Anti union pilots.....I don't get it.

[SkyNation]

And I'd say that an overwhelming majority of the regional pilots at Pinnacle are satisfied with their ALPA representation too.

now I've heard it all.

 

[capt. megadeth]

1. Now that you have read my rant....IMO, there is no way you can compare what has happened where you are with where the SKYW pilots are or for that matter any passenger carrier.

2. If being part of the team is so great, why isn't UPS ALPA? I will bet the first guy who stands up in SDF and screams that ALPA is the way to go leaves with a few bruises and a limp.

3. ALPA has failed to represent all pilots to the betterment of all. They have successes from time to time, but their successes generally benefit one segment of their representation and hurt another. ALPA cannot represent competing interests and win. Anyone who has lived through 20 years of ALPA and has 4 uniforms in their closet is speaking from a place you will never be.

4. Instead of criticizing those less fortunate than you, perhaps thanking your lucky stars you aren't where they are or have been would be in order.

A350

1. A350, my fiancee (who is pretty much my husband, just without the legalities, ie. all our assets are together, etc) flies for Skywest, so anything that happens there, directly affects me. I am not comparing UPS to anything. Can you point out where I did this please?
Also, contrary to popular belief, I did not just get my PPL and get on with UPS. I've been at 2 other airlines, one of which was non union. Sure, we were all young and naive but it sure would have been nice to have a union there. We tried to get ALPA there (I was on the OC) but it didn't pass. The other place I worked had Teamsters (they were working on the first contract while I was there) and boy, let me tell ya......it was so much fun to have a 3 page policy manual that stated "USA3000 can change any policy in this document at any time" on top of it. So, there is no need to act like I was born a UPSer, k? I might not have direct experience with ALPA but I have plenty of experience with non union carriers.

2. I will agree with you there. It's great to be independent....the best scenario IMO if you have the resources.

3. I do agree with you there too. I hope I am never there....very true.

4. How many times do I have to say that the way I look at it is the lesser of 2 evils? Wherever you have been, if it's been an ALPA carrier, would you rather have had no union and your management calling all the shots?

 

[capt. megadeth]

I don't get it either... but then again - these are the type of folks that voted for Bush... twice!

Ashamed to admit it but I voted for the bafoon the last time, although he didn't win the electoral in my state anyway.

 

[JPAustin]

Gotta Agree

It just absolutely freaking BLOWS MY MIND to see all the anti union pilots on here!

I mean, correct me if I am wrong here but IMO if you don't want a union, you are basically saying you trust management. Can management and trust really be used in the same sentence these days? Don't people see the crooks for who they are? Maybe I should start smoking whatever they are....

I just don't get it. WTF???? Management sticks together, why don't pilots? Management must be loving these people.

I'll admit, I am not a big fan of ALPA, but I paid my dues, volunteered my time and efforts, and walked a couple picket lines. What I am saying is that, PILOT GROUPS NEED REPRESENTATION, and ALPA is the probably the best bet (versus Teamsters and TWU). ALPA can use a lot of revamping in my opinion, but its purpose is still just and true, and managements will rape and pillage if they can.

Now, the Skywest Pilots have voted and the majority has spoken and we cannot fault them -- that is what they want and they feel they can do it as their own group. I wish them the best and, from a good management point of view, it is actually better to be on friendly terms with their employees so as to avoid unionization. But hey, whoever said airline management was good?

 

[Inconceivable]

If it were up to management, every employee outside of management would make minimum wage and receive no benefits.

One of the things I will always remember is Jack Moers telling Phildo in a pilot meeting (referring to the rampers):

"When you pay people minimum wage, you're basically telling them that you would pay them less if you could but don't want to go to jail."

Boy was Phildo p!$$ed off! I think that might have weakened the blood vessel in his brain...so technically, Jack should get credit for the assist...

 

[A350]

Mega:

Don't mistake my post for an accusation saying that you are young, stupid, or anything like that....you are speaking from your perspective of being employed at a hugely successful airline with money in the bank and plenty to spend. Of course, you do have the perspective of previous non-union work...but could part of the reason you see union vs. non-union the way you do be because you are working for a successful union gig?

What I am alluding to is the guy who has paid ALPA dues for 20 years and has 4 uniforms in his closet because ALPA failed to protect his career. In most cases the failed career for one was a boon for another.

We can scream about bad management, and for the most part, they are bad with few exception. But a lot of ALPA's policies or lack thereof have contributed to the industry we see today. We have regional pilots competing with mainline pilots for flights, airplanes, and jobs. We have regional pilots competing with other regional pilots for flights, airplanes, and jobs. The fact that 90% of them are represented by ALPA means ALPA is two faced when it comes to these things. The independent unions only have one group to worry about.....the group that formed them.

Rez, Occam, and PCL can scream to the heavens that it is we who control the destiny of the union, but until the union protects those who stick their neck out, there will be no participation.

A350

 

[SkyNation]

Rez, Occam, and PCL can scream to the heavens that it is we who control the destiny of the union, but until the union protects those who stick their neck out, there will be no participation.

A350

and oh, man, will they scream. never mind that PCL paid a scab for his job, worked for one of the lowliest ALPA regionals, and now 'undercuts' (their word) other pilots by flying the same AC for less.

just never mind all that stuff.

 

[capt. megadeth]

Of course, you do have the perspective of previous non-union work...but could part of the reason you see union vs. non-union the way you do be because you are working for a successful union gig?



A350

I don't think so. I don't know how many times I have to say this. I look at it as non-union (management has you by the you know whats) and union (you have at least some negotiation going on)....the lesser of two evils. Our union has nothing to do with it. I have always felt this way before I came to UPS.

I do think our union is one of the best but they are far from perfect. We have our own internal problems similar to what I hear about ALPA (ie. senior members looking out for themselves, etc.). Of course we don't have to deal with a conflict of interest in regards to other carriers so that is a good thing.

 

[N2264J]

Re: Anti union pilots...I don't get it

Friends don't let friends work at Pinnacle!!!

But ALPA represents you well? Pinnacle is the worst regional out there, you have said it yourself. How come ALPA doesnt come in and save the day?

PCL 128 was an ALPA status rep at Pinnacle who abandoned his pilot group in the middle of contract negotiations to take a job at a non ALPA carrier.

In my opinion, he has no standing to condemn anyone who rejects ALPA for any reason, whatsoever.

 

[PCL_128]

Friends don't let friends work at Pinnacle!!!

But ALPA represents you well? Pinnacle is the worst regional out there, you have said it yourself. How come ALPA doesnt come in and save the day?

I've never said that Pinnacle is the "worst regional out there." Far from it. There are plenty worse. However, Pinnacle is a horrible place to work because of the management mentality. With that said, PCL ALPA does a superb job of protecting the pilots from overzealous managers. The number of jobs/careers of PCL pilots that have been saved by the hardworking volunteers of PCL ALPA is truly astounding. Despite how much I hate PCL management, I would still choose to work at Pinnacle over Skywest any day. The career protection and peace of mind of legal representation is just too important. Having seen the polling results when I was on the MEC at Pinnacle, I can tell you with complete certainty that an overwhelming majority of the PCL pilot group is more than satisfied with their ALPA representation.

 

[PCL_128]

In my opinion, he has no standing to condemn anyone who rejects ALPA for any reason, whatsoever.

Coming from someone who should be expelled from the Association because of your RJDC activities, that doesn't exactly mean a lot.

 

[DX Rick]

I've never said that Pinnacle is the "worst regional out there." Far from it. There are plenty worse. However, Pinnacle is a horrible place to work because of the management mentality. With that said, PCL ALPA does a superb job of protecting the pilots from overzealous managers. The number of jobs/careers of PCL pilots that have been saved by the hardworking volunteers of PCL ALPA is truly astounding. Despite how much I hate PCL management, I would still choose to work at Pinnacle over Skywest any day. The career protection and peace of mind of legal representation is just too important. Having seen the polling results when I was on the MEC at Pinnacle, I can tell you with complete certainty that an overwhelming majority of the PCL pilot group is more than satisfied with their ALPA representation.

Oh my God, it's getting deep in here!

You would chose PCL over Skywest because PCL is ALPA and the job protection is too much to pass up for a non union carrier.

But yet you left an ALPA carrier for a non ALPA carrier. Let me guess, Air Trans management is like no other, and you don't fear losing your job beacause of management ???

You are so full of it, and give ALPA guys a bad name. You spew more BS than any airline management out there.

 

[SKYWRJGUY]

Talk about a false premise; now who's the Kool-Aidist? Trust between management and workers since the times of Freddie Taylor and before has been contentious, but effective leaders realize that absolute minimalist approaches don't work either. Time and again research demonstrates that job satisfaction, identification, consideration, empowerment, and psychological safety all result in extra-role behavior, commitment, and extra effort; without them you get high attrition, deviant workplace behaviors, poor customer service and strained labor management relations. The last all impact the bottom line, which is what causes management to address antecents; it is not pressure from the unions per se.

Unions don't keep leaders in check by ensuring the bring the pay and benefits off the rock-bottom floor; effective leaders realize the high costs associated with the negative behaviors listed above, and try to strike a cost-benefit balance. Unions arose out of worsening labor-management relations, but some of that was due to the the cavalier attitudes of pilots during the days of individualism (Hopkins, 1970). Don't kid yourself on collectivism: when a unionized carrier's workers face imminent danger, they don't take one for the team--they look out for themselves first. The conflict inherent in drawing craft bounds that signal unique identification ultimately leads to more self-imposed conflict than it does cooperation at the organizational and interairline level (Walsh, 1994). Yours is an interesting premise as well, but full of crap--it appeals to emotion rather than anything empirical or even rational.

I think we see in Southwest an ideal of how well labor-management relations can be under union stewardship; ALPA just doesn't seem to support cordiality and collectivism so much as it does itself as a sole entity.

Read:

Hopkins, G. (1970). The airline pilots: A study in elite unionization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press [oh, by the same guy who wrote the Flying the Line volumes]

Walsh, D. (1994). On different planes: An organizational analysis of cooperation and conflict among airline unions.

 

[BE90flyer]

Most people are happy at SkyWest while most are unhappy at Pinnacle. That alone should tell you soomething.

 

[PCL_128]

Oh my God, it's getting deep in here!

You would chose PCL over Skywest because PCL is ALPA and the job protection is too much to pass up for a non union carrier.

But yet you left an ALPA carrier for a non ALPA carrier. Let me guess, Air Trans management is like no other, and you don't fear losing your job beacause of management ???

AirTran is unionized, you dipsh*&. I have union protection. It may not be ALPA, which I would prefer, but union protection is union protection. Skywest pilots have zero protection.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

What I am alluding to is the guy who has paid ALPA dues for 20 years and has 4 uniforms in his closet because ALPA failed to protect his career. In most cases the failed career for one was a boon for another.

Is that all he did? paid his dues and put on the uniform..? Of course his expectation are out of wack? What did he do to help? Did he volunteer..? Heck... with the average particapation rates the changes that he went to LEC meetings and voted are slim!

WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE GET THESE EXPECTATIONS!!

All one has to do is look at the history of the industry... ALPA is the white knight... nor has it ever tried to be.. these are only expectations created in ones own mind to justify the apathy and the unwillingness to self govern thier union...

We can scream about bad management, and for the most part, they are bad with few exception. But a lot of ALPA's policies or lack thereof have contributed to the industry we see today. We have regional pilots competing with mainline pilots for flights, airplanes, and jobs. We have regional pilots competing with other regional pilots for flights, airplanes, and jobs. The fact that 90% of them are represented by ALPA means ALPA is two faced when it comes to these things. The independent unions only have one group to worry about.....the group that formed them.

You guys love to fault ALPA for this.. but no one has any solutions...how conveinent...

Rez, Occam, and PCL can scream to the heavens that it is we who control the destiny of the union, but until the union protects those who stick their neck out, there will be no participation.

Great a mexican stand off...

ALPA says: self goevern your career..
the pilot says: no..you do it...you govern my career
ALPA: ..uh..ok..you want ALPA to make your decisions for you. Well at least tell me what you want.. vote and particpate..
Pilot: no.. you guys sucks. I am not doing anything till you do what I want.
ALPA: what do you want
Pilot: I already you told you.. you guys suck...
ALPA: We get it.. we suck.. let's work together to solve the problems.
Pilot: that is IT! I want to decertify ALPA.

Talk about a false premise; now who's the Kool-Aidist? Trust between management and workers since the times of Freddie Taylor and before has been contentious, but effective leaders realize that absolute minimalist approaches don't work either. Time and again research demonstrates that job satisfaction, identification, consideration, empowerment, and psychological safety all result in extra-role behavior, commitment, and extra effort; without them you get high attrition, deviant workplace behaviors, poor customer service and strained labor management relations. The last all impact the bottom line, which is what causes management to address antecents; it is not pressure from the unions per se.

Unions don't keep leaders in check by ensuring the bring the pay and benefits off the rock-bottom floor; effective leaders realize the high costs associated with the negative behaviors listed above, and try to strike a cost-benefit balance. Unions arose out of worsening labor-management relations, but some of that was due to the the cavalier attitudes of pilots during the days of individualism (Hopkins, 1970). Don't kid yourself on collectivism: when a unionized carrier's workers face imminent danger, they don't take one for the team--they look out for themselves first. The conflict inherent in drawing craft bounds that signal unique identification ultimately leads to more self-imposed conflict than it does cooperation at the organizational and interairline level (Walsh, 1994). Yours is an interesting premise as well, but full of crap--it appeals to emotion rather than anything empirical or even rational.

I think we see in Southwest an ideal of how well labor-management relations can be under union stewardship; ALPA just doesn't seem to support cordiality and collectivism so much as it does itself as a sole entity.

Read:

Hopkins, G. (1970). The airline pilots: A study in elite unionization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press [oh, by the same guy who wrote the Flying the Line volumes]

Walsh, D. (1994). On different planes: An organizational analysis of cooperation and conflict among airline unions.

Valid points...understanding is the basis for change and effectiveness...

 

[PCL_128]

Great a mexican stand off...

ALPA says: self goevern your career..
the pilot says: no..you do it...you govern my career
ALPA: ..uh..ok..you want ALPA to make your decisions for you. Well at least tell me what you want.. vote and particpate..
Pilot: no.. you guys sucks. I am not doing anything till you do what I want.
ALPA: what do you want
Pilot: I already you told you.. you guys suck...
ALPA: We get it.. we suck.. let's work together to solve the problems.
Pilot: that is IT! I want to decertify ALPA.

A perfect re-creation of the typical ALPA debate on this board! This is exactly how ridiculous you anti-ALPA zealots sound. Wake up and take control of your careers and your union, and stop sitting on the sidelines and whining.

 

[pilotyip]

Unemployment?

How about unemployment expereinces at union companies that went out of business? Does that make one pro-union or anti-union?

 

[arthompson]

You make the assumption that all management is bad and all unions are good, niether of these statements is inherrently true.

 

[PCL_128]

How about unemployment expereinces at union companies that went out of business? Does that make one pro-union or anti-union?

Are you implying that those union companies went out of business simply because they were unionized?

 

[PCL_128]

You make the assumption that all management is bad and all unions are good, niether of these statements is inherrently true.

Unions are democracies. Corporations exist only for one purpose: the almighty dollar. It isn't necessarily that management is "bad," although certain management certainly are, it's more about who they are beholden to. Unions have a legal responsibility to their members. Corporations only have a legal responsibility to their shareholders. As an employee, it is asinine to put your trust into someone that has a fiduciary responsibility to someone that has goals antithetical to your own. The shareholders want to see labor paid as little as possible to increase their future profits. Therefore, management will do what they can to make those goals happen in order to pacify the shareholders. Unions exist to provide balance. Capitalism run amok is one of the scariest notions that I can imagine. There has to be balancing forces.

 

[BE90flyer]

"Capitalism run amok is one of the scariest notions that I can imagine"

It took a while but it finally came out. Capitalism it what drives our country. Businesses exist to make money, not employ you.

Maybe we should take from the rich and give to the poor. Oh wait, we already do that with our current tax system. I got news for you Robinhood, there are still a few places you can go and enjoy you communist life style. Dont let me stop you.

 

[PCL_128]

It isn't a black-or-white choice between capitalism and communism. This country doesn't have a pure capitalistic system. What do you think anti-trust laws are for? There has to be balance to keep capitalism in check. If you allow it to run amok, then everyone but the extremely powerful gets fu*&ed, much like the communist systems that you refer to. Pure communism and pure capitalism end in the same result: the little people get screwed, and the powerful get richer and more powerful. What works for everyone is a system of capitalism with checks and balances. Unions, anti-trust laws, etc... provide that balance.

 

[SERPICO]

Totalitarianism

Unions are democracies.

Unions exist to provide balance.

How is a closed shop democratic?
Yes,I realize that this a precondition of employment.
Second point, I agree.

 

[CA1900]

"Capitalism run amok is one of the scariest notions that I can imagine"

It took a while but it finally came out. Capitalism it what drives our country. Businesses exist to make money, not employ you.

Slavery and child labor are good for business. Are you suggesting those should be brought back into action, to increase shareholder value?

Environmental regulation stifles business. Do you really want to return Lake Erie to its "prime" of the 60's and 70's? One need only look at the skies of Shenzhen to see the result.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It isn't a black-or-white choice between capitalism and communism. This country doesn't have a pure capitalistic system. What do you think anti-trust laws are for? There has to be balance to keep capitalism in check. If you allow it to run amok, then everyone but the extremely powerful gets fu*&ed, much like the communist systems that you refer to. Pure communism and pure capitalism end in the same result: the little people get screwed, and the powerful get richer and more powerful. What works for everyone is a system of capitalism with checks and balances. Unions, anti-trust laws, etc... provide that balance.

It is those very anti-trust laws that have caused some of our problems..... If airlines could get together more, either through mergers or raising fares, we would have a stronger industry..... Instead we have a very weak industry.... That isn't good for collective bargaining......

 

[JoeMerchant]

Despite how much I hate PCL management, I would still choose to work at Pinnacle over Skywest any day.

Proof again that you are brain dead...... Skywest is a better run company and pays better than PCL..... Yet you would rather work for PCL because of ALPA..... I would rather work for a good company.....

Would you rather work for Mesa than Skywest?

 

[Lazy8]

Friends don't let friends work at Pinnacle!!!

But ALPA represents you well? Pinnacle is the worst regional out there, you have said it yourself.

I'm sure there are worse regionals.

And I suppose Pinnacle would be a great place to work if we did not have ALPA representation? :erm: Suuuuure. That's a good one.

 

[DX Rick]

AirTran is unionized, you dipsh*&. I have union protection. It may not be ALPA, which I would prefer, but union protection is union protection. Skywest pilots have zero protection.

I never said Air Tran wasn't a Union carrier, I said it was a NON ALPA carrier.
You in previous posts have stated that thier union is not as good as ALPA. So why would you risk your career with anything less than ALPA?

You've resorted to a lot of name calling lately. A sign of insecurity. Is there anything you would like to share with us? Get off your chest? Come on, we're all here for each other. Group hug?

 

[pilotyip]

Maybe

Are you implying that those union companies went out of business simply because they were unionized?

When a privately owned company (Zantop Teamsters 747) with an owner who said he would shut the place down if a union came on the property, annouces 6-8 weeks in advance of the company shutdown to comply with the RLA. And that date is the anniversary of the first raise under our contract. Is that coincidental or is it a move to get rid of the union. The owner then elected to stay in business if the union would reopen the contract, the union agreed to L-188 Captain pay and days off that was less than the days off and pay for a 1st year DA-20 Captain at USA Jet Airlines. You can draw your own conclusions. BTW I did not go back.