Originally Posted by
cornbeef007
They didn't refuse binding arbitration. A panel of arbitrators dictated many of the current contract provisions. The three Judges said, this is what you get on October 31st 2017....this is arbitration, which is binding.
The union agreed to this resolution, which I understand to a point. If they didn't agree to binding arbitration, the company could have dragged things out forever, in theory. This is what happened to Republic Airways, which took 9 years to come to an agreement because the company wasn't negotiating. The union also wanted to avoid a US Airways and America West ***tshow.
Three reasons this approach was a fail for Alaska and why an arbitration approach should not have been used (By the unions choice).
1) The Alaska pilot group got burned by arbitration with Kasher. History repeats itself.
2) Both of the examples above and Kasher episode took place when the economy was in the dumps, so the relative compensation bar was low and dropping. This gave companies the incentive to agree to binding arbitration, because it would likely lead to reduced compensation for the workgroup.
3) Alaska is the darling of Seattle and one thing the company hates is bad press. Picketing at the Seattle headquarters and SeaTac would make the shareholders nervous. Do you know why it didn't make a difference for the outcome of the 10/31/17 award? Because a panel of Judges awarded the contract, so it bought you absolutely no leverage. The picketing events and the orange lanyards didn't mean a thing, because once again a group of judges awarded the big provisions of the new contract (binding arbitration).
I really hope things go differently in 2020 because I will support you guys all the way, with picketing or whatever. Just don't agree to eventual binding arbitration again.
Listen to Lewbronski....he has a better idea of what is going on in the industry then you do. Learn from others man.
I don't work for Alaska, and I don't work for Endeavor (formerly Pinnacle), but I did previously. I thought you were referencing Endeavor before but it must be Alaska because Endeavor wasn't in Section 6 contract negotiations last year, they did vote in an LOA to their contract at that time, but it was pudding on top of the contract. Additional benefits to attract more pilots and the pilots voted on it. If it had been arbitrated it sure would have been a coup for the pilots to get that in arbitration, but it wasn't.
Can you please clarify? Your dates are right on so it kind of sounds like you just have no idea what actually is happening in these scenarios. The contract that 9E agreed to arbitration for was never arbitrated because the company would not agree to it. It was negotiated in the regular manner (after which time there was a bankruptcy but that is another story). Fortunately the work rules stayed which really saved the day at the time, and now LOAs have increased pay and other items to much benefit to the pilot group... none of it through arbitration and big items were voted on by the pilot group.