Virgin America petitions NMB

[Flyer1015]

So far VAPA has guaranteed nothing, just like SWA, UPS, FEDEX, DELTA and UNITED unions promised nothing. They have promised to stay non-confrontational and negotiate with respect. The company has guaranteed they will purposely drag out the negotiations and that our relationship with them will suffer. The companies words got me more worried than anything VAPA has or has not said. The truth is though, nobody can guarantee anything. We all throw money at our 401K and fidelity has never guaranteed anything either. Yet we try to have a say in our future don't we?

Everyone has had differing experiences, and normally that shapes their views. I have had 3 great experiences with unions; including the dreaded IBT. Worked great for us while we needed them. The people running VA are far smarter than I am, and when they invest over a million in Ford Harrison to prevent a CBA and make a website better than any company intranet site, I can't help but thinking they know exactly why they are doing that. They are doing it because just the CHANCE to prevent the union will be CHEAPER for them than us ending up with a CBA. To me, that is managements own admission that a CBA will make my career better in the long run with VAPA. No business man will spend millions to prevent something if he knows it's not going to be a good return on his investment. Management, not VAPA has convinced me to vote yes with their reactions and words to VAPA.

Nearly every Established airline (certainly the ones we all want to work at) all needed to resort to unions historically. I don't see VAPA as anything different than the need for unions at all of the "career" airlines in north America. It's natural progression IMO. No disrespect intended because my views differ from yours.

Those are all profitable companies, and had been so excluding the effects of 9/11 and recessions. Today, all of those listed carriers have been making money. VA, on the other hand, hasn't made money since its existence, except one quarter in 2010. So on what basis, or with what leverage do you think VAPA will operate with? How do you force a companies hand when they have no financial profits, and no reason to negotiate with you? You admit yourself, if VAPA comes in, it will be status quo for at least 3-5 years at minimum, during which time we'll get no payraises or increases in QOL issues.

A union eventually, but the timing right now is wrong. JetBlue voted down representation twice, but only now has their management really tried to screw the pilot group by redefining pay and medical benefits. So far, at VA we don't have that problem. The company has offered a pay increase in 2011 and 2012. If VAPA was to stay off property for now, you're far more likely to see another increase in 2013 or 2014 at latest. Let this company become profitable, so in front a mediatior board when we negotiate we can at least seem reasonable with our demands. Other than that, it's gonna be like trying to squeeze blood out of a rock. We're already bleeding red ink, lets go in the black first. Bring VAPA on now, and I guarantee we won't be seeing a payraise for at least 3-5 years. The only immediate benefit would be the end of a at-will employment, where you can be fired for the smallest/simplest of things. Well, I guess you'd still be fired, but then if it's wrongful termination, VAPA should be able to get your job back after ______ amount of time.


Another thing, I am NOT impressed with VAPA's estimated assessment fee of 2-3%. That is far too high! Bringing VAPA on property, I can kiss goodbye any chance of a payraise for a couple years, and the only benefit of ending at-will employment status. You know, ALPA can do all that too, and they can do it for 1.95%. I despise ALPA but if we must get a union on property, I'd much rather get ALPA onboard and lose 1.95% rather than VAPA and risk losing 2-3%, potentially more. I need to keep the maximum amount of money in my pocket, and if it's ALPA vs VAPA, ALPA is cheaper = more money in my pocket.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

Only one small problem Flyer 1015. You can't just "bring ALPA onboard". You have to ask them if they will represent you, and ALPA has to agree.

ALPA spent a lot of time and effort early on to try to prevent us from certification and have convinced many legacy pilots we are all foreign nationals flying in the US under a foreign certificate. They won't change direction now for a few hundred dues payers that will need more resources than they will be paying for.

The other issue s quite a few of us here will not vote for ALPA under any circumstances, for various reasons.

The bottom line is there is no free lunch.You are either ready to pony up for in house or willing to live with the current deal the company gives us.

As a senior CA I am pretty happy. My issue is a change of management or even a change of direction by current management and the deal can get changed in a second. And there are two choices you have if that happens: say see you later or accept it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Those are all profitable companies, and had been so excluding the effects of 9/11 and recessions. Today, all of those listed carriers have been making money. VA, on the other hand, hasn't made money since its existence, except one quarter in 2010. So on what basis, or with what leverage do you think VAPA will operate with? How do you force a companies hand when they have no financial profits, and no reason to negotiate with you? You admit yourself, if VAPA comes in, it will be status quo for at least 3-5 years at minimum, during which time we'll get no payraises or increases in QOL issues.

A union eventually, but the timing right now is wrong. JetBlue voted down representation twice, but only now has their management really tried to screw the pilot group by redefining pay and medical benefits. So far, at VA we don't have that problem. The company has offered a pay increase in 2011 and 2012. If VAPA was to stay off property for now, you're far more likely to see another increase in 2013 or 2014 at latest. Let this company become profitable, so in front a mediatior board when we negotiate we can at least seem reasonable with our demands. Other than that, it's gonna be like trying to squeeze blood out of a rock. We're already bleeding red ink, lets go in the black first. Bring VAPA on now, and I guarantee we won't be seeing a payraise for at least 3-5 years. The only immediate benefit would be the end of a at-will employment, where you can be fired for the smallest/simplest of things. Well, I guess you'd still be fired, but then if it's wrongful termination, VAPA should be able to get your job back after ______ amount of time.


Another thing, I am NOT impressed with VAPA's estimated assessment fee of 2-3%. That is far too high! Bringing VAPA on property, I can kiss goodbye any chance of a payraise for a couple years, and the only benefit of ending at-will employment status. You know, ALPA can do all that too, and they can do it for 1.95%. I despise ALPA but if we must get a union on property, I'd much rather get ALPA onboard and lose 1.95% rather than VAPA and risk losing 2-3%, potentially more. I need to keep the maximum amount of money in my pocket, and if it's ALPA vs VAPA, ALPA is cheaper = more money in my pocket.

Most people that have an issue with the term at will have no clue whatsoever what it means and how little it is to be feared. This is especially true in the state of California.

I wish people would get educated before making that decision. The company has not done a good job of explaining it and that has allowed VAPA to pander to the fears of those don't take the time to understand what it does and does not mean.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Flyer,

I guess I should clarify that I was not making a specific reference to you. It was more of an observation of a trend toward using at will as a proxy for gaining support for this drive. I do not believe that most of the supporters have been accurate in their assessment of the threat is poses to any individual.

I can't say whether this is on purpose or simply out of ignorance. Either way it is not a good strategy to drum up support on the basis of policy and legal processes so poorly understood by the average employee.

 

[jayme]

Most people that have an issue with the term at will have no clue whatsoever what it means and how little it is to be feared. This is especially true in the state of California.

From HERE

California’s Labor Code specifies that an employment relationship with no specified duration is presumed to be employment “at-will.” This means, at least in theory, that the employer or employee may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. There are exceptions to the at-will rule created by statute, the courts or public policy.

Statutory exceptions include terminating an employee for reasons based on the discrimination laws discussed above; for participating in union activity; for refusing to carry out an activity that violates the law.

An employer can potentially reduce exposure to wrongful discharge liability by emphasizing using an at-will language in all written and verbal communications with employees. This extends from job announcements and interviews to employee handbooks, training seminars and employee reviews. It is also advised to avoid references in all situations that indicate job security or permanence.

So WTF are you talking about?

 

[bocaflyer]

Flyer1015 -

I'm not looking for a long winded debate because we both have very different views clearly. I was just stating my thoughts, the same way anti-unions voices do. I just think fixating on "3% maybe more" is being a little dramatic. VAPA has repeatedly insisted that 3% is not for all pilots, just captains. They have also said it will be reduced over time as the war chest is built up. You gentlemen all make good anti-union arguments, just please don't expect me to sign on with that kind of argument.

I admitted it will be 3-5 years because that's what a combatitive CEO has promised just that; further pushing me into a solid yes vote. Truth is, we are a solid 30% short of what B6 is earning with their rigs, over rides, premium pay, holiday pay, time off bank, 401K match, block or better per leg, etc,. So I figure even if it takes me 5 years to get near B6 wages, I will make a huge profit on my 3% per year in the first year of that new CBA. Every year after that is simply gravy.

I totally understand your thinking about waiting for profitability. I just don't agree that we should wait for a "better" time. I dont think there will ever be a time when our bosses will agree that its a good time. I dont think all the "career airlines" CEOs agreed that it was a good time to start a Union when they wanted to. If there was such a time in the future, our boss would have told us officially by now that he intends to make things right at that stage. He has made very informal comments now and then in the face of a union drive, I simply don't trust that to be a promise I can bank on.

I want to be here for a career, I'm getting tired of changing badges and ID numbers. Again, all career airlines have the same thing in common, I think this is simply our time. It's never a perfect time for anything. God knows there are millions going out the door for things that seem more trivial than a pilot union. Virgin Australia 737 copilots are earning more than our captains. Australia and Atlantic are both union airlines, and yet they survive just fine. I'm set on my vote, and I respect that you guys are set on yours. It's going to be an interesting winter to say the least.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

From HERE



So WTF are you talking about?

Geez...very agressive. You need to read a little further, deeper, broader. You are quoting business.ca.gov which is a government website that exists to promote and encourage business in California.

I am talking about the law. Specifically, I am talking about codes and statutes that exist to counter the employer centric at will doctrine. You seem to be one of the people I have been concerned about which is surprising because I can tell you are a very smart cat. You have apparently bought the scare tactic bullet points on at will.

Please read further than the first hit that google returns. California is one of many (30+) states that recognize implied contract exceptions to at will status. California is one of just a handful of states that recognize exception for violations of covenants of good faith and fair dealing. I have loads of info I could send you but I think it is better if people go through the process of getting the info themselves.

I don't fault anyone for not knowing this stuff, not everyone went to law school, lives in California or has taken the time to understand the conditions under which they accepted employment at-will at VA or any other company for that matter. I did and I wish others took the time to do the same.

Look that stuff up and get back to me if you want. Share it with your friends at VAPA though I doubt they will share it with the acolytes because it will take bullets out of their scary rhetoric gun. If they cared they would have their law firm provide an informational post on the VAPA reassuring you that your job is quite secure unless you do something that provides a cause of action for termination. Just because VAPA says it is so, does not make it so. They want you to be afraid because if you are afraid then you are more likely to believe you need them to protect you which furthers their agenda.



All the best.

 

[bocaflyer]

47 pilots fired, asked to leave, resigned in just 5 years and is very scary. So Jayme might be closer to fact than you think. The company has point bank lied about the 47 recently on their anti-union website. It's not an opinion or a rumor, it's a plain cold hard fact. The names are known by all, just read enough on VAPA and you will get all 47 names from one thread. Not posted by VAPA, but by line pilots contributingto the list. Yes, there was about 10 knuckleheads in there that did things that deserved termination, but the rest point to a troubling trend of ego and unchecked power; aided by "at will".

 

[jayme]

You're right, that was a little aggressive. I apologize.

I was reacting to how many of the anti-union folks have been accusing VAPA of lies, and then you posted something with which I very much disagree.

VAPA isn't the only one insisting we are at will employees and can be fired at any time for any or no reason. That comes directly from the company Playbook. From what I quoted earlier, the state of California suggests using that language in policy manuals to preserve their right to fire folks at will.

 

[jayme]

You seem to be one of the people I have been concerned about which is surprising... You have apparently bought the scare tactic bullet points on at will.

When I was forced in to HQ on a day off to be screamed at- yes- SCREAMED at, over the tone of an e-mail, I took a good look at the playbook and talked to 2 different lawyers. All that research led me to the conclusion that barring the couple of common sense exceptions you point out and PMed me (thank you, by the way), we can be fired at any time for any, or no, reason.

 

[jayme]

The three exceptions to at will, according to what you sent me, are the doctrines of Public Policy, Implied Contract, and Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Public Policy: You can't be fired for things like refusing to do something illegal, or for reporting your company's illegal behavior, etc.

Implied Contract: If the company placed in their employee handbook that you are not subject to At-Will (NOT THE CASE HERE!!! THEY HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT WE ARE EMPLOYED AT WILL!!!)

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The employer can't fire in an abusive and arbitrary way. They get around that by building a case against those they wish to fire. One of our most respected pilots just found out during his run-in with management that they had been building a case against him WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE! I know of another high profile case, PM me for details if you wish.

 

[PCL_128]

I just think fixating on "3% maybe more" is being a little dramatic. VAPA has repeatedly insisted that 3% is not for all pilots, just captains.

They might want to talk to a lawyer before making those kinds of promises. Charging a different dues rate for CAs than FOs is illegal. Everyone on active status has to be treated the same.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The three exceptions to at will, according to what you sent me, are the doctrines of Public Policy, Implied Contract, and Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Public Policy: You can't be fired for things like refusing to do something illegal, or for reporting your company's illegal behavior, etc.

Implied Contract: If the company placed in their employee handbook that you are not subject to At-Will (NOT THE CASE HERE!!! THEY HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT WE ARE EMPLOYED AT WILL!!!)

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The employer can't fire in an abusive and arbitrary way. They get around that by building a case against those they wish to fire. One of our most respected pilots just found out during his run-in with management that they had been building a case against him WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE! I know of another high profile case, PM me for details if you wish.

If you are ******************** head they can and should build a case against so that if it becomes necessary, you can be terminated. That's how it should work. If due process is followed there is nothing to prevent someone from being fired, union or non-union. My point is simply that even in an at will state, particularly California, the existing law is every bit as robust as a section 19 of any ALPA CBA I am aware of. ALPA or any other pilots union only has a good track record of getting people reinstated because middle managers at airlines are notoriously lax in following stated procedures for progressive discipline, not on the merits of the individuals who usually manage to bung it enough to get themselves fired. In the case of the same violation of policy in an at will state, you would simply win by means of a wrongful termination suit rather than a greivance arbitration in front of the NMB.

Of course the company is going to state at will over and over again in order to comply with statute in case they are sued for wrongful termination, that does not absolve them from adhering to the other provisions we have discussed. If anything it is to discourage anyone from bringing suit in the first place.

Parking garages do the exact same thing. Next time you park in public garage read the back of your ticket stub. It will contain a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo about how they are not liable from this and that. You know what it means...jack ********************. They are very much liable for things that happen to your car and your person on their property as a function of tort law. If they can discourage even one lawsuit, it was worth printing that junk on the back of the ticket.

You simply cannot disclaim your own negligence or liability in the eyes of the law, nor can you use one statute to absolve you from wrong doing under another.

It boils down to a question of whether you believe that VAPA offers an measurable marginal improvement to the protections that exist in a labor friendly state relative to the cost. IMO VAPA will accomplish nothing on the measly dues revenue they are going to take in and the non-existant leverage in negotiations in a tight labor market, and I feel plenty protected by existing statute. So, VAPA as means of making me feel more secure about my employment, is a waste or money.

One day that may change, but certainly not right now.

 

[jayme]

And when they come for one of us, like they came for KD, one just needs to decide if one will pay for a lawyer or pay the mortgage.

I see what you're saying. I just think the company will be a little more hesitant to try to build a case against one of our pilots over a personality conflict if they know they've got 600 pilots behind them.

Add in a legally recognized voice to fight for a fair seniority integration and the simplification in trying to negotiate a better retirement plan, and I'm sold.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

And when they come for one of us, like they came for KD, one just needs to decide if one will pay for a lawyer or pay the mortgage.

I see what you're saying. I just think the company will be a little more hesitant to try to build a case against one of our pilots over a personality conflict if they know they've got 600 pilots behind them.

Add in a legally recognized voice to fight for a fair seniority integration and the simplification in trying to negotiate a better retirement plan, and I'm sold.

As general rule when bring a wrongful termination case and or any tort claim against an employer, an attorney or PC firm is going to pursue a case on a contingency basis rather than retainer or time billed so I don't think you have to forgo paying your mortgage to obtain good representation. If you want to bring someone with you to a disciplinary meeting that is a different story. Given the quality of some of the "representation" I have seen at ALPA carriers by highly unqualified status reps, I'm not sure I would not just handle things on my own until it became a course of termination. Again if you are not ******************** head and get called on the carpet, there is generally no risk in going in to state your case in a professional manner.

Seniority integration...really...ALPA and IBT carriers with big fat warchests have been routinely "made pregnant" by other carriers from the same union. IMO the idea that VAPA with its few hundred grand war chest would do much to change the inevitable outcome whatever that may be. I'll take my chances with the M/B provisions as they exist.

Retirement...that comes down to leverage or bargaining...what can you trade for it or what can make them give you through leverage. Since there is no leverage, you will have to trade...so what's it going to be, the pay rates, or the work rules, both are on the lower end of the scale so there you go.

VAPA offers not a thing for my 3%. Nothing. I'm sorry but it is a financial decision. I won't pay 34,000 for 92 Berlinetta, and I don't want to pay 4000 a year for ineffectual representation that does nothing more if not less than what I would have other wise.

When the market improves some shred of leverage exists because of market forces and other carriers hiring, I might talk about then. It's just good income down the drain. That 4000 grand a year will do a lot more good for my kids college savings than it will do in protecting my job or improving my pay. The market will take care of that stuff a lot better than VAPA.

 

[jayme]

Job Protection: Again, I see what you're saying, I just think it would make management stop and think before they try to build a case against outspoken folks like Christian and Kevin. They are both "Above and Beyond" types, and we're lucky to have them here. It also might make management stop and think before bringing a guy in on his day off (for no pay) and scream at him.

Seniority integration: A voice is better than no voice. Even if that voice is weak. We're talking about degrees here. I think it's worth having a voice, you don't.

Retirement: We don't have anything to give up. We can only go up from here. If we give stuff up, we won't get the best, or even average, applicants for the thousands of jobs opening up at the majors. Why do you think that all union contract negotiations are zero-sum games, but non-union "negotiations" will always be a net improvement?

As for leverage, sure, there is no leverage right now. But this negotiation is supposed to take 3-5 years, as management likes to remind us. None of us knows what kind of leverage will exist in that time frame. We may be out of business, in which case this is all moot. But we may be wildly profitable. Do you really want to START this process then, and have to wait ANOTHER 3-5 years before we have a seat at the table?

I understand your position, and you probably understand mine. IMHO both are valid.

It's gonna be close.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

All very good points. I think you nailed the fact that it simply boils down to timing and degrees of perception. No one is really wrong...well maybe those WAY out on the poles. But the rest fall somewhere in the middle and are influenced by the experiences to this point. Nothing wrong with that by any measure. I have a tendency to be over practical and for me it just boils down to timing. All the inflammatory "end is nigh" "they are gonna get you" you stuff just does not register for me personally. For others it does and for that reason alone it a perspective we have to consider and discuss.

Though I tend to think it may be an inevitability, I just don't think now is the time. It will be close no doubt.

 

[Chairman]

They might want to talk to a lawyer before making those kinds of promises. Charging a different dues rate for CAs than FOs is illegal. Everyone on active status has to be treated the same.

As a Teamster we had a flat rate for FO's and a higher flat rate for Captains

 

[bocaflyer]

As a Teamster we had a flat rate for FO's and a higher flat rate for Captains

That's how NetJets does it as well. I just don't get into every comment sometimes.

 

[Mud]

I'm with Flyer 1015. I'd vote for ALPA but not VAPA. VAPA will be too expensive and potentially ineffective to boot. It's vocal supporters are generally young and militant, or utterly full of themselves in how they communicate in posts (see DS). They are turning off more than they are enticing and don't even realize it. My informal cockpit poll leads me to believe the movement won't pass for these reasons and the timing arguments stated above. As for At-Will, I don't like it, but apart from the KD affair none of the 47 was a total injustice (well, I didn't know the first few), and several cases were so egregious that they were embarrassing. I also know of numerous gooned up scenarios that in my own mind could have led to a board but instead were met with a wrist slap. So I personally don't "walk on egg shells" at work. I just try my best and don't worry about it.