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...