My Concern if ALPA comes to SkyWest

[Steveair]

My main concern if SkyWest goes with ALPA is the cost. In addition to 2% of my paycheck (now nearly $1000 a year), I'm concerned that ole Brad will try to take away Performance rewards (for most pilots... 1000 to 3000 per year). Furthermore, I think we'll lose pay for wx/mx cancellations amongst other things.

In return, what is ALPA going to do for me? The FO that called telling me to send in the card the other day mentioned that they'll pay us if we go on strike - just like the paid comair pilots for 49 days. What's ALPA doing for COMAIR guys now? Looks like they're gonna be gone soon...

Lastly, what's YOUR vote going to be? ALPA or No?

 

[Erlanger]

ALPA is not coming to Skywest. This vote is going to be the biggest blow to ALPA. Just listen to our fellow Skywest pilots that used to fly at an ALPA carrier. They have nothing good to say about it. A few months ago I would of said that ALPA is going to be here but, everyone is coming out with voicing their opinions and it seems to be "no" to ALPA. Even the predominetly pro-ALPA pilot forum at Skywest had a poll (granted it is informal and unscientific) and right now it's 69-31% against as of this morning.

 

[Lazy8]

There's an old saying that applys here...

"If it ain't broke don't fix it"

 

[ASARJMan]

Furthermore, I think we'll lose pay for wx/mx cancellations amongst other things.


Lastly, what's YOUR vote going to be? ALPA or No?

FWIW, ASA's contract pays 100% for any cancellation on an awarded line. Also 100% pay for deadhead. But, you do have to negoiate for it.

VOTED IN FAVOR!

 

[sweptback]

If the SkyWest pilots vote in ALPA, the company may not take away any of your pay or benefits, including performance rewards. During the time your MEC negotiates the first contract, you will have the exact same thing that is in your employee handbook now.

If you are not satisfied with what the MEC negotiates, then you vote no on the TA. It sounds like the SkyWest pilots make good money from the performance rewards and therefore a TA without that is almost destined to fail.

Your concern for cancellation pay is also unfounded. Cancellation pay is considered industry standard, and therefore it would be hard for the company to reach an agreement without it. Again, a TA without it would not be reached, and if one was, it would almost certainly fail as well.

Yes, ALPA is going through some hard times right now, but that is due to the environment that we are in. It is hard to not take pay cuts when your airline is losing millions a quarter, as most were just a few years ago. ALPA gives the pilot group a framework for negotiation with the company, and it makes the company actually negotiate if they want to reach an agreement, not just point out demands. ALPA cannot save a dying airline, nor does anybody expect it to. There is nothing that ALPA can do if Delta wants to liquidate Comair, other than to make sure their contract is followed to the letter until the last day. That is all that anybody can expect them to do, and to think that they could have somehow prevented what is happening now is ludicrous.

Now that the industry as a whole is recovering, the pilot groups that are up for contract negotiations should reach agreements with pay and benefit increases. SkyWest is in one of the best positions of any regional and their pilots should be paid accordingly. ALPA will not guarantee you a pay raise, but they will guarantee you a seat at the table to negotiate one. Without ALPA, the company has no incentive to give anybody pay raises because your pilot group cannot do anything about it collectively.

Us ASA pilots are watching you guys closely over on the other side. The SkyWest pilots voting in ALPA would tell us that you are willing to work with us to become one airline, and to stop the whipsaw. This is in everybody's benefit! A vote against ALPA means that you are content with the whipsaw and content that management is downgrading ASA pilots and tranferring our airplanes to you to fly them. Keep in mind that the whipsaw can go both ways and the SkyWest pilots could one day be losing airplanes and downgrading Captains while ASA hired 75 a month and upgrades quickly. With one pilot list this will not happen.

A merged ASA/SkyWest pilot group would also meet the criteria for inclusion at the head table of ALPA, Group A (over 4000 pilots). If you do not like the direction ALPA is taking with the regionals, this is your chance to change it. The combined pilot group would have as much clout in ALPA as the major airlines. Food for thought.

Finally, everything I said above could just as easily pertain to any other union as it does to ALPA. Is ALPA perfect? No, far from it. But it is the best thing going right now, and this is the time to vote in a union.

 

[wms]

ALPA is not coming to Skywest. This vote is going to be the biggest blow to ALPA. Just listen to our fellow Skywest pilots that used to fly at an ALPA carrier. They have nothing good to say about it. A few months ago I would of said that ALPA is going to be here but, everyone is coming out with voicing their opinions and it seems to be "no" to ALPA. Even the predominetly pro-ALPA pilot forum at Skywest had a poll (granted it is informal and unscientific) and right now it's 69-31% against as of this morning.

I guess now we know why SW is hiring ASA pilots almost sight unseen. We need a strong ALPA unit here at ASA, but if I were to go to SW I would not vote ALPA in either.

 

[GOTAFLY]

After 4 airlines and SkyWest was one of them. SkyWest does not need alpa. I have flown for two Major Airlines that had alpa as a union and SkyWest beats them both.

 

[Erlanger]

sweptback says;

If the SkyWest pilots vote in ALPA, the company may not take away any of your pay or benefits, including performance rewards. During the time your MEC negotiates the first contract, you will have the exact same thing that is in your employee handbook now.

sweptback, this is not true. Even though it wasn't ALPA, I'm sure an airline could still try to pull the same thing on them. Read this...

"In IBT v. North American Airlines (N.D. Cal. September 14, 2005) a federal court in California upheld the airline’s right to make unilateral pay cuts during first contract negotiations. In this case, the court denied IBT’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to reinstate various pay and benefit cuts the carrier unilaterally implemented while negotiations were in progress, holding that the union failed to show any probability of success on its claims that the carier violated the RLA by implementing the changes.

IBT was certified to represent North American’s pilots in January 2004 and the union and carrier began collective bargaining negotiations in April 2004. IBT requested the assistance of the National Mediation Board (NMB) in December 2004. The negotiation process is continuing and the parties have not reached an agreement.

In an effort to control its operating costs, North American implemented a series of wage and benefit cuts for all of its employees including top management, unrepresented flight attendants and staff employees in January and February 2005. The IBT filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction after North American made the unilateral changes contending the changes violate the RLA’s status quo requirements.

Although the RLA does not contain an explicit status quo provision, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Section 2 First, along with sections 5,6, and 10 of the RLA create an implicit status quo requirement. Section 2, First requires parties to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions and to settle all disputes arising out of the application of such agreements to avoid any interruption to commerce. In denying the IBT’s motion for preliminary injunction, the court had to determine when status quo requirements in these sections take effect.

In Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the onset of negotiations for collective bargaining does not change the authority of the carrier to make changes regarding its employees; the prohibitions in section 6 against changes of wages or conditions pending bargaining are aimed at preventing changes in conditions fixed by collective bargaining agreements. The court in North American noted that the parties had not reached a full tentative agreement or even an agreement on any single section of a collective bargaining agreement when the carrier imposed the unilateral changes. Relying on Williams and a more recent case from the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the court held that the status quo requirements of section 6 did not apply in this case.

The court also rejected the union's argument that it was entitled to an injunction under section 2, First because that was the only practical, effective means of enforcing the duty to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements. Where, as in this case, the parties were still engaged in the negotiation process, particularly with the assistance of the NMB, the court could not say that an injunction was the only possible remedy to safeguard the union's right under section 2 First. Additionally, the court rejected the IBT's attempt to rely on cases decided under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), holding that the fact that the National Labor Relations Board has the authority to remedy unilateral changes under the NLRA does not give the court the authority to remedy those changes under the RLA.

The IBT also sought an injunction under section 2, Fourth of the RLA. This section prohibits carriers from interfering with the right of employees to organize. The court held that although there was no question pilots were treated differently than other employees with regard to the pay cuts, there was no evidence that this differential treatment was because of anti-union animus. The court noted that the company made changes affecting all employees' compensation, such as requiring them to pay for a portion of their health insurance premiums. The evidence in this case showed a company-wide objective to reduce costs, not a targeted effort to reduce pilots’ compensation because they were unionized.

The court's well-reasoned decision, holding that a carrier is not bound by the RLA's status quo requirements when no agreement on a first contract has been reached, should be beneficial to other airlines who are faced with the need to make operational changes during the process of negotiating a first contract."

 

[atrdriver]

sweptback says;



sweptback, this is not true. Even though it wasn't ALPA, I'm sure an airline could still try to pull the same thing on them. Read this...

Yeah, they could try that, but that would have to effect paycuts and work rule changes to each and every employee group for it to work. How do you think that would go over with the other employee groups? And IF your management is so great, then why are they so afraid of having a union on the property? SWA has already proved that management and a union can work together for the health of the business.

 

[wms]

That's what happened at Atlas also.