Im Ready, UNION AT FLEX

[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.