Originally Posted by
windrider
I didn't say we don't need a union...I said we don't need ALPA as a union. I will fully support an in house union. I know that was tried several years ago and didn't pass. However, these are different times and I believe this time, an in house union would pass with a large majority. Since everyone likes to look at SWA as an example, look what they have achieved with there in house union. They have far better work rules, pay, productivity, and working relationships than any other ALPA, APA, Teamsters Union Airline.
Windrider,
For what it's worth, I have seen in-house union representation (was a union rep. there, for a while) and have worked for 4 ALPA carriers. I would recommend a national union based on my experiences.
While ALPA has it's shortcomings and has often been out manuevered, I suspect their defeats have been more influenced by overall changes in attitudes toward labor and the filling of judcial vacancies by ideologically anti-labor/pro-corporation judges.
What I observed at the inhouse union airline was that things worked reasonably well for the first 5 or 6 years. We were then involved with a buyout by a company set up by senior management who at the same time brokered a deal to spin off our 121 aircraft and downsize to our original 19 pax part 135 commuter airline. At the same time they basically ignored our contract and previous good working relations. It took about 2 months for us to realize that our in house union was broke and we could not afford to fight the company on every grevience. We had to choose our battles, which were reduced to very few.
The moral of the story: if your management chooses to aggressively screw the contract at an in house union, they can bankrupt the union financially.(legal representation is very expensive). You also lose out on decades of experience that a national union has regarding contracts and medical advice for members plus much deeper pockets.