I'm not an Alaska pilot, I simply chimed in because your information seems so contradictory to what happens in the industry. So what you're saying is that every carrier simply has a union which does not know how to negotiate with the railway labor act?

 

Not at all.

In the very recent past, both Frontier and Spirit pilots voted 100% for a strike authorization. This sent a very strong signal to their respective managements making the possibility of a strike ever occurring that much more miniscule. The goal is to attain your goals WITHOUT having to strike by sending a message that you are willing to strike if you absolutely have to. Again, peace through strength.

Note that Spirit pilots also struck in 2010 reinforcing the message that they are willing to take it all the way. Spirit pilots just approved a contract giving them an average of approximately a 40% pay raise. That is not too shabby.

In 2015, UPS pilots voted 99.9% to authorize a strike. They ended up with a 40% increase to their pension plan.

All of the above unions have done at least some things right. I would argue, though, that collectively as a profession, we could increase our own fortunes by playing the mediation game impeccably and pressing the federal courts for release (after 2 to 2.5 years) if the NMB is applying a patently arbitrary and unreasonable rationale to their case for not releasing us (that, by the way, is the legal test the federal courts have created for us if the NMB is not releasing us).

And, you do know that when a mediator says they will "put you on ice forever", they are lying? You do know mediators use lying as a way to spur on negotiations, right?

 

So which one of those groups was released? And there is much debate about the Spirit contract about whether it was a good deal or not. I'm not a Spirit pilot so I'm not going to judge it, but I overheard one today talking about work rules changes.

At the time of their vote, Pinnacle had the higher strike authorization vote in ALPA history. They also had the longest ongoing contract negotiation afterwards too.

I'm not decrying giving a good showing for the strike authorization vote, just saying that doesn't prove anything with regards to "they have to release you."

 

Dude, bro, man...

I think you're missing the point. The idea is you demonstrate a resolve to your respective company that you will strike if need be. No one wants to strike. The fact that Spirit got a 40% pay raise without having to go further in the RLA process suggests that perhaps their company knew that their pilots would take it all the way if they had to.

Notice that their company wrapped up their agreement at about the two-year point in mediation. After two years in mediation, assuming their union had bargained in good faith and been available and willing to meet, they would have begun to met the minimum time requirement that the federal courts would maybe begin to consider taking action if petitioned to do so and if they found the NMB was acting in a patently arbitrary and unreasonable manner.

And nobody said the federal courts "have to release you". Where did you get that idea? Why did you put that in quotes? Who were you quoting? The courts don't ever have to do anything. There are no guarantees in court.

No, the courts do not have to release you. However, they do have the power to do so if they determine the NMB is acting in bad faith. Again, read the opinion of the judge in the case I cited. The RLA was not meant to completely strip labor of its right to ever strike. It was meant to slow the drive toward a strike down so that the chance of an interruption of interstate commerce is minimized.

Please read what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth.

 

You said multiple times in the previous posts that if you "play the game right" you'll get released.

You also like bringing up that 40% pay raise. Great, high percentage. Still keeps their pay around the bottom of the industry. And they had to GIVE UP work rules to get that. If their pilots were doing so well, they wouldn't have had to give up anything, especially in this environment.

And just to be clear, under the RLA the union does not have a "right" to strike. It has to be given permission. Rights aren't something you only accomplish by authorization. There may be an ability there somewhere, but it's not a right.

You use examples of unions that were not released and where union leadership (in the case of Spirit) went on record saying "this is all we'll get because they won't release us" as examples of where the company thinking they'd be released got them a contract.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish, but you came across to me as being demeaning to the Alaska pilot group while at the same time making this process into a sure thing for labor.

 

Pinnacle also had a clause in their contract saying "if a strike at Pinnacle leads to a certain percentage of Pinnacle planes not flying for seven days or more, Northwest can terminate the agreement." Why on earth any airline pilot union would agree to language like that, I do not know. However, it eviscerates any leverage you might have had at Pinnacle regardless of a strike vote. No leverage therefore leads to long, drawn-out negotiations.

Pinnacle's union also requested binding arbitration from the NMB which is a sign to me that they knew they had very little leverage given the above contractual clause. Binding arbitration is the last thing I'd want as a union. However, given the above contractual clause, it was probably their best option.

 

I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) Lewbronski’s overarching point is that the Alaska pilot group needs to grow a pair and show the company that they aren’t afraid to strike if need be. Peace through strength, as he succinctly put it. Is there a valid argument against that?

 

Baradium, bro, are you a native English speaker?

Okay, this time, I never said, "if you 'play the game right' you'll get released." Your claim is I said that in multiple posts. So I went back and reread what I wrote to make sure that I wasn't "misremembering" what I wrote ala Brian Williams.

Here are the relevant statements I made that you might have misunderstood:

Note the emphasized portions of the above text. None of that sounds to me like it implies a certainty of being released. Maybe it did to you but words and phrases like "can", "hint at", and "might" are not commonly used to suggest a "sure thing". Maybe where you come from that's how people talk. I dunno.

And, just to be clear with you, you may not think there's a right to self-help (strike), but at least one federal judge has said there is a right to self-help under the RLA. I already quoted that case, but I'll put it here again:

In a matter like this, given the choice between your opinion and what the federal judge has written out in a matter of case law, I'll go with the federal judge.

And yes, I think most pilot unions have resigned themselves to thinking the RLA handcuffs them rather than trying to play the game and use the RLA to our own advantage.

And btw, Spirit did not play the game perfectly. Their illegal job action last year that required the intervention of the federal courts did not help their case in the least bit. That was a major error on their part regardless of whether or not the union was officially involved or not. That hurt them.

 

I don't think it's standard policy for the pilot union to get to negotiate the ASA with the mainline partner. That clause wasn't part of the pilot contract, it was in the NWA contract with Pinnacle corporate.

Binding arbitration was requested because the company had already made it clear that they saw no reason to negotiate. They even put out memos stating such. The union's position was that being accepting of arbitration was at least showing the pilot group was trying to possibly increase the chances of the moderators releasing us. Not that it ever happened though.

 

I get it, you like to be condescending.

As far as the judge goes, using the word "right" in the same statement that you say it can be restricted is my point. Never mind the recent history of the NMB and their tendency to not release pilots.

I'm going to point out some parts that I think are germane to this that you didn't emphasize. I removed entire sections for length.


A lot of talk about how straightforward and powerful it is to use if only the poor Alaska pilots only knew how! And then examples later on of cases where the system did not work to benefit the pilot groups but touted as successes.

My point is that for whatever "success" a union can achieve with the RLA, they are only through actions that would be carried out much easier without it. The RLA does not benefit the union at all, what it does do is prevent job actions and disruptions as intended.

I already worked at a company where management would say to your face that we were lucky they were offering anything and we were just hurting ourselves by not agreeing to it since we weren't going to get released anyway. I guess that just means our union was made up of fools though.

If you would like to have a conversation as an adult I am willing to continue, but if you insist on continuing with insults then you can simply have the last word and I'm done.