I don't want to seem facetious but how ALPA goes about complying with the law, which requires it to represent fairly the interests of every member, is ALPA's problem.Rhoid said:
Naturally, it really isn't as simple as that but it can be done. As the old fashioned saying goes .... "where there's a will there's a way." At present there is no will in ALPA to represent fairly because those that haven't been fairly represented have never demanded it. Instead they have tried to be "nice" and curry favor from those that take advantage of them. When you can't get fair and honest representation from your union, you go to court and demand it. It's the law, not an option.
Yes there are conflicts of interest but I do not agree they are insurmountable. No conflict is insurmountable when the parties involved wish to resolve the conflict. When they refuse to compromise what you have is the equivalent of civil war.
When a conflict exists it is ALPA's responsibility, under the law, to act impartially and take action to resolve the conflict. ALPA has the legal power to do that but has made no serious attempt. Instead, ALPA has chosen sides and always in favor of the same element. Why is that? Because ALPA's structure is that of an oligarchy and the few that run the show always decide in favor of themselves.
You're a little "off" in that regional pilots are already elected to ALPA's Board of Directors. That's not the problem. However, in my opinion, the problem is centered in the ALPA's organizational structure and parts of its Constitution.
Unfortunately, that is not by accident it is by design. The people with the power have carefully designed a sytem that guarantess they will keep that power; all of it at every level.
Lawsuits cannot force the ALPA to change its organizational structure for a union is free to organize itself internally as it sees fit. However, when the failure to represent fairly results in frequent and sucessful litigation against ALPA, change will either take place or the ALPA will be put out of business.
The danger with that strategy is the obvious. If the "big five" don't get their way, then it is they that will leave the ALPA as the pilots of at least one of them frequently threaten to do. That however is more easily said than done. Especially when the structural changes necessary to resolve conflicts and hold the union together is much more in their best interests than going off on their own would be.
The present system approaches a pure democracy where the "majority" rules by fiat and the minority is unprotected. That is why it is essentially dysfunctional. I would prefer a more Republican form of governance (like the US Govt.) where the small airlines (states) are guaranteed a voice and a vote that matters.
In my dream system the office of the President would be the "Executive Branch", the Executive Council a modified equivalent of the Judicial Branch, the Executive Board equivalent of the Senate and the BOD the equivalent of the House. Those changes would give everyone a meaningful voice in the union's affairs, whereas the present sytem merely guarantees that the "big five" calls all the shots on everything and can "out vote" all the other 38 members combined.
My idea would not result in a "regional takeover" of the union (that would not work any better than the current debacle), but it would certainly prevent the total domination that the big majors currently enjoy and the smaller airlines would have a meaningful voice. When noone has total power, the "fairness" of representation expands exponentially.
I'd go so far as to guess that a system like I suggest would result in airlines like SWA, AirTran, UPS, HOR, SKYW, CHQ, joining ALPA and AA coming back. We will never get American to return as long as it can be dictated to by UAL, DAL and NWA. Carriers like SWA, and the others I mentioned will never join ALPA to be told what to do by the same 3 - 5 airlines, as in UAL,DAL,NWA, CAL, FDX and USA, etc.
I don't expect this to happen anytime soon, maybe never. Nevertheless, the conflicts that exist today could be worked out if National ALPA simply requires those in conflict to reslove their differences before it will approve their contracts. ALPA has the power to do that now, but ALPA's leadership does not have the courage to try.
The President of ALPA will not risk losing his large salary by going against the NWA MEC to resolve a conflict with MSA and PCL. He won't do it to resolve a conflict between DAL and CMR and ASA. He did not do it to resolve a conflict between USA and PDT/ALG/PSA. He will never stand in the way of what UAL wants to do, to protect AWAC, ACA, or TSA. He will not take on the APA to protect EGL and he'll always defend AWA, USA or UAL, before he considers MES. However, if a conflict arose between DAL and UAL you can bet he'd bend over backwards in an effort to smooth it over and would be extremely careful to maintain an impartial approach. He knows all too well which side his bread is buttered on and that is why he will side with any major against any regional at any time, without regard for what is fair or just.
When all of the member airlines in ALPA were similar we still had conflicts. Why do you think American is no longer in ALPA? You can't solve all of the conflicts all of the time but today we don't even make the effort when a small airline has a conflict with a large airline. That's why the present system does not fulfill the ALPA's Duty of Fair Representation.
We should not have to sue to obtain our rights but apparently the current administration of the ALPA leaves little choice. Either we give up our rights or we litigate in the effort to defend them. That doesn't strike me as the best way to solve our problems. It certainly is now way to run something called a "union".
