US Airways "I'm on board lanyards?"

[altimaklr]

Pinnacle CRJ900 CA rates are higher than US Airways E190 rates... They really are an embarrassment.

 

[ackattacker]

I wouldn't badmouth the RJ pilots too much, most of them make more than the top FO salary at US Air.

This is not a true statement. Top FO salary at US Air is $109/hour plus 10% into a retirement fund. Very low to be sure compared to other majors but show me an RJ pilot making that much.

 

[altimaklr]

Current CR9 CA pay rate goes to $106 and will be $119 in 5 years. Add checkairman pay on that and it'll go up another 20% or so.

 

[Flyprdu]

Pinnacle CRJ900 CA rates are higher than US Airways E190 rates... They really are an embarrassment.

Here we go again. Pinnacle logic at work:

The hourly rate is the rate. It's not with overtime, or check airman pay. It is what it is.

9E guys are so quick to tell you how much they earn. They just fail to mention that they're working 22 days a month to get it.

Max 9E 900 pay = 106
Max US 190 pay = 125

It's not close. Does that suck for a major? You bet. But let's not delude ourselves, shall we?

 

[PuffDriver]

At least this RJ pilot accepts his binding arbitration award, even if he isn't happy with the conditions/restrictions. I wouldn't badmouth the RJ pilots too much, most of them make more than the top FO salary at US Air.

Now you want to compare f/o salary at USAir with captain salary at regionals. 20 year f/os at Airays make more than 20 year capatins on the RJ. Plus, you are likely working your hind end off to do it--if you even are. Additionally, there are many other aspects to consider other than pay, although I know that is what RJ pilots consider most important. it is here that USAirways has some of its best kept secrets.

In short, YAWN. RJ pilot-I-know-it-all syndrome

 

[ThrottleJockey1]

Ackattacker,
10% into retirement. Be careful how loud you say it, you might have to explain what happen to your guys pensions.

 

[ackattacker]

Ackattacker,
10% into retirement. Be careful how loud you say it, you might have to explain what happen to your guys pensions.

That is a true statement. Of course I better be quiet around United and Delta pilots, too.

How's the pension plan going over at Express? Gonna take a lump-sum, are you, maybe cruise the world in your new yacht?

Point is things are bad enough at Airways but there's no need to make them seem worse than they are. When you compare apples to apples you are still better off at Airways than at a regional.

 

[Dornier 335]

No mo' "I'm on board" lanyards in August.

A memo came out on 11 July outlining that every US Airways employee and their subsidiaries will get a new US Airways/Star Alliance lanyard. All other lanyards will not be permitted to be worn.

Currently a wide variety of lanyards, badge backers and clips are worn by employees to secure their
company-issued ID and airport badges. This causes confusion as it doesn’t present the professional look
that we are striving to achieve in accordance with our goals to consistently deliver Reliability,
Convenience and Appearance for our customers. It also is, quite frankly, creating divisiveness among our
workforce as lanyards, badge backers and other ID holders are often used to promote individual and
organizational agendas that are counterproductive to creating a positive working environment for all
employees.

 

[OPECJet]

If everyone man's up and throws 'em in the trash, there's safety in numbers.....

Just sayin.

 

[OPECJet]

I'm also reasonably sure your union lanyard is protected under federal law.

 

[ackattacker]

I'm also reasonably sure your union lanyard is protected under federal law.

Hmmm, perhaps. I suspect they would argue that the lanyards "exacerbate employee dissension."

As noted in the Board’s 2007 decision of P.S.K. Supermarkets, Inc., absent “special circumstances,” you cannot prohibit your employees from wearing or displaying union paraphernalia, such as hats, t-shirts, buttons and stickers, at work. “Special circumstances” include situations where the display of union insignia might “jeopardize employee safety, damage machinery or products, exacerbate employee dissention or unreasonably interfere with a public image that [an] employer has established, as part of its business plan, through appearance rules for employees.” Employers that require uniforms, however, may enforce their uniform policy if there is a sound business justification for the requirement. Thus, an employee who interacts with customers may be required to wear the employer’s hat and shirt exclusively if a special circumstance exists as the Board held in a 1995 case, Meijer, Inc. But “customer exposure to union insignia, standing alone, is not a special circumstance which permits an employer to prohibit display of such insignia.” P.S.K. Supermarkets, Inc. Even in circumstances when a uniform appearance (i.e., hat, shirt) is justified, you cannot lawfully prohibit employees from wearing union buttons, stickers or lanyards unless the display is unreasonably large or the message is obscene or otherwise disparaging. An exception to this rule is that if it is employer property and the employer has a uniformly enforced rule against writing or placing stickers on company property, employees do not have the right to deface company property (such as a hard hat, file cabinet, locker, etc.) with union stickers. As is the case for other rules, you cannot enforce these rules in a discriminatory manner. Thus, for example, as the 2009 case of Cintas Corp noted, if you allow your technicians to visit customers wearing some non-company logo cap, you will not be able to prohibit an employee from wearing a union cap.

 

[OPECJet]

That could certainly be used given the sword fight going on at mainline, but PDT / PSA could have some trouble with that rule.

 

[ackattacker]

That could certainly be used given the sword fight going on at mainline, but PDT / PSA could have some trouble with that rule.

I don't think the company would win a NLRB challenge and they know it. The right to wear Union insignia is clearly established through decades of precedent and NLRB decisions. But in the meantime, they have clearly demonstrated their intention to take hostages and new rule is essentially a trap.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

I don't think the company would win a NLRB challenge and they know it. The right to wear Union insignia is clearly established through decades of precedent and NLRB decisions. But in the meantime, they have clearly demonstrated their intention to take hostages and new rule is essentially a trap.

I'm also reasonably sure your union lanyard is protected under federal law.

When you accepted the job, in the forms you signed you agreed to abide by all company policies, including the uniform policy. Further, the company has the right to amend such policies. You named the loophole in the federal law, and therefore company policy trumps any applicable 1st amendment challenge. Furthermore, the supreme court has affirmed on several circumstances that 1st amendment rights don't apply in private forums (company property). You can say/do what you want, but you can still be fired.

 

[B-J-J Fighter]

Don't the Easties routinly damage machinery?

 

[ackattacker]

When you accepted the job, in the forms you signed you agreed to abide by all company policies, including the uniform policy. Further, the company has the right to amend such policies. You named the loophole in the federal law, and therefore company policy trumps any applicable 1st amendment challenge. Furthermore, the supreme court has affirmed on several circumstances that 1st amendment rights don't apply in private forums (company property). You can say/do what you want, but you can still be fired.

You cannot legally establish a company policy which violates labor law. This is basic stuff. Otherwise they would just establish a company policy that Unions were not allowed and that would be that. There are numerous examples where companies including airlines tried to enact "uniform policies" that prohibited union insignia such as buttons and lanyards and those companies were generally rebuffed.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

You cannot legally establish a company policy which violates labor law. This is basic stuff. Otherwise they would just establish a company policy that Unions were not allowed and that would be that. There are numerous examples where companies including airlines tried to enact "uniform policies" that prohibited union insignia such as buttons and lanyards and those companies were generally rebuffed.

As noted in the Board’s 2007 decision of P.S.K. Supermarkets, Inc., absent “special circumstances,” you cannot prohibit your employees from wearing or displaying union paraphernalia, such as hats, t-shirts, buttons and stickers, at work. “Special circumstances” include situations where the display of union insignia might “jeopardize employee safety, damage machinery or products, exacerbate employee dissention or unreasonably interfere with a public image that [an] employer has established, as part of its business plan, through appearance rules for employees.” Employers that require uniforms, however, may enforce their uniform policy if there is a sound business justification for the requirement. Thus, an employee who interacts with customers may be required to wear the employer’s hat and shirt exclusively if a special circumstance exists as the Board held in a 1995 case, Meijer, Inc. But “customer exposure to union insignia, standing alone, is not a special circumstance which permits an employer to prohibit display of such insignia.” P.S.K. Supermarkets, Inc. Even in circumstances when a uniform appearance (i.e., hat, shirt) is justified, you cannot lawfully prohibit employees from wearing union buttons, stickers or lanyards unless the display is unreasonably large or the message is obscene or otherwise disparaging. An exception to this rule is that if it is employer property and the employer has a uniformly enforced rule against writing or placing stickers on company property, employees do not have the right to deface company property (such as a hard hat, file cabinet, locker, etc.) with union stickers. As is the case for other rules, you cannot enforce these rules in a discriminatory manner. Thus, for example, as the 2009 case of Cintas Corp noted, if you allow your technicians to visit customers wearing some non-company logo cap, you will not be able to prohibit an employee from wearing a union cap.

Sorry, but you're not a lawyer, and you're wrong. The bold print above is an example of why what you call "federal law" doesn't apply to this particular case.

The company has every right to ban the lanyards and enforce such ban with discipline.

 

[JoeMerchant]

You cannot legally establish a company policy which violates labor law. This is basic stuff. Otherwise they would just establish a company policy that Unions were not allowed and that would be that. There are numerous examples where companies including airlines tried to enact "uniform policies" that prohibited union insignia such as buttons and lanyards and those companies were generally rebuffed.

So if the union puts out laynards that say "FU USairways", the company has to allow them?

 

[PCL_128]

I don't think the company would win a NLRB challenge and they know it. The right to wear Union insignia is clearly established through decades of precedent and NLRB decisions. But in the meantime, they have clearly demonstrated their intention to take hostages and new rule is essentially a trap.

Airline pilots don't fall under the NLRA, so the NLRB has no jurisdiction to resolve our disputes, and their past rulings do not set precedent for us. We fall under the RLA, which has no restrictions on companies imposing uniform standards. Arbitrators have ruled that companies can impose these standards, provided it is not done in a discriminatory fashion. In other words, they can prohibit all lanyards except a company lanyard, but they can't allow an anti-union lanyard while prohibiting a union lanyard. What USAirways is doing is consistent with arbitral precedent. If you don't like it, you'll have to negotiate for the right to wear your lanyards, which is exactly what they want. Distract you from the big issues with lots of little issues like this.

 

[Rekks Inbound]

Actually, Box Office, I think the section that applies i this case is highlighted below:

Quote:
As noted in the Board’s 2007 decision of P.S.K. Supermarkets, Inc., absent “special circumstances,” you cannot prohibit your employees from wearing or displaying union paraphernalia, such as hats, t-shirts, buttons and stickers, at work. “Special circumstances” include situations where the display of union insignia might “jeopardize employee safety, damage machinery or products, exacerbate employee dissention or unreasonably interfere with a public image that [an] employer has established, as part of its business plan, through appearance rules for employees.” Employers that require uniforms, however, may enforce their uniform policy if there is a sound business justification for the requirement. Thus, an employee who interacts with customers may be required to wear the employer’s hat and shirt exclusively if a special circumstance exists as the Board held in a 1995 case, Meijer, Inc. But “customer exposure to union insignia, standing alone, is not a special circumstance which permits an employer to prohibit display of such insignia.” P.S.K. Supermarkets, Inc. Even in circumstances when a uniform appearance (i.e., hat, shirt) is justified, you cannot lawfully prohibit employees from wearing union buttons, stickers or lanyards unless the display is unreasonably large or the message is obscene or otherwise disparaging. An exception to this rule is that if it is employer property and the employer has a uniformly enforced rule against writing or placing stickers on company property, employees do not have the right to deface company property (such as a hard hat, file cabinet, locker, etc.) with union stickers. As is the case for other rules, you cannot enforce these rules in a discriminatory manner. Thus, for example, as the 2009 case of Cintas Corp noted, if you allow your technicians to visit customers wearing some non-company logo cap, you will not be able to prohibit an employee from wearing a union cap.

Not trying to stir the pot, just sayin'

Peace.

Rekks

 

[BOX OFFICE]

Rekks, as PCL 128 pointed out, we're both wrong. That was an NLRB decision. We are under the RLA. His post was spot on.

 

[ackattacker]

It appears PCL_128 is right.

 

[OPECJet]

Concurred.

Now.... If those company supplied lanyards don't have some sort of quick disconnect, they are a safety hazard. Make them supply you with something that won't get you hurt or don't wear them.

 

[Rekks Inbound]

Rekks, as PCL 128 pointed out, we're both wrong. That was an NLRB decision. We are under the RLA. His post was spot on.

Got it!

Peace.

Rekks

 

[LearLove]

what if you don't wear a lanyard at all - just use the plastic/metal snap/clip thing on you shirt pocket?

 

[ackattacker]

what if you don't wear a lanyard at all - just use the plastic/metal snap/clip thing on you shirt pocket?

That's allowed. I think it's mildly shady that they're allowing check airman badge backers but not any other kind. Supposedly because they have emergency numbers on the back. OK, well, then wouldn't it be safer if we all wore badge backers with emergency numbers on them?

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Sounds just like every union I know of...

You are a dikscratcher in SGU, go back to your Mt Dew Code Red and WoW tourney, the adults are talkin'..........
PBR

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Sorry, but you're not a lawyer, and you're wrong. The bold print above is an example of why what you call "federal law" doesn't apply to this particular case.

The company has every right to ban the lanyards and enforce such ban with discipline.

Argued in district court already:

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/pressreleases/2007/2007-5-25_07.031.htm

EnjoyRelease #07.031
May 25, 2007

Judge’s Order Affirms SkyWest Airlines Pilots’ Right to Organize

San Francisco, CA — On May 22, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the SkyWest Pilots ALPA Organizing Committee filed suit against SkyWest Airlines, Inc. to prevent the carrier from interfering with SkyWest pilots’ right to organize under the Railway Labor Act. The Organizing Committee is working with the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) to gain union representation for SkyWest pilots.

“I applaud the members of the SkyWest Pilots ALPA Organizing Committee for their courage in demanding their federal rights to freely discuss and learn more about ALPA and the benefits of union representation,” said ALPA President Captain John Prater. “Under the rules governing union organizing, SkyWest pilots are entitled to distribute and receive information from ALPA and its supporters on exactly the same terms and conditions that they have received information from management and their in-house pilot committee. ALPA stands behind the Organizing Committee’s desire to discuss with their colleagues ALPA’s possible role in their professional futures,” he added.

The same day the lawsuit was filed, the Court issued a temporary restraining order requiring SkyWest to allow Organizing Committee members and their supporters to express their support for ALPA and the organizing campaign by wearing ALPA insignia on lanyards or pins and to distribute ALPA materials in non-work areas such as crew lounges and bulletin boards. The temporary restraining order also required SkyWest to provide members of the Organizing Committee with access to the same channels of internal communication to the pilot group that are now and have been available to the internal pilots committee funded completely by management.

Yesterday, May 24, 2007, the SkyWest Pilots ALPA Organizing Committee fought back a challenge from SkyWest Airlines on the right of SkyWest pilots to communicate freely about the organizing campaign without interference from or discrimination by the company. Despite an opportunity to present its case to the judge, SkyWest Airlines was unable to persuade the Court that the temporary restraining order should not remain in effect.

Following the hearing, the Court issued a revised order continuing the protections which enable SkyWest pilots to freely express their views about the organizing campaign. This order will remain in effect until the hearing on the SkyWest Pilots ALPA Organizing Committee’s request for a preliminary injunction. That hearing has been set for Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. (PDT).

More than 2,600 pilots fly for the St. George, Utah-based SkyWest Airlines, Inc., serving 19.5 million passengers in 140 cities in the U.S. and Canada.

Formed in 1931, ALPA is the world’s largest pilots union. As of June 1, 2007, ALPA will represent more than 60,000 pilots and crewmembers at 41 airlines in the U.S. and Canada.
PBR

 

[B-J-J Fighter]

When is the new lanyard policy being implemented?

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Airline pilots don't fall under the NLRA, so the NLRB has no jurisdiction to resolve our disputes, and their past rulings do not set precedent for us. We fall under the RLA, which has no restrictions on companies imposing uniform standards. Arbitrators have ruled that companies can impose these standards, provided it is not done in a discriminatory fashion. In other words, they can prohibit all lanyards except a company lanyard, but they can't allow an anti-union lanyard while prohibiting a union lanyard. What USAirways is doing is consistent with arbitral precedent. If you don't like it, you'll have to negotiate for the right to wear your lanyards, which is exactly what they want. Distract you from the big issues with lots of little issues like this.

Hey PFT boy,
Why don't you do a little research on ALPA litigation before you open your pie hole. Usin' big lawyer type words don't make you one.
PBR