New Atlas CBA = Colossal Union Failure
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 393
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 393
If he did that then there'd be no basis for the union to try to avoid the merger as you wouldn't be in Section 6. There would be a quick list, 9-12 months of negotiations and the union would ask for more gains and get at least some. Probably not much but some. Then you'd be an in house independent union after the merger and probably 5 years away from the next negotiating cycle BUT you'd probably get some small gains for the year and a half or so of pain.
There aren’t many airlines left in the IBT…even fewer that are cargo. I seriously doubt they would consider buying/merging a pax airline like Allegiant. As far as I know, the only cargo airlines that are still IBT are ABX and NAC/Aloha.
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 246
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 693
The practical application of this is sure to end up in front of a judge, though. So imagine having to argue that forming an in house union nullifies this language while joining ALPA doesn't. I can think of a few ways to break that argument, and I'm dumb. Put that on a backdrop of little to no funding v. a well-supported company legal team.
Maybe a gofundme is in order to pay for some experts? People that actually know what they're talking about can be paid to look at possibilities. That way an educated decision can be made.
Maybe a gofundme is in order to pay for some experts? People that actually know what they're talking about can be paid to look at possibilities. That way an educated decision can be made.
1. The acquired carrier is represented by the same bargaining agent (e.g. ALPA/ALPA or IBT/IBT). This was the case for both Atlas/Polar (ALPA/ALPA) and Atlas/Southern (IBT/IBT).
2. The acquired carrier is represented by a different bargaining agent (ALPA, SWAPA, APA, IPA like that would ever happen).
3. The acquired carrier has no representation.
Clearly, an in house union fits NONE OF THE ABOVE and therefore the company cannot enforce this clause of the contract.
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,236
If it could be proven that they were doing it in an attempt solely to force amalgamation and lock us into another 5 year arbitrated contract that could be something to sue over…but, as we’ve seen, the courts side heavily with the company the vast majority of the time so it might be a waste of time.
There aren’t many airlines left in the IBT…even fewer that are cargo. I seriously doubt they would consider buying/merging a pax airline like Allegiant. As far as I know, the only cargo airlines that are still IBT are ABX and NAC/Aloha.
There aren’t many airlines left in the IBT…even fewer that are cargo. I seriously doubt they would consider buying/merging a pax airline like Allegiant. As far as I know, the only cargo airlines that are still IBT are ABX and NAC/Aloha.
#126
Which leads back to the original point of this thread: the union was dietrich’s doormat and good ol’ Bobb Henderson was pretty much right all along.
No he’s not. He’s just the only one who wanted to execute the merger clause of the cba AS IT WAS WRITTEN. Those with your mindset wanted to act like they were exempt from contractual language, and now you’re all “wow dietrich’s good at this” and surprised that you’ve lost.
Pretty fkkin dumb.
Last edited by JT8D; 09-15-2021 at 09:25 AM.
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,236
Ultimately last week had to be painful, but a better strategy forward for yall is now needed. I'd go in house if I were yall. Then get the leaders you want with the best plans for how to prepare for the next cycle. If anyone attached to BH were running I'd probably not consider them but it's your union. It consists of all of you and will succeed or fail based more on your unity out on the line than your leadership. It should be apparent that you won't get the gains you seek in Amalgamation. Your best shot at that is Section 6 which I think is what JD fears.
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,349
This is a misinterpretation of what the actual language says. There would be no "nullification". The language is what the language is, and that allows for three scenarios:
1. The acquired carrier is represented by the same bargaining agent (e.g. ALPA/ALPA or IBT/IBT). This was the case for both Atlas/Polar (ALPA/ALPA) and Atlas/Southern (IBT/IBT).
2. The acquired carrier is represented by a different bargaining agent (ALPA, SWAPA, APA, IPA like that would ever happen).
3. The acquired carrier has no representation.
Clearly, an in house union fits NONE OF THE ABOVE and therefore the company cannot enforce this clause of the contract.
1. The acquired carrier is represented by the same bargaining agent (e.g. ALPA/ALPA or IBT/IBT). This was the case for both Atlas/Polar (ALPA/ALPA) and Atlas/Southern (IBT/IBT).
2. The acquired carrier is represented by a different bargaining agent (ALPA, SWAPA, APA, IPA like that would ever happen).
3. The acquired carrier has no representation.
Clearly, an in house union fits NONE OF THE ABOVE and therefore the company cannot enforce this clause of the contract.
What's actually going to happen to our people in the field?. I'm asking "Can the company apply this the way they want to?". "Can a new organization without funding convince a judge of our interpretation here?". Although I am dumb, I have experienced litigation. I was amazed at how pliable law and enforcement really is. It worked out, but it let me appreciate my naivitee.
Litigation eventually comes to the mind of a judge. Judges are human and can be bent to read and enforce law in ways that are questionable or surprising. In theory and movies litigation occurs in a courtroom with arguments. Judges, in fact, are influenced in many, many ways.
I really think consulting with a tested, non-partisan expert (a litigator, specifically) who knows how to fight on this terrain would be a very wise investment. It's easy to start down a path, but it's hard to see what the end actually looks like.
#129
Similar trend on the pax side. Management wants higher pay for noobs to ease their recruiting challenges. After you have a few years seniority, they figure you're staying anyway so they seek to minimize raises after that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post