Paging Rez O. Lewshun

[JoeMerchant]

Well, let's hope that National is attempting to be a good steward of our dues and is not willing to just "give in" to this group or any other without normal negotiations to determine contractual work rules, pay, and benefits.

It's my understanding that our union contracts only with Unions--if there is one for the given activity. It would seem that normal business practices would prevail in negotiating those contracts. Otherwise, we would all be screaming about our dues going up to pay those expenses. It does seem odd, but so are conjoined twins. They still function as two separate entities.

Is Prater making 500K a year? I thought it was closer to 250K! Hmm--still a chunk.

OK....so is it safe to assume that sometimes unions "overreach" in their demands? Is it safe to assume that it doesn't make good business sense to "give in" to union demands....See where I'm going with this....

Some how I think the ALPA/union cheerleaders would have a different spin on this if it was a corporation having the same dispute with it's employees...

 

[PCL_128]

Not sure what you're talking about, Joey. I'm defending the UALPAPAE union on this one. They are being reasonable; the ALPA General Manager is not.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Not sure what you're talking about, Joey. I'm defending the UALPAPAE union on this one. They are being reasonable; the ALPA General Manager is not.

Actually I was responding to Speadtape.....He seems to side more with ALPA....My point was that ALPA is either being unreasonable...which makes them hypocrits....OR UALPAPAE is being unreasonable which indicates that unions aren't always right and can overreach.....You can't really win this argument...

 

[PCL_128]

Actually I was responding to Speadtape.....He seems to side more with ALPA....My point was that ALPA is either being unreasonable...which makes them hypocrits....OR UALPAPAE is being unreasonable which indicates that unions aren't always right and can overreach.....You can't really win this argument...

Sure I can. The important point is what you are defining as "ALPA." "ALPA" the organization isn't being unreasonable, the General Manager that oversees the employees is being unreasonable. The governing bodies of the Association don't deal with this stuff. I'm hoping that Prater will step in before it's too late and tell his General Manager to stop playing these stupid games.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Maybe not salary...but wasn't Woerth's total compensation somewhere in the realm of $550k? I'm too lazy to Google-Fu Prater's compensation at the moment.

How many times do you need to read expenses reported as income....

At union properties, when line pilots volunteer to make conditions better and not just take whatever management forces upon them, they are allowed to expense items.

For example, if a LEC officers incures expenses while conducting duties, he gets reimbursed. However, the IRS considers that income and he must pay personal income taxes on that....

You can go to the DOL website and see the list of union officers. It includes LEC officers with expenses totally a couple of hunderd dollars. Yet they have to include those expenses as income.

Maybe you knew that and you're trying to stir the pot...

 

[WalterSobchak]

Maybe you knew that and you're trying to stir the pot...

Congrats, you win a cookie.

 

[CopilotDoug]

His actual compensation is about $325k per year, which I think it pretty fair for someone in his position.

Yeah...$325k for a position where you don't have to perform. Don't forget that he gets his lifetime pension, too. Is it fair to you because you hope to be ALPA president one day?

 

[PCL_128]

Yeah...$325k for a position where you don't have to perform.

If you don't perform, your fellow pilots vote you out in short order. Seems like pretty good accountability to me. Certainly a lot more than the average CEO has to deal with.

Is it fair to you because you hope to be ALPA president one day?

They'd have to double the pay before I'd ever be interested in that job. Twenty days off per year? No thanks. He's vastly underpaid, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Speedtape]

OK....so is it safe to assume that sometimes unions "overreach" in their demands? Is it safe to assume that it doesn't make good business sense to "give in" to union demands....See where I'm going with this....

Some how I think the ALPA/union cheerleaders would have a different spin on this if it was a corporation having the same dispute with it's employees...

You know this, but for those who don't:

Well, I guess it boils down to the fact that ALPA=Air Line Pilot Association. Alpa represents pilots.

Google says:
In representing those Pilots, ALPA has employed the services of a group of employees who have organized and formed the Air Line Pilots Association Professional and Administrative Employees (UALPAPAE) . This group represents nearly 170 staffers, including labor lawyers, economic analysts, retirement specialists, air safety engineers and communications practitioners at ALPA.

That Union supports the 53,000 pilots from 37 airlines that form the Air Line Pilot Association. That Union is negotiating with the Business Management of ALPA. This not the first negotiation, nor will it be the last. An agreement will be reached. However, if costs are not controlled, either dues will increase and/or services will be decreased.

Now to your questions. Can Unions sometimes "overreach" in their demands? What is the definition of "overreach?" Can Managments "overreach" in their demands? The answer to my question has to be yes--otherwise, we would not have Unions!

When referring to Unions and "overreaching", do you mean pre or post negotiations? In pre negotiations, both parties demand more than they KNOW that they can achieve. Positions change in negotiations, as you well know. If either side started out demanding what they wanted, they both would end up with something less. That's why it's called negotiations.

Post negotiations, can it be said that a Union "overreached?" Once again, post negotiations, can it be said that a Managment "overreached?" The answer to that question would be determined by the definition of "overreaching" and then more importantly, who or what party makes that determination. One would assume that under normal conditions, that neither party submitted to any more than they were willing to give, because a contract requires the signature of two (2) consenting parties. Otherwise, there can be no agreement or consent.

Can the pendulum swing too far in the interest of either party? An objective answer would be yes. That would be determined by many different factors and which party had more negotiating leverage. As you know, like Las Vegas, the House (Managment) usually always has the upper hand. In addition, unlike a one time real estate transaction, there is usually a long term relationship, mostly bad, between a Union and Mangagement. So in our industry governed by the RLA, if the pendulum swings too far, a correction will be made, either in the short term (bankruptcy) or the long term (the end of the next negotiations.)

"Overreaching" seems to be a relative term and also arbitrary. If there is such a thing, it only will last in the short term in our industry. Because if there is such a thing, there will be a correction at some point. In summary, I would say if there is such a thing, as is in physics, it would be considered an action. And according to some law I learned a long time ago, to every action there is a reaction! The law applies to Unions as well as Managements. However, based on my experience and observation in this industry, the concept is not proportional for both parties. Management, like the House, has the odds stacked in their favor!

See you at the concert!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Congrats, you win a cookie.

Let me guess, you are the cookie master.....