortcoming.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but ignoring non-members when arriving at the number of reps a base gets is also a problem in my estimation. Is not USAPA supposed to represent all pilots in contract matters? Is not the "agency fee" something like 90+ percent of normal dues by USAPA's calculation? Does that not infer that the vast majority of USAPA business is representing all pilots? Yet USAPA gives no representative voting power to non-members - they effectively don't exist for both the number of reps a base gets or the roll call voting process is used.

Jim

With all due respect, you have to be kidding me. Fuel to the fire? All a pilot has to do is pay another 6% in dues instead of fees and that pilot gets full voting rights. Go ahead someday and start your own union, and give your "non members" voting representation. There is no requirement from the government that non members be given any voting rights, say so, or even numerical representation. They are foolish in my opinion for not participating. All the union is required to do is look after their contractual and representational needs (discipline, benefits, etc.)

USAPA is a labor union, not a glee club, and membership is the name of the game. Take a read of Helen Witt's decsion in the Suzi arbitration, and see how even she grasped the folly of pilots claiming certain rights as non members. She did not buy any of the arguments from the non member West pilots.

RR

 

[boeingplt]

USAPA is a labor union, not a glee club....
RR

...ehchem{clears throat}....la, la, la, la, la..... You're right and its a darn good thing too!

 

[BoeingBoy]

With all due respect, you have to be kidding me.

I think you misunderstood what I said and I probably worded it badly. I didn't intend to say or imply that non-members should be able to vote, only that they should be represented - something that's not part of USAPA's process since both the number of base reps and the roll call are based on the number of members in a base. Non-members are considered non-entities in USAPA's representational process.

While USAPA's setup may be legal and all that, it doesn't feel right to me. Wasn't one of the compaints about ALPA that they wanted the money but didn't care about the person? Pot, meet Kettle...give us the money but shut up since you don't count.

Jim

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

USAPA is a labor union, not a glee club, and membership is the name of the game. Take a read of Helen Witt's decsion in the Suzi arbitration, and see how even she grasped the folly of pilots claiming certain rights as non members. She did not buy any of the arguments from the non member West pilots.

RR

Take a read of Nicolau's decision in the seniority arbitration, and see how even he grasped the folly of certain east positions in how a list should be constructed.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Just for philosophical discussion, that's one of the things I find troubling about USAPA's representation format - especially since it reversed course on roll call voting.

Each base having the same number of reps protects the small bases against the whims of the hubs - how many times over the years of concessions have IAM members at outstations complained about being thrown under the bus by the hub vote?

That is offset by roll call voting, which protects the hubs from a coalition of small bases (admittedly there'll be only one smaller base soon but that may change again in the future).

In effect, normal voting with equal votes for each base is the Senate version of representation while the roll call provides the House version.

And that doesn't even go into the ever changing representation of any bases that hover around some magic number of members - such a base could have multiple rep elections every year.

Jim

On the surface, I too am uncomfortable with the limitation of "mega bases" having more than three reps. However, I feel that the fact that many more things are required to go to plebiscite than ALPA ever would have allowed makes USAPA properly representative.

 

[Reed Richards]

Take a read of Nicolau's decision in the seniority arbitration, and see how even he grasped the folly of certain east positions in how a list should be constructed.

You got me there skynyrd, USAPA pretty much got its hat handed to them in AZ court. But it is a valid comparison, procedure wise. USAPA also got its hat handed to them by Hemenway on dues issues in August of 08. As I pointed out earlier, take a look at how that turned out.

Have a Happy Halloween,

RR

 

[Reed Richards]

I think you misunderstood what I said and I probably worded it badly. I didn't intend to say or imply that non-members should be able to vote, only that they should be represented - something that's not part of USAPA's process since both the number of base reps and the roll call are based on the number of members in a base. Non-members are considered non-entities in USAPA's representational process.

While USAPA's setup may be legal and all that, it doesn't feel right to me. Wasn't one of the compaints about ALPA that they wanted the money but didn't care about the person? Pot, meet Kettle...give us the money but shut up since you don't count.

Jim

I think I got what you meant sir, and we can agree to disagree. If enough voting members felt the way you do...and maybe they indeed do, then USAPA's structure allows them to bring forward a resolution calling for a vote to change the CBL. But they have to be MIGS to do that.

Best,

RR