Delta Representation Discussion
09-06-2013 | 05:33 PM
#61
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Fed Ex left ALPA. They came back, & have an excellent contract. Air Tran pilot's union couldn't negotiate a contract, so they became ALPA. Contract done. APA requested ALPA's assistance for Sec 6 prior to their BK. FAPA's union got clobbered by IBT in integration. USAPA is an epic disaster. SWAPA is about the only successful independent union. It's been failure for just about everyone else. True IPA received a good contract from UPS, but only after Fed Ex set the bar with their contract negotiated with the help of ALPA.
Carl
09-06-2013 | 05:38 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Not true. IPA has had either a very good or industry leading contract for quite some time...not just since FDX rejoined ALPA. And IPA has done so with one of the most openly hostile management teams in airline history. IPA has flat out done a great job...as has SWAPA.
Carl
Carl
09-06-2013 | 05:38 PM
#63
Straight QOL, homie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 1
From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Absolutely. There has got to be some sort of understanding by management that we will bring out a pair of pliers and some blow torches if necessary. There is no such fear right now.
We've got to have the full spectrum of responses--from "constructive engagement" to "get medieval on their asses" (figuratively speaking, of course) at our disposal if we expect to negotiate to our maximum potential.
We've got to have the full spectrum of responses--from "constructive engagement" to "get medieval on their asses" (figuratively speaking, of course) at our disposal if we expect to negotiate to our maximum potential.
09-06-2013 | 05:41 PM
#64
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
True PD, there is an example there.
Seems like the way it's done there is through a very, ahem, constructive and, huh, engaged relationship. And a lot of luck in having a company that is consistently profitable, partly because of their productivity.
So, their union and management walk in lockstep a lot.
Seems like the way it's done there is through a very, ahem, constructive and, huh, engaged relationship. And a lot of luck in having a company that is consistently profitable, partly because of their productivity.
So, their union and management walk in lockstep a lot.
No we're not Sink. SWAPA has never allowed the outsourcing of a single job. We're not even close to SWAPA unfortunately.
Carl
09-06-2013 | 05:43 PM
#65
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
09-06-2013 | 05:47 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
I know your main point is to just throw stink bombs and call names, but for the others who are here to glean actual information, DPA has never said a single thing that would cause someone to characterize them this way. We absolutely see the value in constructive engagement, but also see the disaster of following it too much into the outsourcing of Delta pilot jobs. That's where DPA draws the line at constructive engagement and turns old school union stubborn. Both tactics are required. The fact that ALPA can't do that because of their deep conflict of interest, is the only reason there's a DPA in the first place.
Carl
Carl
You are going to owe me gyoza from our last bet, do you want to double down on how bad the DPA gets beat if they do get it to an election ?
09-06-2013 | 05:48 PM
#67
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
SWAPA was who DALPA modeled constructive engagement after. I'm not really sure the DPA fans want constructive engagement and SWAPA has been in bed with management for over 30 years. For the DPA to use SWAPA as a positive model for an independent union is a joke. Yes they are successful but in all the wrong ways according to DPA literature and pundits.
Just for the record.
Carl
09-06-2013 | 05:57 PM
#69
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
It's not automatic. What killed AirTran was their unenforceable Scope clause, negotiated pre-ALPA I believe, which allowed SWA to operate them separately and kill the new entity at will. IOW AirTran couldn't force Bond-McCaskill arbitration onto SWA/SWAPA. This could not be duplicated against another carrier with a decent Scope clause outside the ALPA merger policy.
Now, the question would be whether we might fare better if not forced to use the merger policy. If you look at CAL/UAL, and our policies, I think the policy favors us. B/McC is vaguer, harder to predict, and still mandates arbitration outside a settlement.
I'll take "Under ALPA merger policy", please Alex.
I'll take "Under ALPA merger policy", please Alex.
Carl
09-06-2013 | 06:02 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
You've never read a single word of DPA literature I'm quite certain. You've done nothing but show hatred for DPA and undying love for ALPA from the beginning. That's you're right, but you are one of the most partisan DPA hating posters on APC.
Just for the record.
Carl
Just for the record.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
