I do understand what your saying above, especially the part about the potential confusion in the event of furloughs that stretched past the point of full integration. You mentioned several times that this was to also protect NJI people by giving them recall benefits---here is the part many are having a difficult time with on this board---we never asked for and most didn't want any of this--we were very happy with the way things were and would be happy to take our chances! But things have changed and will continue to do so. ...With the vast majority of us feeling as though this was forced upon us how do you propose to heal the wounds? Do you really think we feel a part of the "family" when we don't even get a say as to sits at the integration table? I've been told by some on here that "I don't get it". .. We get it--we understand the need at times for a union---yours was such a need, unfortunately mandated as a result of mangement actions or inaction. What I'm trying to say is that if you truly want this to be one big happy family do not be so rigid when it comes to your future union brothers on the other side and if this union is going to succeed where so many others have failed the leadership must be held accountable to the rank and file always! At the first perception that it is no longer about the workers but more about control, power and greed it is time for a change. Also as a rank and file member--use caution--separate the smoke from the fire--don't shoot the goose that laid the golden egg--it is very fragile, especially these days.
harley,
I have deleted some of your quote above to save space. I will try to address your questions, but I may not take them in order.
I do not believe that I ever stated that you didn't "get it." You'll have to ask those who made the statement.
I think the best answer I can give is that the whole integration process is the result of a dispute, while commonly called a "single carrier" petition, truly, it was a representational dispute. Essentially, if we had taken our case to the NMB, the argument we would make is that the NJI pilots "are or should have been" included in the Unionized craft and class all along -- since the inception of NJI -- that excluding NJI pilots from the represented class and craft violates the RLA. If the courts had ruled in our favor (or if NJI had always been included in the class and craft), then pilots joining NJI were joining a Unionized carrier.
During the 2005 negotiations, one of our bargaining goals was to resolve the "single carrier" issue, that is to capture the NJI flying. It was part of our "6S" goals -- others included issues you mentioned above; basing, pay, etc. So, to my view, part of the "chance" you mention above that all NJI pilots were taking was that the Union would win our single carrier argument via negotiations or the courts. Either way, the result is that NJI pilots would be included in the Unionized class and craft. The NJI pilot group could have attempted an organizing campaign during that time and elected their own Union. It is likely, though, that would have only have changed, not ended, the representational dispute. The NJI pilots could have attempted to join the Union representing NJA pilots. They did not. So, the chance remaining was to allow the Union and management (and perhaps the courts) resolve the issue. That occurred through negotiations, and now we have the integration upon us. You have to realize that one of the "chances" you were taking was that you would be joining a Unionized company without any other affirmative action on your part.
I think you may have some misconceptions about what is occurring at the "integration table." The integration is not negotiations; it is implementation of an agreed-to process and result. The LOA answers the "what" questions. What remains is the "how" and "when" questions. For example, pay, schedules, vacations, bases, etc., were all decided by the signing of LOA 01-013 in 2007. The remittance of the "recognition notice" put the plan in motion. Now, the only questions remaining are along the lines of "does the company implement the contractually required provisions before Nov 21, 2010, and if so, when and how, exactly." But the outcome as of Nov 21, 2010 is defined. The contract will be in place (with 6 exclusions listed in LOA 01-013) on Nov 21, 2010. There are other questions about what the company will do with its operations. Those are questions for the company and they may ask the Union's opinion, but they will do what they will do.
As far as the integration being about power or greed, I would disagree. It is fundamental to the Union's responsibility to its members. I agree that any perception to the contrary should end. The Union is charged with protecting the member's job. One way we do that is by fighting wrongful termination (on an individual level). On a group level, we do that by enforcing the contract. One important aspect of that agreement is the "scope" clause, which jobs are covered under the agreement. Weak scope language, or scope loopholes, can allow companies to shift work to other sister companies or codeshares whose rates of pay, rules and working conditions are more favorable to the company (although not to the workers), eliminating jobs of those who are represented. We saw in NJI, that if the pilots were not included in the represented craft and class, just such a threat. (Conversely, even our best scope language would present the same threat to NJI pilots, that any change to their aircraft from cabin-attended Gulfstream would eliminate NJI jobs.) To my view, this is about job security and ensuring that no one does to the fractional industry what has happened with our 121 brothers and sisters.
Hope this helps,
Brian
I misinterpreted NJAbound's post...:0 but the message in mine is still a good one, huh?
