Asa Alpa Proposal

[GeekMaster]

Unfortunately, previous family commitments will make it impossible for me to attend this weeks' LEC meeting.

There are some out there that keep suggesting radical movements such as recall and decertification. Personally I believe such drastic measures are not currently necassary nor are they in the best interest of the pilot group. However, meaningful action is needed.

Perhaps one of you in attendance would consider introducing the following proposal to the floor. It is Non-radical and even Non-offensive to the current office holders. It will allow them to save face and work in the best interest of the majority of the pilot group.

I'll save the legaleze and use common language:

We, the ASA pilots, in the interest of continuing to pursue the wishes of the majority, propose the following in order to fully and accurately assess our current wishes in regards to continued Contract Negotiations. We do not object to Wilson Polling in principal, we simply believe a Pilot At Large survey is in order:

Using Ballotpointe, we propose the following survey be conducted among ALL active ASA Pilots:

Question 1:

If ASA management's current offer was presented to me for ratification, I would likely vote:

A. to reject it in favor of a strike
B. to accept and ratify it as our new contract

Question 2:

If ALPA's current offer was accepted by management and presented to me for ratification, I would likely vote:

A. to reject it in favor of a strike
B. to accept and ratify it as our new contract

Question 3:

If a tentative agreement was presented to me that contained the following:

1. All currently TA'd sections from completed negotiations.
2. Current ASA management payrate offer
3. Annual Cost of Living Adjustments for the life of the agreement.
4. Duty Rigs that adequately protected my time/productivity ratio.
5. An agreed to time frame for future Section 6 negotiations, afterwhich
both sides would support a Proffer Of Arbitration
6. Signing bonus of at least 5 million dollars.

I would likely vote:

A. to reject it in favor of a strike
B. to accept and ratify it as our new contract

I realize there are a few other open issues as well, but is my understanding that most of the terms of those has been agreed to in concept and simply needs a "legal washing" as to the language.

Everyone wants "solutions". This may not be the total solution but it's a start. It would give our current leaders the face saving opportunity to proclaim, "You spoke and we heard you" and then adjust our negotiations to the "true majority". Then, if the members at large show a majority wants to "stay the course", the so called silent majority will "silently" cease to exist AND everyone marches forward with a renewed unity. If, on the otherhand, the majority wants to work towards job security through "being competitve" (in lack of a single list), we might finally put this nasty affair behind us.

I'll be sending a proxy via a trusted member who will be in attendance to vote on my behalf should such a resolution make it to the floor. If you cannot be in attendance, I would suggest you do the same.

 

[GeekMaster]

P.S.

The proposal should probably also specify that the results of the survey be made known to the Pilot group at large; at least to a degree as possible so that management doesn't know "exactly" what we'll accept in negotiations

 

[sweptback]

I don't agree that this idea is in the best interest of our pilot group. How do I know that you're actually line pilot and not a plant of management? You don't have a posting history, and all your posts have been about the contract. It doesn't exactly lend a lot of credibility to your ideas.

Question 3:

If a tentative agreement was presented to me that contained the following:

1. All currently TA'd sections from completed negotiations.
2. Current ASA management payrate offer
3. Annual Cost of Living Adjustments for the life of the agreement.
4. Duty Rigs that adequately protected my time/productivity ratio.
5. An agreed to time frame for future Section 6 negotiations, afterwhich
both sides would support a Proffer Of Arbitration
6. Signing bonus of at least 5 million dollars.

I would likely vote:

A. to reject it in favor of a strike
B. to accept and ratify it as our new contract

So we pass a resolution saying that the union should get the above in a contract. How does that help? Do you think that management will give us what we want because the membership was polled on it? If anything, you've just weakened our position because the poll will tell management what the union's bottom line is. Of course, maybe that is your goal.

Also, where is scope? Do you expect a contract without scope to pass a vote of the pilot group?

 

[WalterSobchak]

Am I the only one that thinks it would be hilarious if SKYW voted in ALPA at the same time ASA decertified?

 

[GeekMaster]

Sweptback,

I understand your concerns. As I've stated on previous threads, I am a line pilot well into the top 25% seniority. In otherwords, I've made the choice to remain a career ASA capt.

As I stated in the P.S. post, I understand that we probably can't blatantly publish the exact results of such a ballotpointe survey, as it would be made known to management. It's more important at this point that our MEC/LEC leadership be given a true Pilot at Large view as to how the pilot group's view may or may not have changed since the strike vote.

Who knows, such a survey could totally reaffirm the majority opinion to "stay the course". I fully suspect however, it would confirm what our own leader's have already acknowledged; that probably 60% or more of the pilot group is ready to switch directions.

As for scope? I truly believe there is ONLY ONE truly effective method of scope......ONE LIST. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's for sale....at least not at a price this group is willing to pay. The second most effective method of scope is to be economically competitive. I DIDN'T SAY CHEAPEST. We don't have to be cheapest. We just need to be in a range where it makes more economic sense to keep us rather than disassemble us and move our flying. Skywest Inc still benefits economically as long as they own our flying whether it happens at ASA or Skywest. With the up and coming "retire and award" game, all the scope we're currently asking for won't help.

That's not to say we need to take the company's current scope offering. It simply means negotiate for the best we can get with whatever remaining capital we have after the 6 objectives in this thread are met.

Keep in mind that such a survey doesn't "bind" the LEC/MEC to "anything". It simply brings a true representation of the Pilot group at large and whether our goals have changed or hold true. I've been polled by Wilson several times now. I do not doubt that the information they collect is scientific and accurate. The problem with it is that it samples rather than collecting a full group opinion AND the questions force you to choose between being a total "stay the course" guy vs. being a "total management type, sign now" guy.

I just think such a survey will show that the majority of us are in the middle. If I'm wrong, then it strengthens our unity.....because pretty much all of us...me included are ready to walk the picket line....as long as that's what the majority wants.

 

[PCL_128]

GeekMaster, I'm glad you're getting involved at the grassroots level, but keep this in mind: the MEC is not bound by this resolution if it passes. You can direct the MEC to take this action, but representatives cannot be mandated per the C & BLs. If they feel this is not wise, then they'll vote down the resolution at the MEC level after the LEC sends it up. If I was a member of the ASA MEC, I certainly wouldn't vote to comply with this resolution. It has several problems:

1. Displaying any results of such a survey to the pilot group would be devastating to the negotiating position at the table.

2. You haven't even seen the TA'd sections that you're committing to.

3. "Cost of living adjustment" is very vague. That could mean 0.5%, or it could mean 3.5%. Anything less than 2.5% should be unacceptable to you, because it likely won't keep pace with inflation. Your proposal doesn't specify exactly what COLA means.

4. Binding arbitration? Are you insane? Ask the Alaska pilots what they think of agreeing to binding arbitration. Most union leaders know that agreeing to arbitration is always an extreme last resort, even in a run-of-the-mill grievance hearing. You always spend as much time as possible working on a mutually agreeable solution before going to arbitration. I would rather sit parked in Section 6 for a decade rather than take binding arbitration. Arbitration can turn into an absolute nightmare.

5. I'm curious where you are getting your $5 million figure. The PCL MEC calculated that $7 million was 100% retro for them, but that was a much smaller pilot group that had only been in Section 6 for two years. I'd imagine that your retro figure would have to be much higher.


Those points aside, I'm not discouraging you from bringing a resolution. I've always been an advocate of the membership getting involved in the process, especially by bringing resolutions. The only caveat is that it's always best to evaluate your resolution thoroughly before bringing it to a meeting.

 

[ASARJMan]

Am I the only one that thinks it would be hilarious if SKYW voted in ALPA at the same time ASA decertified?

Yep, 'cause ASA ALPA will never be decertified. Fact, no matter what JP and Joey post on here.

 

[GeekMaster]

PCL,

I clearly stated in the P.S. that disclosing exact results in a way that would harm our negotiations wouldn't be good. You are correct that we haven't seen exact details of previously TA'd portions of the process. That is where I trust that my CNC has acheived an acceptable level according to demands I/We originally gave them. I didn't list exact percentages for COLA adjustments because it would be a matter of our CNC negotiating the best available with the negotiating capital we have left. I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NOWHERE IN THE POST ABOUT BINDING ARBITRATION, THAT'S SUICIDE!!!...Scroll back up. I said PROFFER OF ARBITRATION. That's what we're trying to get right now. Each time we ask for it, management asks them to deny it. So far and for the foreseeable future, we're 0for in that game. If they have to support it after a given period of time, we might stand a better chance of actually receiving it; no guarantees though cause that process is decided by the NMB.

As for the $5 million signing bonus, it's merely a guess. The company's first offer of $2 million was the first time they ever even adressed the issue. They'll be willing to negotiate upwards on that number if 50 seat rates get a bit closer to the ones suggest at the beginning of this thread. As for 100% retro? NOT WITHOUT A RELEASE. And until ASA's table position is more like the one in Question 3 of that "possible" survey, THERE WILL BE NO RELEASE!!

Don't like the questions? Adjust them, but get the CURRENT information to our leaders from the ENTIRE pilot group and not just a Wilson Sampling. In otherwords, take the blinders off and look at the "whole world". Every pilot should count.

Everyone is screaming about "what to do". I disagree with radical moves such as decertification or recall at this point. I believe my two captain reps are good people. I have the highest regards for JR our negotiating chairman. I simply think they, along with all of our leadership should have ALL the information. Who knows, maybe it'll be like the strike vote and come back with 85% in favor of staying the course.

NONE OF THIS IS INTENDED TO BE BINDING. The key word in the answer section is I would "likely" vote. It is instead meant to give the MEC/LEC an up to date polling of the PILOT AT LARGE group where every single active member gets to weigh in. (and privately/anonymously I might add) There hasn't been one in a very long time and things have changed.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

This is borderline ridiculous. Who are you people sitting around thinking of harebrained schemes to undermine the MEC. Get lost please.

 

[John Pennekamp]

P.S.

The proposal should probably also specify that the results of the survey be made known to the Pilot group at large; at least to a degree as possible so that management doesn't know "exactly" what we'll accept in negotiations

Geekmaster,

A worthy idea, but building on what PCL said, useless.

1. The MEC won't do it.
2. Even if they do, they aren't required to listen.
3. Without the results published, we won't know if they are following our will or not.
4. If you publish the results you give management the upper hand.

The best course, IMO is to replace the hardnose hardliners we have. I am the first to publicly admit I made a mistake in voting for the wrong coalition. We elected some people who can't back down. They feel they must win 100% at any cost. That's not what negotiations are about. Negotiations are a give and take process, but they only seem to understand "take".