NetJets To Picket

[fischman]

2nd >> we are not negotiating a contract yet.

We may not be, but management is...:erm:

 

[gret]

At 58 years old, I would consider this one of the most desperate moment of my life walking around with a sign saying that my employer has tried to screw me. The haven't and if you think they have, you are an idiot for working for them. I have always thanked my employer for giving me a paycheck...and if you don't, go to work for somebody you do want to thank!

Man up. What I understand is they changed the friggen manager of a employee benefit plan which means jack in life.

..and the idiot that keeps posting concessions never work...it is called negotiating. You don't want to deal, they will find someone else that will and you lose! Too many pilots and not enough jobs. Your contract means nothing if there isn't any money to pay you.

 

[CA1900]

At 58 years old, I would consider this one of the most desperate moment of my life walking around with a sign saying that my employer has tried to screw me. The haven't ...

At 58, I would think that the absolute gutting of your 401k program would be of prime importance to you.

Man up. What I understand is they changed the friggen manager of a employee benefit plan which means jack in life.

The fund administrator is really irrelevant. It's the funds (or lack thereof) that we have a problem with. The ones offered by Fidelity gave us much, much better growth than the ones Schwab is offering us. They offer plans with more funds, and even a totally self-directed option, but the company has deliberately opted us out of those. And they're not permitted to make these changes without our concurrence. That was the agreement they made with us, and which they're reneging on.

..and the idiot that keeps posting concessions never work...it is called negotiating. You don't want to deal...

Sure we do. Every contract we've negotiated has had us giving and taking as part of the negotiating process. We all know that.

You're missing the context. By concessions, we're not talking about normal contract cycles. When management comes in and says, "Give us this or we'll furlough/cancel airplane orders/whatever," that's an attempt at a concession.

Virtually every time, it's a flat-out lie. Aviation history is full of examples where the employees gave up valuable provisions in the contract, only to have the company do what they were going to threaten anyway. Look at American Airlines for a perfect example.

Your contract means nothing if there isn't any money to pay you.

Of course. But it also means nothing if it's not vigorously enforced. We have a contract with the company, and they're not abiding by it. If you told your cable company that you've decided to pay less than the monthly rate, they'd cut you off for non-payment of services. We don't have that option, thanks to the horrible Railway Labor Act under which we have to operate. An informational picket is one of the few methods the law allows us at this stage.

 

[realityman]

CA1900,

Great response! FI would be a better forum if we had more folks like you presenting logical well-thought discussion without the emotion or vitriol. Hopefully others here will follow your lead. We can disagree amongst ourselves, but it can be done in a civil manner.

Gret,

Just to expand a little, as I posted on a different thread, how many times and in how many ways do we allow them to violate our contract before we take action (other than simply filing grievances)? We have limited tools available to us. Unfortunately, far fewer tools than management has available to them. Given the track record of this EMT, if we don't start stepping it up a little right now, this 401K thing will only be the tip of the iceberg. If they just decide (once again, in violation of our CBA) to alter our medical benefits so that it somehow costs us money out of our pockets, will THEN be a good time to picket (or take other action)? Think it can't/won't happen? They just wiped their collective a**es with our CBA with this 401K switch. Really THINK about what they did! And then tell me what will stop them from making further changes if we don't start using stronger methods to express our displeasure. They sure as hell don't seem to afraid of the minor grievance process. And unfortunately, we can't take it to the courts because the RLA requires this to try to be worked out in the minor dispute process before we can take it to court, which could take a very long time. Very public displays of our anger may be one of the best tools we have right now to stop anymore of this crap from happening. Yes, it MIGHT harm our business. But maybe that should have been thought out a bit more by management before they decided that our CBA means nothing.

By the way, we're just days away from this 401k switch and we STILL have no real details about the new program. In addition to what CA1900 mentioned about the funds, they have said there may be fees associated with certain funds with Schwab. Thing is, they have given us ZERO info about where those fees will be, and how much. That could be a huge detriment to many of our 401k's. But hey, I'm glad for you it's just "switching administrators, and what's the big deal?".

Yes, I will be out there walking circles.

 

[CRAWDADDY]

So the company is willing to incur grievances and lawsuits so that they may change the friggen manager of a employee benefit plan which means jack in life.

You're right. I may not want to work for a management team that dumb.

 

[rajflyboy]

At 58, I would think that the absolute gutting of your 401k program would be of prime importance to you.

The fund administrator is really irrelevant. It's the funds (or lack thereof) that we have a problem with. The ones offered by Fidelity gave us much, much better growth than the ones Schwab is offering us. They offer plans with more funds, and even a totally self-directed option, but the company has deliberately opted us out of those. And they're not permitted to make these changes without our concurrence. That was the agreement they made with us, and which they're reneging on.

Sure we do. Every contract we've negotiated has had us giving and taking as part of the negotiating process. We all know that.

You're missing the context. By concessions, we're not talking about normal contract cycles. When management comes in and says, "Give us this or we'll furlough/cancel airplane orders/whatever," that's an attempt at a concession.

Virtually every time, it's a flat-out lie. Aviation history is full of examples where the employees gave up valuable provisions in the contract, only to have the company do what they were going to threaten anyway. Look at American Airlines for a perfect example.

Of course. But it also means nothing if it's not vigorously enforced. We have a contract with the company, and they're not abiding by it. If you told your cable company that you've decided to pay less than the monthly rate, they'd cut you off for non-payment of services. We don't have that option, thanks to the horrible Railway Labor Act under which we have to operate. An informational picket is one of the few methods the law allows us at this stage.

Good Post Mr 1900

 

[rajflyboy]

CA1900,

Great response! FI would be a better forum if we had more folks like you presenting logical well-thought discussion without the emotion or vitriol. Hopefully others here will follow your lead. We can disagree amongst ourselves, but it can be done in a civil manner.

Gret,

Just to expand a little, as I posted on a different thread, how many times and in how many ways do we allow them to violate our contract before we take action (other than simply filing grievances)? We have limited tools available to us. Unfortunately, far fewer tools than management has available to them. Given the track record of this EMT, if we don't start stepping it up a little right now, this 401K thing will only be the tip of the iceberg. If they just decide (once again, in violation of our CBA) to alter our medical benefits so that it somehow costs us money out of our pockets, will THEN be a good time to picket (or take other action)? Think it can't/won't happen? They just wiped their collective a**es with our CBA with this 401K switch. Really THINK about what they did! And then tell me what will stop them from making further changes if we don't start using stronger methods to express our displeasure. They sure as hell don't seem to afraid of the minor grievance process. And unfortunately, we can't take it to the courts because the RLA requires this to try to be worked out in the minor dispute process before we can take it to court, which could take a very long time. Very public displays of our anger may be one of the best tools we have right now to stop anymore of this crap from happening. Yes, it MIGHT harm our business. But maybe that should have been thought out a bit more by management before they decided that our CBA means nothing.

By the way, we're just days away from this 401k switch and we STILL have no real details about the new program. In addition to what CA1900 mentioned about the funds, they have said there may be fees associated with certain funds with Schwab. Thing is, they have given us ZERO info about where those fees will be, and how much. That could be a huge detriment to many of our 401k's. But hey, I'm glad for you it's just "switching administrators, and what's the big deal?".

Yes, I will be out there walking circles.

Right on Reality man >> but you and I and the other 2500 need to do something about the non action that has been going on for the last 3 or 4 years. We need to get out and vote next time. Get rid of the problems.

 

[rajflyboy]

We may not be, but management is...:erm:

but we are NOT and hopefully will not for a long time. We pay dues for enforcement of the contract.

 

[Pervis]

I find it curious this talk of concessions to "save the company". The only concession he company seaks with NJASAP is scope relief. Maybe someone can explain how allowing more than 44 days/year of outsourcing without penalty will gain us more job security.

Here's a little reminder about real history. NJA management cried poverty until the 2005 CBA, and said any more than they offered in 2004 would destroy the company. The first full year post 2005 CBA brought the highest level of profit in the history of the company.

Fast forward to current day. While sales continue to suffer, we are PROFITABLE for the very first time relying more on operational efficiency than sales. Ignoring the former, IMHO, was the single biggest mistake RTS made. Once sales pick up, profit will go through the roof, assuming we sustain the efficiencies we gained in the last 2-3 years.

Go read Marty Levitt's book and you may have an epiphany. For those who need a little extra help, he wrote "Confessions of a Union Buster". The parallels between this book and today are obvious enough to make the staunchest union opposition to go hmmmmm.

 

[rajflyboy]

I find it curious this talk of concessions to "save the company". The only concession he company seaks with NJASAP is scope relief. Maybe someone can explain how allowing more than 44 days/year of outsourcing without penalty will gain us more job security.

Here's a little reminder about real history. NJA management cried poverty until the 2005 CBA, and said any more than they offered in 2004 would destroy the company. The first full year post 2005 CBA brought the highest level of profit in the history of the company.

Fast forward to current day. While sales continue to suffer, we are PROFITABLE for the very first time relying more on operational efficiency than sales. Ignoring the former, IMHO, was the single biggest mistake RTS made. Once sales pick up, profit will go through the roof, assuming we sustain the efficiencies we gained in the last 2-3 years.

Go read Marty Levitt's book and you may have an epiphany. For those who need a little extra help, he wrote "Confessions of a Union Buster". The parallels between this book and today are obvious enough to make the staunchest union opposition to go hmmmmm.

We already get all that. The problem is contract enforcement.

 

[HiSpeedFlyer]

If they are not legally honoring the binding contract as you state then why is this not pursued in court? What good is a picket going to do if they are already breaking the law?

It has already been fast tracked to arbitration. The process is in motion. Just remember its not just the pilots that will be participating, all the bargaining entities within NetJets will be present.

 

[Pervis]

We already get all that. The problem is contract enforcement.

Unfortunately, some don't get it. The ones who keep trying to justify concessions-even now. As for contract compliance, that's what the grievance process is all about. Personally, I believe court action would have been worth while. I don't consider hundreds of millions in capital a minor dispute, and I don't believe that was the intent of the RLA either. Now if we could just get the EMT to agree to a date the arbitrator is available. They already turned down four. Imagine that. Just maybe they'll be more cooperative on the 13th.

 

[fischman]

At 58 years old, I would consider this one of the most desperate moment of my life walking around with a sign saying that my employer has tried to screw me. The haven't and if you think they have, you are an idiot for working for them. I have always thanked my employer for giving me a paycheck...and if you don't, go to work for somebody you do want to thank!

Man up. What I understand is they changed the friggen manager of a employee benefit plan which means jack in life.

..and the idiot that keeps posting concessions never work...it is called negotiating. You don't want to deal, they will find someone else that will and you lose! Too many pilots and not enough jobs. Your contract means nothing if there isn't any money to pay you.

That would be me. Thanks for calling me "idiot". Didn't you know? Name calling is the final attack of a weak mind. Stick and stones man. Sticks and stones...

Concessions are not a negotiation. They are caving. What is important, and what you aren't seeming to understand, is that a negotiation is all about leverage. There isn't a pilot group in history that went into a negotiation with the hopes of cheapening their CBA. They get leveraged into it by management. The trick is to have the leverage, and not be leveraged.

This picket is about telling our EMT that they have upset us, destroyed our morale, they aren't listening to us (or they don't care), that the 5000+ employees at our company aren't happy, and we are willing to make a show of force [leverage] to tell them we aren't going to take it. We don't believe the lies being spewed from headquarters, and we are telling them by walking in circles. We are telling the non-bargaining employees at our company that there is a better option, and that we would support their efforts to organize. We are telling employees at other companies that we do business with (FlightSafety, Signature) that we will support any effort they would have as well.

Thanks for giving me some leverage in our discussion by discrediting you for calling me an "idiot".

 

[fischman]

but we are NOT and hopefully will not for a long time. We pay dues for enforcement of the contract.

If management is already starting negotiations and we aren't, don't you see a problem with that?

 

[CA1900]

Personally, I believe court action would have been worth while. I don't consider hundreds of millions in capital a minor dispute, and I don't believe that was the intent of the RLA either.

Actually, I believe that was its exact intent: to make it much more difficult for labor to interrupt the business of interstate commerce.

For about the 8000th time, "major" and "minor" have nothing to do with the severity of the violation. Those terms are specifically defined by the Act. They relate to the nature (not severity) of the violation, and determine what course of action can be taken. Maybe it'd be simpler if they called them "Type 1" and "Type 2" disputes, but these are the terms they used.

Here's the specific reference:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/pages/955.shtml

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] III. Collective Bargaining Disputes (So Called "Major Disputes") [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Definition of Major Dispute. Major disputes involve the creation or changing of collective bargaining agreements on rates of pay, work rules and working conditions, and are subject to conciliation procedures that are purposely long and drawn-out. Unlike other industries, collective bargaining agreements under the RLA do not expire on certain dates, but remain in full force and effect until changed in accordance with the procedures of the RLA. [/FONT]
...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] IV. Grievance Disputes (So Called "Minor Disputes") [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Definition of Minor Disputes. Disputes that arise out of the interpretation or application of existing contractual rights are considered minor disputes. Courts have ruled that a dispute is minor if the employer's action complained of by a contract employee is "arguably justified" by the collective bargaining agreement. Minor disputes initially are dealt with through the carrier's internal dispute resolution procedures. If a minor dispute is not settled through initial discussions, it may be referred for binding arbitration by either party to a grievance adjustment board composed of union and management representatives -- system adjustment boards in the case of airlines, and the National Railroad Adjustment Board or to special boards of adjustment in the case of railroads. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Strikes Prohibited. Strikes over minor disputes are prohibited and can be enjoined. Judicial review of adjustment board decisions is narrowly limited to whether the board exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to comply with the RLA's statutory requirements, or was influenced by fraud or corruption. 45 U.S.C. §153, First and Second, and 184.[/FONT]

I wish we didn't have to operate under these rules, but we do. Going to court simply isn't an option at this stage. If we operated under the NLRA instead of the RLA, we'd have many more options. That's why it's even more important to enforce the contract we already have, because it's very hard for our side to push for changes down the road.

 

[BentOver]

Go read Marty Levitt's book and you may have an epiphany. For those who need a little extra help, he wrote "Confessions of a Union Buster". The parallels between this book and today are obvious enough to make the staunchest union opposition to go hmmmmm.

The really funny thing is that their actions have almost been a play by play of the book.. AND management apparently thinks we are not smart enough to read the book and realize what is going on.

On another note, right on cue, savethegoldengoose.com had an update this week. The idiot posted nothing more than a picture of Pinnocio (sp?) referring to Luthi.... How much more immature can management get?

 

[Pervis]

"Courts have ruled that a dispute is minor if the employer's action complained of by a contract employee is "arguably justified" by the collective bargaining agreement."

The change of our 401K provider is in no way "arguably justified". The CBA is quite clear. It also entails far more than a dispute between a contract employee and employer. This affects multiple bargaining units and non-contract employees alike, and involves hundreds of millions of dollars.

We can argue the intent, individual interpretations, and personal opinions all day. The only way we would have known for sure would have been to file an injunction before the fact to cease and desist. We may have found the effort fruitless, but at least we would have tried. I'd rather use dues for more productive efforts rather than key chains and such.

Meanwhile, I'll dress warm, wear comfortable shoes (fully uniforn compliant of course), look sharp this coming 12th of December, and await the results of the path we chose to take.

 

[CA1900]

I'm not arguing intent, nor giving you an individual interpretation. I'm showing you, in writing, what the Federal Railway Administration has said. That document I linked, from the FRA's web site, explains it in great detail.

The company and the union disagree about the interpretation of our existing contract. That makes it a "minor dispute," by definition. And that means we have to go through that process first.

I don't like it either, believe me.

 

[BentOver]

Wish I could be there......If there is a next picket event, maybe someone can hold up a sign with the names of the guys who couldn't make it but would have loved to have been there.

 

[rajflyboy]

If management is already starting negotiations and we aren't, don't you see a problem with that?

We pay dues and expect our leadership to enforce the current contract. Why is that not happening? Court action isn't working. That is pretty obvious.