For anyone that thinks that management is being honest about ALPA wanting to hurt the company, the other employees, etc..., you might want to read the following article. It clearly demonstrates that this is just management propaganda that has been used time and time again to fool gullible pilots that don't know any better. This article was originally published by the FDX MEC if I remember correctly, but we republished it in our MEC newsletter at PCL when I was on the MEC. Have a read:
Learning from History, Nov./Dec. 05, p. 30
'Whiners and Crybabies'
In January 1960—41 days before I was born—Bob Prescott, the president of the Flying Tiger Line, sent a letter about strikes to Flying Tiger pilots. The letter shows how, over the course of four-and-a-half decades, issues between workers and employers, particularly pilots, have been quite consistent. It shows that management is unwilling to negotiate in areas that truly matter to pilots and that the struggle to maintain a decent lifestyle while flying for a living is not new.
Prescott, in his opening paragraph, politely informs readers that he wants to educate them about strike ramifications. This may not seem like an important tactic, but it gives readers the subtle impression that they have not been told enough, and maybe not the truth, by union leaders. It initiates his portrayal of himself as the savior of the uninformed who will lead the masses to the truth.
After the opener, Prescott launches the first main point of the letter—the (character) assassination of the pilot negotiators. The next three paragraphs detail the “arrogant” stance of the pilots’ Negotiating Committee and the union’s leaders. These paragraphs also paint the pilots’ positions as being too zealous and dangerous through three main themes:
1. The Negotiating Committee has been difficult, unprofessional, overreaching, and lacking the necessary savvy to know what can be expected in the industry.
2. Management has been magnanimous in its cooperation, doing everything within its power to accommodate this Committee, despite the Committee members’ arrogance.
3. The president is even taking time out of his busy schedule to personally rescue the company from the union’s Negotiating Committee.
Prescott drives these points home through insinuation and embedded threats, using statements like “an unusually difficult time with your negotiating committee” and “an agreement we could live with and still keep the company alive.” Companies in the 1960s knew the value of employing good union-busting wordsmiths the same way that modern companies do, and the best ones do their work without overtly stating the intent, but through cumulative impression.
After painting the union leaders as obstructionists, the next step in the letter is to attack the union’s negotiating position. As is traditional, Prescott uses impressive-looking numbers that mean nothing to characterize the union’s position. The letter states that Flying Tigers has agreed to 110 out of the 155 items being negotiated. Anyone giving a smell test to that statement should be able to quickly discern that the items agreed to were no doubt of little, if any, monetary consequence. This is especially evident when these numbers are followed in the letter by a list of the difficult issues, which boil down to three main items—pay, retirement, and trip rig.
All three of these main items are crucial issues in all modern airline contract negotiations. Modern airline work rules incorporate the first and third issues, and retirement stands out as one of the key issues then as it is for pilots now. In spite of the fact that the current labor environment is such that corporate interests are heavily favored (and management can whittle away the benefits and pay of employees rather easily), the struggle over benefits is by no means unfamiliar territory to long-term labor observers.
The middle third of the letter seeks to demoralize and marginalize the concerns of the pilots and gives reasons why pilots are not worthy of improvements in their working conditions. These five paragraphs can be summarized in five paraphrased statements (many of which you may recognize):
1. You make so much money now!
2. No matter what the profits of the corporation might appear, we can’t afford what you demand!
3. Work rules changes will have no effect on your life!
4. If you were not so demanding, a contract would not take so long to negotiate!
5. Look at the state of the rest of the industry!
After these “classics” come a few paragraphs of strike “information.” The first major paragraph on strikes incorporates two big weapons: it posits a not-so-thinly veiled threat that any strike will be an all-out war, and it intimates that the union leaders are naive in their drastic underestimation of how big a fight a strike is.
The strike “information” paragraph combines two of the most effective, time-honored tactics in negotiations. The threat of job loss is one of the most devastating threats that management has. The paragraph states something that was wrong in 1960 and is purely wrong in today’s legal structure. It says, “Now, when you strike, you quit your job.” You do not quit your job when you go on strike—you remain an employee with numerous rights. Misinformation like this is one of the strongest weapons against the uneducated, and examples abound of companies willing to lie to their employees, hoping that they are too naive to know better.
The second tactic: “I would think you would be a little more cautious about handing over your strike vote, so that a small group can put your future in such jeopardy.” Prescott suggests that just a small group of radicals is endangering the welfare of the larger workforce. The marginalization of the leaders is a main undercurrent throughout the letter. These tactics are all used to set readers up for the knockout.
The lead punch is in the third to last paragraph, in which the Flying Tigers president vows that he will bow down to nobody and says that thousands of good pilots are ready to take Flying Tigers jobs. He presses the nuclear button and is hoping that the crew force implodes. He makes no mention of the incredible cost of training replacements, or the lost income for the company when its customers go elsewhere because no pilots are available to fly the airplanes.
After that body shot, the next paragraph is the right hook, the second half of the combination—the excuse, “we’re getting a much bigger airplane, so you’re going to make much more money without a raise.” The letter states that “the pay for a CL-44 nine year Captain under the last contract offer would allow him to earn as much as $27,000 annually. So think twice before you ruin it.” All you have to do is replace “CL-44” with “A380,” and you have the modern version of this line.
The closing paragraph, as is typical, tries one final time to separate the union’s leaders from its members. It begins with an allusion to “a few whiners and crybabies.” I don’t expect to see the words “whiners” and “crybabies” in a modern version of one of these letters, but over the years more politically correct messages have been crafted with the same intent.
These tactics are time-honored, and this fight is ages old, much like the labor issues that continue to plague us after four-and-a-half decades. Don’t forget, company managements have so many ways now to deliver these messages—letters, DVDs, blogs, newspaper ads, streaming video, internal corporate media, and even the Goodyear blimp. Your nose should be getting educated enough by now to sniff out the content and the intent of communications like these, whatever their form. As Capt. Woerth often says, “Same circus, different clowns.” —Capt. Brad Mahoney (FedEx), MEC Communications Chairman
Continued.....