US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/13- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Pilot692]

IMO, we had several issues with ALPA... I'll list a few:

- The roll call vote... Now here is a seriously destructive little devil. I've never seen it used when it didn't hurt this pilot group. USAPA didn't want it in the beginning, then after they are voted in, they re-instate it. Go figure.

- Base Representation... This never served us well either. USAPA sold me on the concept of seniority based representation. Kinda like Fedex. After they are voted in, they abandoned this too.

- MEC meetings at layover hotels. ALPA always seemed to have their meetings at expensive hotels for whatever reason. USAPA changed that...in the beginning. I guess the digs were good enough for pilots and flight attendants, but not for the USAPA BPR because this was changed.

- Too many reps on flight pay loss. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we seem to have this problem at USAPA as well...and now, they voted themselves a nice little bonus package over and above flight pay loss to go with it.

None of these problems were at a national level. We were doing it to ourselves right here at the airline, and still are. That is not to say that National didn't have their share of problems...they did. But, USAPA didn't cure all these ills and in my opinion made some of them worse. I still pay my dues so I can vote and go to the meetings, but I assure you, I don't feel welcome.

Driver B)

The Roll Call vote is membership ratification-an expensive election. It has never been used at USAPA, not once.
I am not aware of voting in anything other than Reps based on membership count.
The Four Points in Charlotte IS a crew hotel. Or should everybody be sentenced to the Sterling for 150+ nights a year. How many nights did YOU stay at the Sterling last year? Suggest you give the Four Points a try, you mike be pleasantly surprised. Further, the use of the Piedmont room at the airport to conduct BPR meetings is (I believe) less than $100/day. Sorry, no ALPA here.
Reps and FPL. You're off base here as well. Take a look at the FPL statements and you'll see that the BPR is the cheapest part of the union. The CLT reps are so far under budget, it's stunning. These guys are all working 24/7 for all of us and most of the work they do for free. A lot of them attempt to set their schedules around their union work so they can do it without billing the union. And there ain't no 20 foot long hot breakfast and lunch buffets, Carvel ice-cream stands or open bars. Bonus packages??? Name one.
If you don't believe me, please contact Rob Streble at the USAPA office. As Sec/Treas, he will give you exact figures. Rob can often be found in the office after hours, working for nothing, doing your work.
Get a new batch of spaghetti.....this one didn't stick too good.
Don't feel wlcome? Stand up and say so! Did you feel welcome while the other bunch was partying on your dollar in $400/night hotel rooms dining off of ALPA credit cards?
Wherever you are getting this stuff, you need a new source of news. May I recommend the union? Unlike the previous bunch, they will talk to you about your concerns till you are blue in the face.
Best of luck!

 

[A320 Driver]

The Roll Call vote is membership ratification-an expensive election. It has never been used at USAPA, not once.
I am not aware of voting in anything other than Reps based on membership count.
The Four Points in Charlotte IS a crew hotel. Or should everybody be sentenced to the Sterling for 150+ nights a year. How many nights did YOU stay at the Sterling last year? Suggest you give the Four Points a try, you mike be pleasantly surprised. Further, the use of the Piedmont room at the airport to conduct BPR meetings is (I believe) less than $100/day. Sorry, no ALPA here.
Reps and FPL. You're off base here as well. Take a look at the FPL statements and you'll see that the BPR is the cheapest part of the union. The CLT reps are so far under budget, it's stunning. These guys are all working 24/7 for all of us and most of the work they do for free. A lot of them attempt to set their schedules around their union work so they can do it without billing the union. And there ain't no 20 foot long hot breakfast and lunch buffets, Carvel ice-cream stands or open bars. Bonus packages??? Name one.
If you don't believe me, please contact Rob Streble at the USAPA office. As Sec/Treas, he will give you exact figures. Rob can often be found in the office after hours, working for nothing, doing your work.
Get a new batch of spaghetti.....this one didn't stick too good.
Don't feel welcome? Stand up and say so! Did you feel welcome while the other bunch was partying on your dollar in $400/night hotel rooms dining off of ALPA credit cards?
Wherever you are getting this stuff, you need a new source of news. May I recommend the union? Unlike the previous bunch, they will talk to you about your concerns till you are blue in the face.
Best of luck!

I made four points...all correct. I'll take another stab at it.

"The Roll Call vote is membership ratification-an expensive election. It has never been used at USAPA, not once."

- The roll call vote did NOT EXIST when USAPA was started. It was one of the selling points. That part of the bylaws was changed by the BPR.

"I am not aware of voting in anything other than Reps based on membership count."
- Then you missed the phone call...I got one. BIG selling point about ALL pilots on the seniority list being represented equally. Not just those at big bases (of course, the base count is shrinking now).

"The Four Points in Charlotte IS a crew hotel. Or should everybody be sentenced to the Sterling for 150+ nights a year. How many nights did YOU stay at the Sterling last year? Suggest you give the Four Points a try, you mike be pleasantly surprised."
- The bylaws were changed by the BPR. They removed the REQUIREMENT that meetings be held at layover hotels. They are not ALL held at the Four Points.

"Bonus packages??? Name one."
- Stipend...how's that?

Nothing incorrect in my post.

Driver B)

 

[LSS]

There was NEVER an attempt to oust ALPA from the property prior to the Nic.

Metro... I didn't attempt to address your other questions because in my mind they were rhetorical... No matter what we may say to you, your position will always be ... "My mind is made up so don't confuse me with the facts... "

In the portion of your response to me was the quote above. The fact is... there was an attempt to oust ALPA in the 90's, but it failed... so please don't say NEVER when that is not true. I believe if communications had been then what they are today, it could have succeeded.

 

[A320 Driver]

Metro... I didn't attempt to address your other questions because they in my mind were rhetorical... No matter what we may say to you... your mind is made up so don't confuse me with the facts...

In the portion of your response to me was the quote above. The fact is... there was an attempt to oust ALPA in the 90's, but it failed... so please don't say NEVER when that is not true.

I agree...the movement was afoot in the early 90s. It was gathering steam for a while...not sure what happened to it.

Driver B)

 

[cleardirect]

I will give you an answer, but it's not what you want to hear. The east is willing to give the chance to move forward and the hope that the enough senior west pilots will look at DOH with C&Rs and think it is better than opening up PHX to the top 1000 or so. I really don't see them being willing to give up anything else, for better or worse, all in.

"The east is willing to give the change to move forward" What about using the Nicolau and letting all of us move forward. The east is going to get a much bigger pay raise than the west. Why do you think the west would buy off on DOH and a small raise. But the east will not buy off on a bigger raise and Nic?

Do you somehow think that the west is that much more desperate for reduced work rules or no improvement? The only thing this contract might have for the west is a little money. DOH would offset that by a wide margin.

If what they proposed is the best usapa can do. DFR 2.0 will be easy.

 

[cleardirect]

None of these problems were at a national level. We were doing it to ourselves right here at the airline, and still are. That is not to say that National didn't have their share of problems...they did. But, USAPA didn't cure all these ills and in my opinion made some of them worse. I still pay my dues so I can vote and go to the meetings, but I assure you, I don't feel welcome.

Driver B)

I think that is one of the best posts made on the board yet.

For a union that is supposed to represent ALL US Airways pilots they have done an incredible job of dividing this pilot group. You are a pilot that does not feel welcome at your own union meetings. West pilots have been marginalized and attacked from the beginning. Justifying it by saying only the majority matters.

If we ever come to a strike vote how is a 50-60% unity vote going to look to management?

For a union that was supposed to be designed to correct all of ALPA’s problem you are right they have made many of them worse. Even after losing the DFR usapa did nothing to even attempt to heal the divide. The communications and actions furthered the split.

Even now usapa is not talking about unity in a strike. I am hearing rumors they are talking about CHAOS because they don’t need the west. What kind of union ignores or discounts 40% of their members?

 

[tripod727]

will finally be returning from furlough soon....was on the 190 before for 15 months then furloughed for a year and a half.

question is, if i get recalled onto the 190 is there another seat lock? thanks for any input

 

[Freighterguynow]

will finally be returning from furlough soon....was on te 190 before for 16 months then furloughed for a year and a half.

question is, if i get recalled onto the 190 is there another 2 year seat lock? thanks for any input

Yes.

As well as the possibility that during your seat lock ( 18 months) there could be open positions on the Airbus etc that go to later and more junior recalls - since you are locked and unable to bid.


FWIW

 

[Freighterguynow]

If we ever come to a strike vote how is a 50-60% unity vote going to look to management?

The same under NIC as it will DOH.

 

[LSS]

The east is going to get a much bigger pay raise than the west. Why do you think the west would buy off on DOH and a small raise. But the east will not buy off on a bigger raise and Nic?

CD...

So lets see if I’ve got this straight about what YOU think is fair… you want us to embrace the NIC (derived by the internal rules and processes of ALPA as a negotiation position) in a proposed contract submitted for pilot ratification, which would effectively forever destroy years of an East pilot’s LOS… AND you also want a much larger pay increase for the West pilots because if everyone is brought up to parity it would naturally result in the West pilots obtaining a lesser increase in pay…. Now how can that be… how is it possible if all are brought up to parity… that the West would get less of an increase????? Hummm… what could it be… just what could it be???….. Do you think just maybe because YOU’VE BEEN RECEIVING MORE PAY FOR THE SAME WORK FOR YEARS…. And based upon many West’s postings… are quite pleased about this disparity?

Sorry to be the messenger of bad news CD… but a windfall is in the eyes of the beholder… and in my opinion… hell will freeze over before what you dream about and demand will occur. I honestly believe USAPA will be as fair as what is required by law in developing a proposed list, but I already know it will be rejected without even the slightest review by you and yours. So we are fully prepared for the frivolous suits to begin again.

 

[PullUp]

What about using the Nicolau and letting all of us move forward. The east is going to get a much bigger pay raise than the west. Why do you think the west would buy off on DOH and a small raise. But the east will not buy off on a bigger raise and Nic?
Do you somehow think that the west is that much more desperate for reduced work rules or no improvement? The only thing this contract might have for the west is a little money. DOH would offset that by a wide margin.
If what they proposed is the best usapa can do. DFR 2.0 will be easy...
...Even after losing the DFR usapa did nothing to even attempt to heal the divide. The communications and actions furthered the split.
Even now usapa is not talking about unity in a strike. I am hearing rumors they are talking about CHAOS because they don’t need the west. What kind of union ignores or discounts 40% of their members?

First, the west has been operating at a pay premium versus the east for a while now after rejecting the notion of parity.
Second, nobody cares if the west 'buys off' on DOH and a small raise.
Third, the majority vote will not support the NIC, no matter what the pay rate is. Period.
Fourth, if the 'best' is the 'best' that the union can produce, then there is no grounds for DFR. But the right to sue exists. Anyone is free to waste their money in this country as they see fit.
Fifth, the DFR case was overturned on appeal. There was no 'win'.
Sixth, because over 50% of the flying is express and the level of international flying could probably be covered by alliance members and management pilots, CHAOS just makes more sense and would provide a quicker resolution to any dispute without disadvantaging anyone besides the company.
Have a nice day.

 

[LSS]

First, the west has been operating at a pay premium versus the east for a while now after rejecting the notion of parity.
Second, nobody cares if the west 'buys off' on DOH and a small raise.
Third, the majority vote will not support the NIC, no matter what the pay rate is. Period.
Fourth, if the 'best' is the 'best' that the union can produce, then there is no grounds for DFR. But the right to sue exists. Anyone is free to waste their money in this country as they see fit.
Fifth, the DFR case was overturned on appeal. There was no 'win'.
Sixth, because over 50% of the flying is express and the level of international flying could probably be covered by alliance members and management pilots, CHAOS just makes more sense and would provide a quicker resolution to any dispute without disadvantaging anyone besides the company.
Have a nice day.

Well said PullUp!

 

[Al Legheny]

I made four points...all correct. I'll take another stab at it.

"The Roll Call vote is membership ratification-an expensive election. It has never been used at USAPA, not once."

- The roll call vote did NOT EXIST when USAPA was started. It was one of the selling points. That part of the bylaws was changed by the BPR.

"I am not aware of voting in anything other than Reps based on membership count."




On the US Airways pilot property the “roll-call” vote is a particularly contentious voting method. I have found however that when many pilots are confronted with the question, “What is roll call voting?” they cannot answer or in fact have a very limited knowledge of this type of voting. This paper is offered in rebuttal to criticisms of USAPA’s voting methods. The law requires that in the absence of a purely membership ratification voting methodology, that is “one man one vote”, for all issues some method of representational voting is required.

Our founding fathers faced this very dilemma in the formation of the nation. How to afford voting rights to the various and particular states? The solution; was two branches of the legislature the Senate and the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is population based system based on a system of apportionment. Each population segment of 10,000 gets one Representative so that larger States with greater populations have more House Representatives. The Senate on the other had is not population based and each state has two senators.

The “roll call vote” acquired a bad reputation on this property because of the bad actions of a few members. Former PIT MEC counsel Chairman John Davis would “roll call lunch” to punish minority members and remind them of the power of the majority inherent in the roll call vote. Actually the “roll-cal” membership population based weighted voting method is not inherently bad. It is in fact more democratic than a straight senatorial vote and this has been discussed in the Supreme Court of the United States as we will show in a later piece in this rebuttal series.

Labor unions are required by law to afford their members a uniform voting methodology. That could be one-man, one vote for all questions. It could be two houses like the US government or it could be some other form of weighted representational voting. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, LMRDA, requires the following:

TITLE I — BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

(29 U.S.C. 411)

SEC. 101. (a)(1) EQUAL RIGHTS.– Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization’s constitution and bylaws.



The key term here is equal rights. That can be “one man one vote” or apportionment where each Rep represents the same number of constituents. The problem is that the number of representatives can become very high and it would be expensive to hold meetings and conduct business. The population could be made higher but this could still lead to problems because a very small domicile, well below the population upper limit, now has a great weighted vote than a large base. The ration of Representative to members would not be constant.

Another method is to limit the number of representatives but allow each representative to vote the number of members in his domicile. A single rep domicile votes up to 100 members. In a two Rep domicile each Rep votes half of that domicile, from 101 to 1000. In a three rep domicile each Rep votes a third of the domicile, greater than 1000.

The courts have determined that because this satisfies the requirement for “Equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate and vote…..”, that this method has been supported by several Appeals Court decisions as well as the Supreme Court.


Note the terms “equal rights and privileges” in the first sentence. LMRDA does not define just what that means and so it was up to the United States Supreme court to decide what that phrase meant.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Eddie WITTSTEIN et al.

United States Supreme Court

December 7, 1964

379 U.S. 171; 85 S.Ct. 300; 13 L.Ed.2d 214

Henry Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Godfrey P. Schmidt, New York City, for respondents.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

(excerpts)



The petitioner American Federation of Musicians (Federation) is an international labor organization comprising 675 locals in the United States and Canada. As with numerous other national and international labor organizations having many scattered locals of varying size, Federation’s constitution and bylaws have long authorized alternative methods of ascertaining the vote of the delegates representing the locals at a union convention. Each local is entitled to one delegate for each 100 members or major fraction thereof, not to exceed three delegates from any one local. Federation’s bylaws permit a voice vote of the delegates attending a convention in all cases, which is the method often used on routine noncontroversial matters. When amendments to the union constitution or bylaws are at issue, however, the delegates representing the locals, upon a roll call vote, may cast as many votes as there are members in the respective locals. A roll call vote is required upon the demand of 10 delegates or five locals. All amendments to the bylaws and constitution approved by a roll call vote are required under the constitution to be referred to a convention committee which may approve or veto the proposal.2

….. Other provisions of the LMRDA confirm this view. Section 101(a)(3)(B) is a part of Title I, entitled the ‘Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations.’ This Title guarantees to every member of a labor organization equal rights and privileges to vote, to attend meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and business of such meetings. Section 101(a)(3)(B) forms a part of this framework by requiring participation by all members, either directly or through their elected representatives, on certain union matters thought to be of special importance. We find nothing to indicate that Congress thought this objective would be better fulfilled by allowing a representative to cast one vote, regardless of the size of his constituency, than by permitting him to cast a vote equal to the number of members he represents. As a part of the Act’s purpose of protecting and fostering participation by the rank and file in the affairs of the union, Title IV contains elaborate statutory safeguards for the election of union officers. But nothing in that title prohibits election of union officers by delegates voting at a convention in accordance with the number of members they represent.20 Respondents do not demonstrate any differences between weighted voting for officers of the union and weighted voting on changes in financial exactions that would support the asserted difference in voting procedures applicable to each. It is argued that delegates may not ascertain or follow the wishes of the members in respect to dues and assessments. But few issues are more likely to arouse active opposition and general membership participation than a proposal to increase dues. Further, this argument is too broad, for it questions the validity of a system of representative union government and has little to do with the manner in which the representative’s vote is counted. Section 101(a)(3)(B), as well as Title IV, authorizes a representative system of government and does not require a town meeting for action by an international or national union.21 To that end Congress recognized the key role of elections in the process of union self-government and surrounded it with many safeguards to provide a fair election and to guarantee membership participation.

The pervading premise of both these titles is that there should be full and active participation by the rank and file in the affairs of the union. We think our decision today that the vote of an elected delegate may reflect the size of his constituency is wholly consistent with that purpose.

The specifics of AFM v. Wittstein deals with voting in a convention by delegates but other case law supports voting by representatives in a like manner.

 

[767jetz]

The same under NIC as it will DOH.

Problem is, since the company already accepted NIC and takes a big legal risk with a DOH contract, it will cost you dearly in pay and benefits at the negotiating table, making the possibility of an unacceptable contract and a strike MUCH higher.

NIC with a few tweaks like I mentioned in a previous post, will be a much easier path to much bigger contract improvements (IMO,) meaning a strike is less likely.

 

[boeingplt]

will finally be returning from furlough soon....was on the 190 before for 15 months then furloughed for a year and a half.

question is, if i get recalled onto the 190 is there another seat lock? thanks for any input

The seat lock is 12 months for pilots recalled to the 190. The Company is using the Group 4 provision from C98 to apply to the 190. There have been some instances where the Company has allowed pilots to bid off short of 12 months but if you have to bet then 12 months is the max.

Glad you are coming back. Send me a PM if you want to talk.