harley30344
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Posts
- 51
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
You have spent a considerable amount of time answering my questions-Thank you. Your explanations are well thought out and in some cases convincing. I have expressed my views and the views held by many at NJI. As you read the post you will see that I have been personally attacked directly ever since. I made the statement early on that there is a difference in the service culture between the 2 entities and seems as though many took personal offense. It wasn't meant to do that, let me explain what it was meant to do. We all travel on the airlines--how do you like the service? Go to the njasap site and read about the grievances that have been filed and the employees that are being protected by the union. You will find incidents where bad service by an employee is being defended by the union. The point: in the past unions defended poor to mediocre performance employees--this then permeates into the service provided to the customers. Where is the incentive to excel? Is it everyone--no, absolutely not--but it is enough that it affects customer service. Deny all you want but just fly a 121 operator for substantiation. We have NJA crossovers on the I side that cannot even perform their job functions but yet they are protected. Too safe in your job too often leads to poor job performance and complacency. This is what I was and am addressing. You want top shelf customer service---get rid of the bad ones, don't defend them.
Another of the reasons I'm not pro-union is eximplified by this very site. There are too many members that will go after you personally if you disagree with them---true, almost all organizations have zealots at this level but my experience has taught me the numbers are higher in unions and the attackers more rabid. One individual has already tried to link me to rather unsavory sites in an attempt to personally smear me. What is next--is he going to tell me he knows where my kids go to school? BTW--just one last comment to him directly--you are way off base and everyone that knows me will tell you that I am no liar and have never been.
When individuals take others observations personal maybe some soul searching should be done. A statement of perception never covers everyone in the entire organization. But just maybe it will put the light on the cockroaches that need to scurry back under the door and leave. One final comment--I have mentioned control, power and greed permeating through and ruining a union--along these lines comes my question. Njasap has paid their former union a large sum of money--why?