NJ Recalls

[T-1GUY]

Lets see at union wants to come in and wants to organize my place of work. 49% of the pilots vote against the union because of bad experiences they have had before at union places, 51% vote for the union. Who wins?, the 51% get to impose their will upon the 49%.

More Drivel...

 

[JustPlaneTruth]

Lets see at union wants to come in and wants to organize my place of work. 49% of the pilots vote against the union because of bad experiences they have had before at union places, 51% vote for the union. Who wins?, the 51% get to impose their will upon the 49%.

Red herring alert by pilotyip. That is not the same as the first argument you put forward which is:

Remember unions represent the views of 50%+1.

When it comes to a representation vote (prior to being a union), key legal advisors will tell organizers to not go to a vote until about 75% of the group has submitted cards and the cards cannot be stale, meaning there has to be relative recency to their collection. Only then will the body seeking to represent a group submit the cards to the NMB for a an election. At that point, it is true, just as it true in any democracy, that majority rules but most successful representation elections are substantially won with a vast majority of the electorate voting in favor and never at a 50% +1 margin. To my knowledge there has never been a 50% +1 (one vote margin of victory) representation election margin in the aviation world. If there was, it was an aberration and not indicative of the overall industry.

This argument:

Remember unions represent the views of 50%+1.

which you have made in the past has had morphed into various forms but beckons back to your apparent belief that unions protect the interests of 50% +1 or the top 50% +1 of the seniority list. Of course the words "the views" that you use is so ambiguous it is pretty tough to take anything from your point. I have shown before how that is not true. Remember:

More than 99% of the NJA pilots chose to leave the IBT and be represented by NJASAP.
Greater than 80% of the NJA pilots voted in favor of the 2005 agreement.
Greater than 80% of the NJA pilots voted in favor of the 2007 agreement.


Union leaders survey the pilot group for direction and then follow it. They don't follow the will of the minority or the vocally extreme super minority such as the 5-10% that are never satisfied or always vote no so they can say the did. If they did, they would never get a CBA passed. Participation by the membership in surveys is so important - let your voice be heard.

The goal of the union is to get a 100% pass rate of on a CBA. The goal of 50% +1 pass rate in a CBA, which you have been quoting a lot, is actually the Company management goal. Maybe that is why you keep using it.

 

[pilotyip]

More Drivel...

yea at our place when the IBT came in 78% of our pilots imposed their will upon the other 22%, and we stayed a non-union flying outfit. Why such a low vote for the IBT, the company had just hired of bunch of ex-IBT guys that had lost their jobs when their company shut down. Then the UAW came in and 54% of our pilots imposed their will upon the other 46%,and we stayed a non-union outfit, then ALPA said forget it.

Red herring alert by pilotyip. That is not the same as the first argument you put forward which is:

ok so it is not 50%+1, make 90%, you are still imposing your will upon 10% of the pilots like G4. majority rules.

The NetJets union is doing a deal with the company to terminate large groups of the furloughed pilots at once, totally out of agreement with the contract. The contract says that when recalls happen, when they get to the bottom of the list, the most junior pilot on furlough has to accept recall or be terminated from the seniority list. That is what the union has told us all long to expect. Then, out of nowhere, a few months ago, they had a "reinterpretation" of the recall rights, where they now say they will allow the company to terminate entire class sizes of furloughed pilots for each recall now that they've gotten to the bottom of the list. Why? This means if the company sends out notices for a 30-pilot class, and everyone defers, they will allow the company to terminate the 30 most junior pilots...not the single most junior pilot as the contract clearly states. It looks like this thing is going to result in a DFR lawsuit if it's allowed to continue...

Hansell has threatened recently to stop growth and furlough again if NJASAP doesn't take his contract proposal. Every NetJets pilot needs to be aware that their own union is totally selling out their recall rights. NJASAP needs to be challenged from every angle about why they are doing this. Is it hoping for negotiating capital for ridding the company of the obligation to take furloughed pilots back at their original pay longevity? Who knows. This needs to be brought out for everyone to see. They've been hiding it now for months. This past week, NetJets issued the 14 most most junior pilots "non-deferrable" recall notices...that term exists nowhere in the CBA. This is actually happening. Totally unsat.

The contract is crystal clear. When they get to the bottom of the list, the most junior pilot returns or is terminated, and any unfilled vacancies on each recall are staffed with new hires. Each time there are vacancies, they offer them to furloughed pilots, the most junior returns or is terminated, and any unfilled vacancies are staffed with new hires. This process repeats until the last furloughed pilot is gone. Pretty simple. Why is NJASAP decimating the furlough and recall language and opening themselves to a DFR suit? Why aren't more people talking about this? Why is NJASAP trying to force furloughed pilots who have other job obligations to come back to a company that is extremely volatile, where hostages are being taken day by day? Who's idea was this? What's going on with NJASAP? This is "unity"?

An example of the majority looking out for themselves, screw the minority if I get mine. Which has been my concern with the union burn the building down talk that I see here and the other site. My buddies recently recalled at NJ will be on the street again in order for the majority to protect themselves.

 

[Willy21]

Yip,
Your last quote isn't very strong. Wether the author of that quote is right or wrong I can't say, but I can tell you that you need to hear both sides of the argument before you can understand it. It is safe to say there is much more to that story.

 

[realityman]

Yip,

Sorry, that last post you quoted was extremely one-sided. Willy21 is dead on. No one is screwing anyone. There is A LOT more to the story. You're getting a tiny piece and drawing some mighty big conclusions.

I'm not in a position to provide more. Sorry. Wish I could.

As for a union representing the majority's interests, sometimes at the expense of what the minority wants, well, you're exactly right in that. The question is, is it better to do it that way, or have no union at all at a company where the management is hell bent on destroying everyone's careers? You apparently believe the latter is better. But I'd put good money on it that most of the minority are still happier having the union, and not getting their way on everything, than having a situation where the company gets its way on everything.

By the way, you tend to oversimplify the way a union works, and who and what is a "minority" in a union. It's not so cut and dried.

For example, let's say I'm happy with what I make now. But the union is pushing for big raises and I disagree. Sadly for me, the majority wants big raises, so my wishes are being discarded. Kind of frustrating. Bad union, bad!
Oh but wait, my views on what kind of schedules we should have ARE in agreement with the majority, so the union IS going forward with my wishes and I'm now part of the majority.

All your talk about "majority" and "minority" within a union has no context.

Unions arent perfect. Nor will they ever be. And by their very nature they wont make everyone within the union happy. The fact that you latch onto one post by someone unhappy with the union doesn't mean the union is bad, or doing wrong. I've worked for several non-union outfits, and having a union is BY FAR preferrable to not having one.

 

[pilotyip]

Yip,
Your last quote isn't very strong. Wether the author of that quote is right or wrong I can't say, but I can tell you that you need to hear both sides of the argument before you can understand it. It is safe to say there is much more to that story.

Only know what I read on FI. I understand I don't know both sides, but the burn the place down union stance concerns some of my buddies there, and you have to understand there concerns about loosing there jobs. The best job they have ever had

 

[acaTerry]

Really? What happened to the rest of the nonunion employees after Santulli was removed?

BOOM!!!! Answer please....

 

[Willy21]

Yip
Yes there are some in the union that say burn the place down. From where I sit your friends need to be more worried about management burning the place down.

 

[pilotyip]

Yip
Yes there are some in the union that say burn the place down. From where I sit your friends need to be more worried about management burning the place down.

too much truth in this post

 

[acaTerry]

Who wins?, the 51% get to impose their will upon the 49%.

Its called majority rule. Its one of the basic principles of America, and it worked fine until liberals got whiny with their "equality" crap. Now the minority dictates the majority who oppose (ie gay marriage, Obamacare, driver's licenses for illegal aliens, etc)...so look at the messes we have now because a whiny and vocal minority didn't like the majority rule.
The whining needs to stop. Let's not screw up the semblance of professional piloting because of whiney babying of those who don't like the majority rule. I'm not Mr. Rah-Rah Union in general, but I've been in aviation long enough to realize that as a rule, in large scale employers, the nonshop guys get screwed. Its better to have a loud, organized voice sometimes. I'm NOT taking a single concession when the employers are making money hand over fist, off MY back, so that billionaires can fly their dogs to Aspen cheaper. The answer is NO.
And so far as saying something isn't fair because a certain percentage doesn't get what they want, or having someone else's will imposed upon them....well, tell me any time 100% wanted the exact same thing. Remember there was still one vote to not retaliate against Japan in 1941 after Pearl Harbor. The majority rule, whether you ar anyone else likes it or not, is simply the fairest thing. There will always be someone unhappy, but the majority has to have it. Too bad but that's life.