Im Ready, UNION AT FLEX

[GlorifiedCabbie]

Typical IBT response? No it's the response of over 90% of the Options pilots. What do the 90% see that the others don't ?

 

[cougar12]

Rupert is a tool!
The RIF pilots had to sign an agreement to not sue to return to work. They had to be 100% onboard or the deal was no good and the Teamsters lawsuit would have to go forward. National was deeply involved in this issue.

 

[0.25 Mach CFI]

Any of us are eligible to apply. I'll pass.

Says the guy who just volunteered for the "voting committee" (which should be administered by a $15/hr intern).

 

[993_Pilot]

Uh, your given the opportunity to get a new type-rating and fly a large cabin aircraft. Some folks will want to do that, others not(I don't). 993 offers the typical IBT response.
WL19

That response was born of experience working for KR, nothing more, nothing less. Red Label is just a new twist on the old "Senior Flight Officer Program", and we all know very well what it takes to be a candidate.

 

[doh]

Uh, your given the opportunity to get a new type-rating and fly a large cabin aircraft. Some folks will want to do that, others not(I don't). 993 offers the typical IBT response.
WL19

"Given the opportunity" my eye. You are purchasing that with the loss of all quality of life rules that Flexjet has. The latest is if your plane is down, you will either have all of your vacation burned, or you will be back on the line. So much for your scheduling autonomy. You will be flying your plane and everyone else's as well. And no overtime days for you either. But hey! Look on the bright side, once you're divorced, because you are never home, you will have even more time to enjoy flying!uke:

 

[slowtation capt]

I wonder how long before a fight breaks out because someone thrown into another "teams" airplane won't fly broken, won't fly tired, etc.... Affecting their "teams" 80% of their 50% bonus for efficiency

 

[V1 Rotate]

Says the guy who just volunteered for the "voting committee" (which should be administered by a $15/hr intern).

Says the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. Since you obviously know who I am, why don't you stop being a coward and taking pop shots at me on here and contact me directly. For your info, I didn't volunteer for it. The three of us were nominated by other pilots. We only exist to count votes on upcoming surveys so when the vote doesn't go your way you can't blame management for fixing the vote. If you'd educate yourself a little bit you'd see that having your fellow colleagues keep the system honest is in your favor. If you want to know more about the process, please feel free to contact me or the other two members.

 

[flex*wife]

Says the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. Since you obviously know who I am, why don't you stop being a coward and taking pop shots at me on here and contact me directly. For your info, I didn't volunteer for it. The three of us were nominated by other pilots. We only exist to count votes on upcoming surveys so when the vote doesn't go your way you can't blame management for fixing the vote. If you'd educate yourself a little bit you'd see that having your fellow colleagues keep the system honest is in your favor. If you want to know more about the process, please feel free to contact me or the other two members.

Is this a flex thing or a flight options thing?

I know flex is talking about some dumb survey thing but if you don't realize that is straight from the anti - union instruction sheet of Ford and Harrison you are really being taken advantage of... it's literally part of the modern union busting section on Wikipedia it's so common. They did a whole seminar a few years back on just this one topic.

The first CAB was an anti union attempt too - and very effective since it kept a union off the property for years. But it was a paper moon scheme and completely not worth the time of the good people who served on it.

It's almost predictable the next steps etc... if you just do a little research. And once you do the research you'll be sending in your union card quicker than crazy on a wet cat.

 

[V1 Rotate]

Is this a flex thing or a flight options thing?

I know flex is talking about some dumb survey thing but if you don't realize that is straight from the anti - union instruction sheet of Ford and Harrison you are really being taken advantage of...

The first CAB was an anti union attempt to - and very effective since it kept a union off the property for years. But it was a paper moon scheme and completely not worth the time of the good people who served on it.

It's almost predictable the next steps etc... if you just do a little research. And once you do the research you'll be sending in your union card quicker than crazy on a wet cat.

I sent my card in awhile back. What's the big deal if the pilot group has some eyes and ears on the process? Why do you attack anyone who tries to be involved in anything that's not union related? I've said my peace about the 1108 on here awhile back and if they come on board, then so be it. But it's the rhetoric from from it's strongest supporters that made me pinch my nose when I sent my card in. Just as in this case.

Btw, what are the next predictable steps that we should expect?

 

[flex*wife]

I sent my card in awhile back. What's the big deal if the pilot group has some eyes and ears on the process? Why do you attack anyone who tries to be involved in anything that's not union related? I've said my peace about the 1108 on here awhile back and if they come on board, then so be it. But it's the rhetoric from from it's strongest supporters that made me pinch my nose when I sent my card in. Just as in this case.

Btw, what are the next predictable steps that we should expect?

So sorry this is long but I wanted to answer you earnestly. I think you're being entirely too sensitive -- it was a sincere question. From looking at your past several posts I was unclear if you were in fact a flexjet pilot or a flight options pilot (although soon that will not make any difference)

I really don't understand why you think I attack anyone who has an anti-union voice when all I am doing is pointing out with very clear definable and defendable points when they are misstating the facts, incorrect in their assumptions or spouting propaganda. If I am, however, personally attacked I will fight back. I think you need to look at the entire history of posting to see where the attacks start. 100% of the time they are with the anti-union crowd. I think if you take an unbiased look at Yammer you will see the same thing. Keep in mind, one venting their extremely understandable frustration doesn't constitute attack (although it is apparently a reason for termination.)

Misplaced blame, accusations of combative or intrusive natures etc... are very effective subconscious anti-union tactics that I've seen you and a few others pick up on at the direction of your leaders within your ranks without even knowing it. You think you are speaking for yourself, thinking for yourself but really you are just spouting off some carefully laid out talking points that have been slowly introduced to you over time. Kenn Ricci started the anti-union fight before he even signed the papers knowing that every company he has ever headed has eventually sought out union protections from his management style. More of the carefully laid talking points you have been brainwashed with:

Talk of "culture" will continue to be prominent. This is big because it puts the company at an advantage because no one likes change. Even though a blind duck could see the culture changed the minute you were sold, the subtle hint will be the negative culture changes are the union's fault while the other changes are brilliant innovation the union will not allow the company to move forward with. The subtlety is that a fence sitter will feel threatened by the changes and more likely to stay on management's side.

There will continue to be reminders of the open door policy regarding issues and concerns but an unbiased look at the facts will show this is really not very accurate. There will be pilots who come out and say "well they helped me here or they helped me there, so you are wrong." They are completely missing the point that the company didn't do anything that wasn't primarily advantageous to them paramount to all other concerns. Not that there is anything wrong with that... They are supposed to do that... However, the intimation is that the company put pilots first and that's just ludicrous. It puts many, many other things much higher on the list than pilots and for their responsibilities, that's okay. But the message works so well -- it convinces you that there is no need for you to speak up for yourself or be represented because good ole RH has got your back and will walk out the door with you! Give me a break. If he really would than he is a fool and then that means you have a fool for a leader. That's a mistake. Or at the very least someone with mixed priorities and that is just as bad. Who would or should be okay with that? Give me one example where the company put the pilot first to the detriment of other employees or shareholders or was not in some way a reward or coercion for loyalty and I will shut up forever. I mean that because I know you cannot.

It's a business not a family. Yet there are people who want to mistake the nature of the relationships to the detriments of their own families. You know where I learned this trick -- the trick of making an employee over-rate his value and importance to the company and in so doing give undeserved loyalty to the company and the personalities of management? Yup, it's in Kenn Ricci's book. You know what else is in there? Expiration dates. He doesn't call them that but he makes it very clear that every employee has an expiration date. He blatantly states that after a certain number of years it is no longer advantageous to keep an employee. Even with training costs etc... it is cheaper and more advantageous to replace an employee than to keep one. He hates the perks that come with employee longevity -- especially increased healthcare and benefits (read vacation) costs and raises. He doesn't see a need to contribute to retirement plans or PTO rollovers because he doesn't want you around long enough for it to be a factor. The ENTIRE book is really a mantra of "let me show you how to screw your employees and make then think they love you" farce. There is some scary stuff in there.

You are highly skilled and educated and hard to replace yet to them you a no more than an operator of capital. Even with Bombardier. You can't fault them for this point of view - there's actually nothing "inherently" wrong with this view. Their job as financial stewards of the company is to get as much use out of both the operator and that capital as cheaply and efficiently as possible. This often results in decisions effecting pilots (and their families) in the areas that most in the business call QOL issues, seniority and safety issues. That's all the union supporters really want -- a guarantee of exactly what can happen in these arenas. They want job protection from Ricci's self-promoted expiration dates, outrageous scheduling techniques, seniority abolishment, substandard benefits, vacation protection etc...

Here's the thing V1 -- it's not rhetoric -- it is fact and history based. Has it ever occurred to you that the ones who are strong supporters of a union are that way because they actually care about what's happening to the pilots (and their families) behind some of the decisions being made? That they see a need for pilots to represent themselves because a company CANNOT and eventually WILL NOT be able to operate to maximize both profits and employee satisfaction/well being? It's not vitriol or hatred. It is pilots managing their own responsibilities and stepping up to the plate to lead the own private little company (their family) in the way that benefits their concerns.

Why does Kenn get to call the shots for his company but you don't get to manage yours? That's just weakness to not see that is screwed up.

You really should research not so much of the mobster era union history (which he will try to get you to believe is the only historical aspect of unionization) but more of the early and present stages of labor campaigns. Worker unionization is 100% defendable as the reason the middle class exists. It is 100% defendable as the reason your child gets an education. It is 100% defendable as a major promoter of civil and religious rights in this country. It is 100% defendable as the reason you can expect healthcare, vacation and a safe working environment as a given. Try to steer clear of the crazy progressivist propaganda that has overtaken the dialogue or the less than researched neocon propaganda that unions are destroying the American dream and you will find that worker unionization is actually a very moral standard that demands employees are treated constitutionally and with our founding principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unionization had to happen because for a brief period in our American history we lost sight of that. Unions actually saved America from communism where the majority work for the supplementation of the few. The 1% argument is actually a fight against communism but those damn hippies are too stupid to couch their arguments based on the constitution and declaration of independence. I suggest you research and think very, very critically. Don't buy into this "anyone but the teamsters" ploy... The teamsters actually are the only union that will allow the most control over your dues. That is a WIN WIN WIN. But they are also the most experienced and aggressive -- something the company wants to avoid at all costs. Don't fall for the trick -- you are better than that.

continued in next post...

 

[flex*wife]

continued from last post:

I gave you a few examples of what to expect (and you can really research this for yourself) but let's not forget to add the others to the list just to document: more bases is a favorite of Ricci, meal program enhancements, plenty of "we're listening" ruses like the uniform, staged meet and greets, free beers and dinners, "wait and see" answers, vague answers to black and white issues, answering question with proclamations of assistance and not just answers, a bonus of some type or a small pay enhancement.... Attacks on the union chosen with suggestions of in house or another. Employee surveys, resolution boards, parties, increased social networking presence of managers with posts meant to humanize them. Private notes, texts and letters to certain pilots (and even personal letters to families) for the purpose of securing their loyalty or bringing them back to the fold out of concern. A few will be fired and spark the fear of what happens when you support a union. Company sanctioned aggressiveness toward union members and false claims of wrong-doing or deviations of company policy by union supporters from a few handpicked cronies. Scrutinization of pro-union pilots write-ups and customer issues etc... Manipulation of pro-union pilots work days to increase the likelihood of mistakes or unproductiveness (to give legitimacy for firing), tampering with employee devices to spy on websites visited, emails and breach of unwritten company policies... Promises of shiny new jets or a spot on a global. Seniority bypass opportunities... Sound familiar? Oh, soon you will see more of Cleveland too. And RH will be gone within the year. The only thing Ricci is waiting on is a way to be able to blame the union for it as an extra bonus.

This isn't Ricci's first rodeo. Although some of these are just good business ideas, they will be presented or offered in such as way as to maximize your loyalty and disguise the diametrically opposed viewpoint of fiscal manager versus employee. There's more but I am tired of doing the work for you.

Don't help them screw yourself or your fellow pilots by doing their dirty work. As a top tier guy I can just about guarantee you based on Ricci's history that the only way you (you personally V1) keep your same pay, benefits and seniority is with a union. Honestly, I don't think a union will be able to get you more than that but that's enough. You'll probably never get back what you've lost so far but at least you won't lose more. It sounds like you have acquiesced to that point. But why do you not try to get your fellow top guys see how incredibly stupid they are being when they refuse to see the writing on the wall? Or help your bottom tier guys realize seniority bypass will be their eventual career killer? By the time Ricci chews them up and cleans them out after 7-10 years they will be unemployable at their wage bracket...

If you don't like the way your organizing committee is handling the matter then why don't you volunteer to help them out? Why not be the change you are demanding? It's easy to criticize but hard to lead. So what are you? A b!tcher or a leader?

If you can't lead (and believe me I know not everyone can, case in point) at least stop harming your fellow brothers and sisters by doing the company's dirty work for them.

Kenn Ricci will do everything to maximize the health of his bottom line (as well he should) but you must also do the same for yourself and your family. To think you don't deserve it is just pathetic. I'm glad to hear you're not in that group.

 

[V1 Rotate]

Great, honest, and well thought out reply. Most on here could learn from your post. And for that I commend you.

To begin with, I don't think I'm being too sensitive with my responses. As a Flight Info member for years and debating with people in person, I just have little to no tolerance for people who just pop off with out any ammo to back it up. Such was the case with 0.25 Mach CFI and his snarky intern comment. It was his first post, at least with that screenname, since 2004! He knows who I am. He knows I'm not a dishonest person. We may not agree, but that doesn't make me a crook or liar nor should it make me a target. So when someone takes the low road like that, they deserve to be responded to accordingly. And if he were to contact me directly, I'd forget the whole thing, start off fresh, and have an honest discussion. That goes for anyone else whom I've had Flight Info disagreements with. Moving on...

No one will argue with the points that you made with your post about the need for unions. I'm of the opinion that unions are needed where they're needed. That's why I sent my card in. I believe we need something in writing. It's not because I have some kind of personal dislike of Kenn or Rick or anyone else. I've never even met Kenn. But when the opportunity arose to represent my fellow pilots during this time when there is a lot of uncertainty and in the eyes of some, distrust of leadership, I took it. How effective will we be? Time will tell.

I don't feel that I'm doing the Company's bidding by being involved. It's the opposite, actually. One of the side effects of my involvement so much lately is that a lot of people seek me out to find out what's going on. And I'm happy to educate them. To some on here, that makes me a rat, I'm sure. But in the meantime, the pilot group has some eyes and ears on the process that they're going to be asked to participate in in the future. We're there to make sure they feel like it's an honest vote count and not rigged or being trampled over. If we're effective, then great! If not, then we'll move on to the next crisis.

I'm sure this debate will continue and since I'll be out of town with the family the next few days, don't think I'm ignoring responses to this subject if I don't respond. Thanks again for the thought out and honest post.

 

[993_Pilot]

.... Btw, what are the next predictable steps that we should expect?

You can expect that there will be several more attempts to divide the pilots.

You can expect that there will be several more curve balls thrown by KR/DAC. Maybe even another purchase/merger announcement to muddy the waters?... Who knows.

You can expect that if/when a single carrier determination is imminent, in order to swing the vote, KR/DAC will dangle a lot of carrots like maybe even the return of the Stipend Bonus, in an attempt to show you what a nice guy he is. He will do it under the guise that he is "listening" to the pilots, but make no mistake, this will be nothing other than an attempt to buy your votes against a union, with no guarantee that it will ever happen again once the threat of a union is gone. This will also likely eventually be determined "illegal union interference", but KR won't care.

You should already expect that KR is a smart man, who is well advised by his union busting legal team, and consequentially, you should always expect the unexpected.

However, you should NOT expect a shark to become a kitten, just because it doesn't eat you immediately. KR has a history that should not be ignored.

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

I'm of the opinion that unions are needed where they're needed. That's why I sent my card in. I believe we need something in writing. It's not because I have some kind of personal dislike of Kenn or Rick or anyone else.


Yes V1, you are right on this one. Having the rules in writing is a good start. The next part is enforcing it. Individually, a pilot can't match the recourses of Kenn. And that's how Kenn likes to operate.

 

[SDCFI]

So is this cage match between IBT and RH and KR or whoever gonna happen or what? Both sides keep pointing the finger saying they want the meeting but the other won't respond. I just want to see some actual facts and info come out, not emails telling me why the other side is full of poop and holding up the process.

 

[hank1292]

All the unknown is really giving me indigestion. Plus I am so tired of hearing both sides spout the same talking points over and over again.

I really wish that the 1108 would go ahead and file a single carrier petition with the NMB. We all know that the NMB will find we are a single carrier and then EVERYBODY will get to vote on representation. It seems that attempting to rally support among the Flexjet crews and have us vote in the Teamsters is a way to exclude some of the FLOPS crews from having a say in Onesky future representation. If they would just file the single carrier we could get on with merging these lists via a "fair and equitable" means promised in McCaskill-Bond. If Flex crews vote in the 1108 then it is an automatic single carrier represented by the 1108 and seniority will be merged by Teamsters policy not McCaskill-Bond. What is the Teamsters merge policy? Don't say "fair and equitable". Really, what is the policy? What has happened in the past when two carriers merged under the teamsters? Anyone?

 

[SDCFI]

Check me if I'm wrong Sandy,

I don't believe there is an official merger policy at IBT which is part of the problem. Both sides are saying they offer the better deal. We've all heard the "fair and equitable" phrase but that's subjective so everyone's definition could be different.

There's a game of chicken being played between KR and IBT. Kenn doesn't think the IBT will ever file for single carrier because they risk losing a vote for representation. He thinks they would rather go down with the FO ship than lose their position. IBT is worried they will lose a vote too so they are trying hard to convince us to vote them in rather than file first and roll the dice. They are saying they will petition for single carrier if it means saving FO jobs so we might as well vote for them and be a part of the merger process. Rock, meet hard place.

 

[hank1292]

Here is the rub.

McCaskill-Bond Amendment (Public Law 110-161, Dec. 26, 2007)
(a) Labor Integration. - With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that -
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.

It says right there in exemption 1 that "fair and equitable" per McCaskill Bond does not apply if both parties are represented by the agent (1108). we would be subject to their internal policy. What is the policy?

 

[dime line]

Here is the rub.

McCaskill-Bond Amendment (Public Law 110-161, Dec. 26, 2007)
(a) Labor Integration. - With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that -
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.

It says right there in exemption 1 that "fair and equitable" per McCaskill Bond does not apply if both parties are represented by the agent (1108). we would be subject to their internal policy. What is the policy?

Nobody at FLOPS wants for any kind of screw job reguarding the integration. With no 1108 its up to the individual pilot to determine "fair and equitable" and then enforce lack of "fair and equitable" thru the courts via lawyers.

 

[hank1292]

What is the policy? Doesn't matter what FLOPS crews want. They won't get to decide and neither will Flex crews.(If 1108 is voted in) It would be by 1108 policy. It has been said that there isn't a policy but I have huge reservations about taking anyone's word on that. What has been done in the past if 2 teamster represented groups merged? Lack of written policy will easily be replaced by historical precedent. Just trying to get the truth. As I read the McCaskill-Bond it would be ignorant not to ask these questions when considering these issues.