No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[aircombat]

Ok I’ll admit I was wrong about the being able to go into mediation before section 6. Is what I should have said is, before the contract amendable date. That is done simply with a “notice of intent”.

 

[aircombat]

It's sad when I long for posts by JoeMerchant simply because he's far more informed than the likes of aircombat.

You can't strike until the NMB releases you, and they won't release you until you've spent several years negotiating in Section 6 and have reached an impasse (as determined by the NMB). Even then, you are NOT allowed to strike over scope issues. Demanding a merger is considered a scope issue, so you would not be authorized to strike by the NMB for that issue. Scope is considered a "permissive" area of bargaining, and you can only strike for "mandatory" areas of bargaining, such as pay, scheduling, retirement, etc. You could spend 20 years in Section 6, and the NMB still wouldn't allow you to strike if your stated demand was one seniority list.

Please read the RLA and get informed. It's really getting embarrassing.

The RLA doesn’t even have the word “permissive” in it. That is part of collective bargaining thou through the national labor relations act. I’m not saying that you are wrong, you should know more about this than I do. If you are right than we are screwed. It seems that there is grey area with what is “mandatory” and “permissive”. Here is something that I used to think that this would be mandatory.

“Some decisions, such as advertising and product selection, bear such an indirect relationship to and have such a minimal effect on the employment relationship that they are almost certainly only permissive subjects of bargaining. Other decisions, such as those regarding hiring, layoffs, and plant rules, are so directly relevant to the employment relationship that they are almost certainly mandatory subjects of bargaining. Still other decisions are not aimed at the employment relationship but have a sizable effect on it, and are thus difficult to categorize as permissive or mandatory bargaining subjects.”
​

I would categorize scope issues as “directly relevant to the employment relationship”.

You said scope is permissive. layoffs is listed as a mandatory subject and the no-furlough clause is in the scope section of our contract. Again I’m not saying you are wrong just that in my eye it definitely has an effect on the employment relationship.

 

[aircombat]

http://canton.massteacher.org/SubjectsofBargaining.pdf
This site lists “Subcontracting out work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees” as a “mandatory subject of bargaining”. That sounds like scope to me.

 

[PCL_128]

You're trying to give yourself a crash course in bargaining using documents you've found on the internet, whereas several people on this thread (myself included) have been involved in bargaining under the RLA for years. Perhaps you should listen to the people more experienced than yourself.

You have a certificate on file with the NMB which states the "craft and class" of employees that ALPA represents at your company. Typically, this certificate would say something to the effect of "the flight deck crewmembers and instructor pilots of XYZ Airlines." This certificate defines the "scope" of your bargaining agent's authority to negotiate at your airline. Negotiating for any group outside of this designated bargaining unit would be a permissive subject of bargaining. The pilots of SkyWest are not part of your craft and class, and therefore, you have no right to negotiate anything related to them or on what seniority list they are located. The company can choose to bargain over that item if they wish, which they may do in order to move the bargaining process forward, but they are under no obligation to do so, and you are not permitted to strike over that issue.

 

[Speedtape]

The RLA doesn’t even have the word “permissive” in it. That is part of collective bargaining thou through the national labor relations act. I’m not saying that you are wrong, you should know more about this than I do. If you are right than we are screwed. It seems that there is grey area with what is “mandatory” and “permissive”. Here is something that I used to think that this would be mandatory.

“Some decisions, such as advertising and product selection, bear such an indirect relationship to and have such a minimal effect on the employment relationship that they are almost certainly only permissive subjects of bargaining. Other decisions, such as those regarding hiring, layoffs, and plant rules, are so directly relevant to the employment relationship that they are almost certainly mandatory subjects of bargaining. Still other decisions are not aimed at the employment relationship but have a sizable effect on it, and are thus difficult to categorize as permissive or mandatory bargaining subjects.”
​

I would categorize scope issues as “directly relevant to the employment relationship”.

You said scope is permissive. layoffs is listed as a mandatory subject and the no-furlough clause is in the scope section of our contract. Again I’m not saying you are wrong just that in my eye it definitely has an effect on the employment relationship.

Take a poll! No one but you would strike for one list! I like my job and separte lists are just fine with me!

 

[Speedtape]

I don't have a problem with losing ALPA if there's OneList. I believe OneList should be our top priority, dam the rest. All other statements you made regarding losing ALPA I agree with assuming OneList. I don't mind having to sacrifice to get OneList, but I am 1 of 1600.....

We have to start somewhere regarding OneList. That start is beginning a dialogue with SkyWest pilots. So far, there's been none to my knowledge. I don't believe mgmt wants us talking because it can only benefit the pilot group as a whole (divide and conquer). We have to find a way to benefit everyone and that can only happen with dialogue. We take that information and we go to mgmt with it.

If Jerry decided to merge the lists, there would be a representational vote. There would be a little bit of time ALPA would advertise why we should have them and the Company would advertise why we should remain Union free.

"Remember the current system favors the Senior." How else would you build a system?

Trojan

Let's see! You want One List so you might have a chance to fly once again out of Salt Lake, right? Sorry, that's not a very good reason for me, or the other 1500 pilots that work here.

 

[USCtrojan]

Let's see! You want One List so you might have a chance to fly once again out of Salt Lake, right? Sorry, that's not a very good reason for me, or the other 1500 pilots that work here.

LMAO! How about job security and an end to whipsaw? Perhaps this would be a better reason?

Trojan

 

[aircombat]

Let's see! You want One List so you might have a chance to fly once again out of Salt Lake, right? Sorry, that's not a very good reason for me, or the other 1500 pilots that work here.

Listen to Trojan. You aren’t even close. Just because you have to have an alternative motive for everything doesn’t mean everyone else does. I never was based or lived in SLC or any west coast area. I own a house in ATL and plan on staying here for a while.

 

[aircombat]

You're trying to give yourself a crash course in bargaining using documents you've found on the internet, whereas several people on this thread (myself included) have been involved in bargaining under the RLA for years. Perhaps you should listen to the people more experienced than yourself.

You have a certificate on file with the NMB which states the "craft and class" of employees that ALPA represents at your company. Typically, this certificate would say something to the effect of "the flight deck crewmembers and instructor pilots of XYZ Airlines." This certificate defines the "scope" of your bargaining agent's authority to negotiate at your airline. Negotiating for any group outside of this designated bargaining unit would be a permissive subject of bargaining. The pilots of SkyWest are not part of your craft and class, and therefore, you have no right to negotiate anything related to them or on what seniority list they are located. The company can choose to bargain over that item if they wish, which they may do in order to move the bargaining process forward, but they are under no obligation to do so, and you are not permitted to strike over that issue.

I would love to trust you fully. The simple fact is that it would not be wise to do so on this subject. Alpa has a clear reason why they wouldn’t want to pursue this.

Scope sounds like “Negotiating for any group outside of this designated bargaining unit” yet that has been listed as a mandatory subject. Like I said I would like to be able to trust alpa on this issue however I think the only non bias source on this subject would be the NMB members responsible for us. If you have information on how I can contact them I would appreciate that.

If all we can do is delay negotiations over this then that’s what we should do. Giving them PBS now would make it nearly impossible.

 

[Speedtape]

LMAO! How about job security and an end to whipsaw? Perhaps this would be a better reason?

Trojan

Is the sky falling? There is no such thing as job security--and one list want guarantee it either! Whipsaw? Are we being whipsawed? If we are, it's by the Mainline MGMT against the other DCI Carriers--not Skywest! Maybe we should try for one list with Delta! hahahahaha