Nevets

If people cannot quit like you, than why not let them improve their working conditions? What other ways are more effective to handle management? What more effective way to handle management than with the leverage of the RLA behind you rather than a powerless Colgan Pilot Group association? And if such a powerless organization was so effective, why haven't working conditions improved since the last union drive?

Also, if they needed to furlough people to remain viable, I don't think the Colgan management would have been ignorant enough not to do that.

Has it occurred to you that maybe some of the complaining is not due entirely because of pay? Anyways, anyone that got hired at Colgan knew that unionizing was a possibility.

Why do you put people down for not having the ability to quit, as you did, and therefore just wanting to improve their quality of life?

Also, competition from foreign airlines is unlikely. Especially with the results of the last election. Ands cabotage is not a reality because of ALPA rather than despite it as you would like people to think.

And even with the pilots unionized, industry will still dictate what they will be paid. The difference is that Colgan would have to bargain collectively.

If there ever was a time for a union at Colgan, now is the time. The Colgan mangement had the opportunity to show its good faith after the last union drive. There was another way without a union and Colgan management seemed to have squandered that since the last drive.

The union cannot force management to do anything. Employees can only organize to compell the mangament to bargain for a collective agreement of the represented employees. If Colgan cannot make money, they will fail regardless of whether the pilots are unionized or not. And last time I checked, ALPA never asks for every dime their respective managements make.

Five thousand dollars is probably not enough for any time of litigation. But regardless, its not guaranteed you would recover that even if you prevailed. If you do the dance, the union would just make sure that management follows the rules that were negotiated in applying discipline. That is what ALPA does in these cases. If makes sure that you actually did what you are accused of and if you are in fact guilty, that discipline is assesed fairly and per the rules. Both management and employees win in these situations because everyone knows the rules and it takes out any subjectiveness, which coincedentally, reduces the probaility of any litigation.

Anything a company offers you is in return for your services. They don't give you anything. You earn your pay AND benefits. Its been common to refer to them as your total compensation package. If the company didn't find it beneficial to offer health benefits, they would have gotten rid of them yesterday.

What is this other ways you keep talking about?

Despite your problems with Colgan, you would net "ever" vote for a union? Even if you couldn't quit as you've said that the current Colgan pilots can't? So if you had as these problems with Colgan but couldn't quit, what would make you vote for a union?

Why are you stereotyping. I cannot beleive that your statement is not anything but anecdotal at best. Of course there will always be that small percentage of people that are trouble. Just like we have a percentage of criminals in our society. But even criminals have due process. You don't even want to give that to Colgan pilots, due process?

Internal representation? Is this a lawyer paid by Colgan management to represent you in an anlawful termination case? Who is this internal represantion feduciary responsibility to? Who ultimately pays for his services? Even a criminal has the ability for his own defense attorney but yet you don't want to give that oppurtonity to Colgan pilots paid for at ALPA's expense? How is internal representation healthy for business?

Then it seems as though Colgan does have poor management. They had an opportunity to restore faith with their pilots after the last failed union drive. They have proven that Colgan pilots indeed do need a union.

The pay is just ONE aspect of what ALPA does. Sure its important but its not the end all be all of issues. It depends a lot on the particular property. Labor cost may or may not be the number one cost of doing business. ALPA would be able to see if that really is the case at Colgan. The point is that maybe the market does not support higher pay right now or maybe it does. ALPA, as your bargaining agent, would be able to answer this independently to decide for yourself if this was the case. Its like anyone else negotiating their pay at theri desk job when they first get hired. The boss and you negotiate pay and benefits for in exchange for your services. ALPA does the same thing but through a collective voice. Once there is an AGREEMENT, it is settled. In fact, Mesa just agreed that at their particular airline with current market conditions, they agreed to improve some rules and only give modest pay raises for the FOs. ALPA does not look to take every dime or run the airline out of business. That would be counter productive to its members.

Just curious, who do you work for now? Are they unionized?

But with a contract, Colgan cannot just change work rules to suit them. Like I said, its not always about the pay. With rules in play that pilots know that management cannot change on a whim without a consequence, they will be better prepared for the down cycles. Every one knows that the bottom will suffer first if things turn ugly. But I would go as far as to say that most pilots prefer that than management deciding which pilots get furlough, downgraded, or even upgraded regardless of seniority. Its more about treating people fairly and without subjective decisions.

I think that a better point is what happens when you do have a bad day and inadvertently make a mistake. You could lose your job or certificate for making an honest mistake. ALPA is just an insurance policy in case that happens. Its like auto insurance. You buy it but you hope never to have to use it.

And as for as for extensions, if the common thought by some is that you will be fired, maybe it was management's attempt at scare tatics? Otherwise, why would it be common thought by some? And if it was a scare tactic by mangement, then you really do need a union.