SKYWEST Pilots: SAY NO TO ALPA!!

[CFIT]

But yet you cannot or will not provide a reason why other ALPA carriers aren't doing well. Is it becuase of ALPA or managment. Did ALPA kill Braniff, Pan Am and Eastern? TWA? The history books are clear on this. Is Skywest doing well because they are sucking the life out of ASA?


I can't tell you why all of these other ALPA carriers are in poor financial shape. SkyWest was doing fine before ASA.

In addition, if ALPA is so bad why did FedEx and CAL come back? Have you seen the FedEx TA? Which was approved by over 95%. What does that mean? Also, why aren't ALPA pilots decertifying ALPA at the BK carriers? Is it possbile that SW is coddled by management because SW is non union?


I think ALPA serves the legacy carriers very well, for the regionals lets just say they serve the legacy carriers very well.



How is SWA so sucessful with a union?

Because it's not ALPA, with a union president pulling in a half a million plus pay package.



Finally, you don't have an ark, you've a management team that fears unionization so they're careful to give you enough, but not what you really derserve. Your work rules and payrates are balanced from union contracts. Where I come from, that is not your own, that is being at the whim of another...

So what, either way I'm well compensated. If I wanted a union so bad I would have applied to Comair, Mesaba, or ACA.



So either way you benefit from union contracts and the efforts of ALPA on Captitol Hill. You might as well contribute instead of feed off of.

Capitol Hill huh, the same administration that has virtually killed organized labor. Making some real headway there, oh ya. ALPA should get some real lobbiers instead of retired pilots that think they know what's going on.

Honestly Rez you're not offering anything substantial to the pro ALPA debate, and the guys that I have talked with have been pretty adamant about how ineffective ALPA was at their past carriers. For the bulk of the guys that are pro ALPA here at SkyWest they are for the most part pretty pesimistic people in general, and they'll never be happy. Things are by no way perfect, but overall I'm pretty happy with this company and I truly believe that ALPA would make things worse.

Happy Halloween!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I can't tell you why all of these other ALPA carriers are in poor financial shape. SkyWest was doing fine before ASA.

I can tell you why. There are in poor shape just like AMR (non alpa) becuase of thier poor business model, oil, terrorism, the economy, poor corporate leadership.....

We were all doing fine prior to the the economic down trun that began in 2Q 2001.

I think ALPA serves the legacy carriers very well, for the regionals lets just say they serve the legacy carriers very well.

Sorry, I've been at one national and two regionals. From my opinion, the pilots at each acarrier have been able to use the ALPA resources well.


Because it's not ALPA, with a union president pulling in a half a million plus pay package.

You are losing creditbiltiy with the pay package. That has been thoroughly discussed. What it comes down to is "expenses reported as income". If you want to learn more look at my posts addressing the issue.

SWA also has the IAM, one of the most hard core unions. But yet they are successful at SWA. Why?

So what, either way I'm well compensated. If I wanted a union so bad I would have applied to Comair, Mesaba, or ACA.

ACA? I can tell you for sure that ALPA had nothing to do with those management clowns ruining many employees lives.

Capitol Hill huh, the same administration that has virtually killed organized labor. Making some real headway there, oh ya. ALPA should get some real lobbiers instead of retired pilots that think they know what's going on.

ALPA did not endorse the current Admin. CFIT, please debate the facts and not a street education on the issues. Retired pilots? Nope, there are plenty of pro's in DC that are speaking to the issue to protect Pilots intrests. Most pilots, even ALPA pilots, don't realize the value of having your voice heard in DC.

What you don't hear about is legislation that was stopped. Check this out:

The first issue is the continued attacks on American workers' right to strike, particularly transportation workers. As you know, Congress has recessed, but before they left, there were some astoundingly egregious attempts to further erode workers' rights to strike, particularly in transportation. In the Port Security bill that went to conference, there was an attempt to introduce language to equate a legal strike by port workers with an act of terrorism, and that would allow the president to mobilize the armed forces to take over the docks in the event of a strike. We mobilized the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO instead and had that language killed.

In the same Port Security bill, attempts were made to legislate language about crimes that would prohibit transportation workers from being allowed to work and get a security clearance. Transportation-security-incident language was introduced to make it possible to interpret participation in a legal strike as a disqualifying event to work in transportation. Again, we had to work extremely hard in the late hours before Congress left to get that language killed, but we did. Transportation workers, you are not paranoid. They are out to get you and limit your rights as free Americans.

These are the things that are going on. The SW pilots have no say in this. They are not part of any group that is stopping efforts such as this. But yet, if it were to become law you can bet your last paycheck that it would effect SW pilots.


I've yet to hear a SW pilot debate the facts that thier pay and work rules are based on union contracts. These contracts are fought hard by your fellow pilots. They have sacrficed thier time and energy to make this profession better for all of us. Management nationwide, has an agenda for you and me and it is not as good as we have it now.

Honestly Rez you're not offering anything substantial to the pro ALPA debate, and the guys that I have talked with have been pretty adamant about how ineffective ALPA was at their past carriers. For the bulk of the guys that are pro ALPA here at SkyWest they are for the most part pretty pesimistic people in general, and they'll never be happy. Things are by no way perfect, but overall I'm pretty happy with this company and I truly believe that ALPA would make things worse.

Happy Halloween!

CFIT:

If this is not substantial I do not know what is. Concerning yourself with misinformation about union salaries and ALPA's role on CapHill isn't doing your due diligence as a professional pilot to make decsions based on facts and reality.

 

[CFIT]

OK, I'll vote ALPA.
Can I be president?

 

[Ponchus pilot]

Questions about ALPA should be taken to the meetings and not posted here in a pissing game between kids. Most here just keep saying that this happened to this airline and that happened to another airline. ALPA has been around for a long time and will continue to be here. If you are planning a career in this business You will most likely be an ALPA or union memeber sooner or later. The current state of politics and economics will change soon. ALPA got through the 80's and the 00's will pass as well.

 

[HelloNewman]

so I heard through the grape vine that some skywest pilots were having a bonfire party. Basically the ones that don't want the union were taking the authorization cards and burning them just in case anyone tries to fradulently put peoples name on it that don't want a union. Any truth to this? It sounds like a fun party.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

so I heard through the grape vine that some skywest pilots were having a bonfire party. Basically the ones that don't want the union were taking the authorization cards and burning them just in case anyone tries to fradulently put peoples name on it that don't want a union. Any truth to this? It sounds like a fun party.

Would you burn other documents that guranteed your right to representation?

Representation is a cornerstone to the foundation of the USA. The whole gulity until proven innocent thing.....

We use representation quite often in our lives.

If you didn't like your real estate agent and loan officer, would you fire them and go without them during closing?

If you went to court and didn't like your lawyer, would reject your right to a lawyer? Or get a better lawyer?

Would you reject your insurance company if you didn't like them and deal directly with another insurance company?

If you don't like representation then get a better representative- don't reject the right itself....


The book the SWA Airlines Way.... has a section called make unions your partners. SWA, the most successful airline in US History, welcomes and works with unions.

If your management is true, what does it matter if you have have an organized way to address your issues, concerns and grievances?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The War on Wages:

Management sees no difference between a Wal Mart worker and us Pilots. We are commodity costs that must be controlled.

Should we be cheering over the fact that the Dow Jones Industrial Average has finally set a new record? No. The Dow is doing well largely because American employers are waging a successful war against wages. Economic growth since early 2000, when the Dow reached its previous peak, hasn’t been exceptional. But after-tax corporate profits have more than doubled, because workers’ productivity is up, but their wages aren’t — and because companies have dealt with rising health insurance premiums by denying insurance to ever more workers.
If you want to see how the war against wages is being fought, and what it’s doing to working Americans and their families, consider the latest news from Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart already has a well-deserved reputation for paying low wages and offering few benefits to its employees; last year, an internal Wal-Mart memo conceded that 46 percent of its workers’ children were either on Medicaid or lacked health insurance. Nonetheless, the memo expressed concern that wages and benefits were rising, in part “because we pay an associate more in salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases.”
The problem from the company’s point of view, then, is that its workers are too loyal; it wants cheap labor that doesn’t hang around too long, but not enough workers quit before acquiring the right to higher wages and benefits. Among the policy changes the memo suggested to deal with this problem was a shift to hiring more part-time workers, which “will lower Wal-Mart’s health care enrollment.”
And the strategy is being put into effect. “Investment analysts and store managers,” reports The New York Times, “say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent.” Another leaked Wal-Mart memo describes a plan to impose wage caps, so that long-term employees won’t get raises. And the company is taking other steps to keep workers from staying too long: in some stores, according to workers, “managers have suddenly barred older employees with back or leg problems from sitting on stools.”
It’s a brutal strategy. Once upon a time a company that treated its workers this badly would have made itself a prime target for union organizers. But Wal-Mart doesn’t have to worry about that, because it knows that these days the people who are supposed to enforce labor laws are on the side of the employers, not the workers.
​

Since 1935, U.S. workers considering whether to join a union have been protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which bars employers from firing workers for engaging in union activities. For a long time the law was effective: workers were reasonably well protected against employer intimidation, and the union movement flourished.
In the 1970’s, however, employers began a successful campaign to roll back unions. This campaign depended on routine violation of labor law: experts estimate that by 1980 employers were illegally firing at least one out of every 20 workers who voted for a union. But employers rarely faced serious consequences for their lawbreaking, thanks to America’s political shift to the right. And now that the shift to the right has gone even further, political appointees are seeking to remove whatever protection for workers’ rights that the labor relations law still provides.
The Republican majority on the National Labor Relations Board, which is responsible for enforcing the law, has just declared that millions of workers who thought they had the right to join unions don’t. You see, the act grants that right only to workers who aren’t supervisors. And the board, ruling on a case involving nurses, has declared that millions of workers who occasionally give other workers instructions can now be considered supervisors.
As the dissent from the Democrats on the board makes clear, the majority bent over backward, violating the spirit of the law, to reduce workers’ bargaining power.

So what’s keeping paychecks down? Major employers like Wal-Mart have decided that their interests are best served by treating workers as a disposable commodity, paid as little as possible and encouraged to leave after a year or two. And these employers don’t worry that angry workers will respond to their war on wages by forming unions, because they know that government officials, who are supposed to protect workers’ rights, will do everything they can to come down on the side of the wage-cutters.
​

 

[SKYWRJGUY]

Southwest welcomes unions? Well, they're there and they work together--I don't think they were as welcoming as you suggest prior to their gaining status--the folks that wrote the book NUTS used SWA as the focus for their dissertations on leadership--it's not meant to be a tome on labor-management relations but more about the evolved culture. Additionally, your analogies are a bit flawed, as the card doesn't guarantee representation, the law does; only rescinding the law would be eliminating that guarantee. Guilty until proven innocent is a representation thing? That's a new one on me, as I would say it more results from the Declaration (non-binding) where Jefferson invoked that everybody was permitted to pursue liberty, a notion elaborated in the Constitution by certain provisions (binding). I see you failed to notice that part of one's right to representation lies in the ability to forgo representation outrightl; a good analogy (FWIW) would be the Constitution's protection of freedom of religious practice, including the impied and upheld right not to practice. Some of your questions beg the answer 'yes' depending on the circumstances. Whether pro- or anti-, I don't think it persausive to suggest that cards represent [sic] the foundation by which legal representation gets its status; they're tools, and in time they too will evolve, we'll probably see on-line voting when the government catches up to the times.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Southwest welcomes unions? Well, they're there and they work together--I don't think they were as welcoming as you suggest prior to their gaining status--the folks that wrote the book NUTS used SWA as the focus for their dissertations on leadership--it's not meant to be a tome on labor-management relations but more about the evolved culture. Additionally, your analogies are a bit flawed, as the card doesn't guarantee representation, the law does; only rescinding the law would be eliminating that guarantee. Guilty until proven innocent is a representation thing? That's a new one on me, as I would say it more results from the Declaration (non-binding) where Jefferson invoked that everybody was permitted to pursue liberty, a notion elaborated in the Constitution by certain provisions (binding). I see you failed to notice that part of one's right to representation lies in the ability to forgo representation outrightl; a good analogy (FWIW) would be the Constitution's protection of freedom of religious practice, including the impied and upheld right not to practice. Some of your questions beg the answer 'yes' depending on the circumstances. Whether pro- or anti-, I don't think it persausive to suggest that cards represent [sic] the foundation by which legal representation gets its status; they're tools, and in time they too will evolve, we'll probably see on-line voting when the government catches up to the times.

NUTS is not the reference rather the SWA Airlines Way. I'm not sure the story of how the unions came about at SWA (welcomed or not..) but that is irrelevant to what they are today: partners.

As far as the rest of your reply... you got me in the details. Would a borad brush point count... for some maybe... for most probably not...

The point? Why forgo representation? We don't do it when handling other affairs in our lives....

 

[HelloNewman]

Would you burn other documents that guranteed your right to representation?

Representation is a cornerstone to the foundation of the USA. The whole gulity until proven innocent thing.....

We use representation quite often in our lives.

If you didn't like your real estate agent and loan officer, would you fire them and go without them during closing?

If you went to court and didn't like your lawyer, would reject your right to a lawyer? Or get a better lawyer?

Would you reject your insurance company if you didn't like them and deal directly with another insurance company?

If you don't like representation then get a better representative- don't reject the right itself....


The book the SWA Airlines Way.... has a section called make unions your partners. SWA, the most successful airline in US History, welcomes and works with unions.

If your management is true, what does it matter if you have have an organized way to address your issues, concerns and grievances?

Well I will say this. We have the right to representation and we also have the right not to be represented. If we go into court we have the right to represent ourselves. Some may call it foolish but if you think that it is whats best for you no one can stop you from that right. Just as you have the right to either sell your own house or hire a realtor for you. The list goes on and on.

When you sign that piece of paper you are saying you want ALPA to represent you. The way I see it is this, if you want to be represented by ALPA sign the paper. If you do not want to be representated by ALPA then do not sign the paper. I am not going to sign that piece of paper just so they can have an election. When they get 35% of the cards they have the right to hold an election. If ALPA choses not to hold an election until they get more than 35% of the cards then that is their problem not mine. I am positive they will be able to get 35% of the group to sign the cards.

I am not going to sign anything just because someone tells me I have to. If they hold an election and ALPA wins then I would respect that. If they hold an election and ALPA doesn't win then I will respect that too. What we don't need is someone else telling us what we do or do not need. Everyone keeps saying sign the card so we can have an election etc. etc. It is ALPA that is holding back not me. I simply chose not to sign the card because I do not want to be represented by ALPA. I don't have anything against them specifically however I do not like they way they do a lot of things. We now return to your regularly scheduled telling other people how to run their lives.