SKYW: Pay Proposal -- Voted NO today.
01-21-2008 | 05:13 PM
#11
Underboob King
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,412
Likes: 0
From: Guppy Commander
I voted 'Decline' on the SKYW pay proposal this morning.
First of all, it is a net pay decrease for me, a 2nd year FO. A 0.32% [11 cent] increase in my base rate coupled with a decrease of 1% in BHO (from 6% to 5%)
I want first year FOs to get the 2.50/hr raise. I think it's a necessity to attract talent currently choosing other regional airlines with higher first year pay. I think the company will do this anyway. I don't want to pay for it, though. Management has negotiated a SAPA-certified way to pay for it -- via 2nd year FO pay.
If they want this passed, porking the 2nd year FO is pretty stupid since 2006 hires comprise a rather large hunk of the CRJ pilot group.
That's only my first reason.
I love SkyWest and encourage anyone to get on board, but a 1% COLA????? That's just blatently retarded. That's retarded to me and I haven't been here through the 'DEAL-ME-AN-ACE' and other pay freezes.
Why hasn't anyone considered doubling the OPS/PER awards percentage? That way if the company makes more money, we get more money. A fair way to get our share when times are good, and not screw ourselves when times are lean.
First of all, it is a net pay decrease for me, a 2nd year FO. A 0.32% [11 cent] increase in my base rate coupled with a decrease of 1% in BHO (from 6% to 5%)
I want first year FOs to get the 2.50/hr raise. I think it's a necessity to attract talent currently choosing other regional airlines with higher first year pay. I think the company will do this anyway. I don't want to pay for it, though. Management has negotiated a SAPA-certified way to pay for it -- via 2nd year FO pay.
If they want this passed, porking the 2nd year FO is pretty stupid since 2006 hires comprise a rather large hunk of the CRJ pilot group.
That's only my first reason.
I love SkyWest and encourage anyone to get on board, but a 1% COLA????? That's just blatently retarded. That's retarded to me and I haven't been here through the 'DEAL-ME-AN-ACE' and other pay freezes.
Why hasn't anyone considered doubling the OPS/PER awards percentage? That way if the company makes more money, we get more money. A fair way to get our share when times are good, and not screw ourselves when times are lean.
Holy Crap that is embarrassing! Good on you for voting no. I am shocked.
01-21-2008 | 05:18 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
From: Cessna 152 Captain
Why does a vote "YES" for a union automatically mean a vote "NO" or a vote "ANTI" for your company?
A lot of folks don't understand what a union is for; only a small percent of union activity has to do with anti-company rhetoric, and that only occurs at companies that are blatantly anti-labor like MAG.
A union's function has a lot to do with smoothing out the interface between the ops side of the company and the crew force. One big role of an elected representative is to hear day-to-day issues brought up by pilots and clarify those issues based on contractual language. When a discrepancy is found, the elected rep acts as a go-between to resolve the matter on behalf of the effected crew-member. In what is supposed to be a rare event that resolution is not forthcoming, the matter is sent through the grievance process and mediated formally. The problem at crummy carriers with bad contracts is that there is so much grey-area in the language that the company can interpret the rules any way they want (flavor of the week).
Next, the union also functions as a contract negotiator on behalf of the crew force. Negotiators are selected by the elected body and take direction from the elected body as to how they will negotiate and for what they will negotiate. The elected body in turn takes direction from the crew force. When the negotiating committee feels that a reasonable agreement has been framed, it returns to the elected body who approves or disapproves it. If it is disapproved (as it sounds like the current proposal would have been), the language NEVER sees the light of day and the process starts over. If the proposal is thought to hold merit, it is then put over to the pilot group for a general vote. Sounds to me like this "elected-middle-man" step is lacking in your process.
Just my two cents...
A lot of folks don't understand what a union is for; only a small percent of union activity has to do with anti-company rhetoric, and that only occurs at companies that are blatantly anti-labor like MAG.
A union's function has a lot to do with smoothing out the interface between the ops side of the company and the crew force. One big role of an elected representative is to hear day-to-day issues brought up by pilots and clarify those issues based on contractual language. When a discrepancy is found, the elected rep acts as a go-between to resolve the matter on behalf of the effected crew-member. In what is supposed to be a rare event that resolution is not forthcoming, the matter is sent through the grievance process and mediated formally. The problem at crummy carriers with bad contracts is that there is so much grey-area in the language that the company can interpret the rules any way they want (flavor of the week).
Next, the union also functions as a contract negotiator on behalf of the crew force. Negotiators are selected by the elected body and take direction from the elected body as to how they will negotiate and for what they will negotiate. The elected body in turn takes direction from the crew force. When the negotiating committee feels that a reasonable agreement has been framed, it returns to the elected body who approves or disapproves it. If it is disapproved (as it sounds like the current proposal would have been), the language NEVER sees the light of day and the process starts over. If the proposal is thought to hold merit, it is then put over to the pilot group for a general vote. Sounds to me like this "elected-middle-man" step is lacking in your process.
Just my two cents...
I think tons of people were trying to educate the masses at Skywest a few months ago.. I dont care if they have ALPA or Teamsters or what have you .. but in our profession you never know when you are going to need the union on your side..
.." a cow never know the use of its tail till it looses it"
Skywest Pilots are reaping what they sow.. without a CBA management has nothing stopping them from doing what ever they want...
01-21-2008 | 05:50 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,963
Likes: 0
From: SkyWest Capt.
I personally feel that my increase in pay over the next two year might net me $2K and I’d gladly pay $2K over 2 years to send a BIG FAT NO to St. George. I want at least ASA +3% across the board, 25% for 1st yr and 2%+ for COLA (prefer 3+). Anything less is a disgrace and if this pay proposal passes then I’m once again baffled by the unbelievable sugar high our pilots have from drinking Jerry’s Kool-Aid.
As for all the SKW pilot bashing on here, advice is fine but bashing is uncalled for, so BACK OFF and show some professionalism. Start focusing on your own company’s problems and let us deal with ours!
Last edited by JetJock16; 01-21-2008 at 05:58 PM.
01-21-2008 | 06:14 PM
#14
Gets Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
From: On Top
The only two SKW pilots on here that said they're going to vote YES are Slap and TW. Where as I believe; Bla, ANP, Rick, JJ (myself), Seatown, EngOut, KingAir, CopCar, FlyingHunter, ExpAB, SharkAir, Seatle, otter, wafly, duvie, ficone, reelbig and a few others a all voting NO on this BS pay package.
I personally feel that my increase in pay over the next two year might net me $2K and I’d gladly pay $2K over 2 years to send a BIG FAT NO to St. George. I want at least ASA +3% across the board, 25% for 1st yr and 2%+ for COLA (prefer 3+). Anything less is a disgrace and if this pay proposal passes then I’m once again baffled by the unbelievable sugar high our pilots have from drinking Jerry’s Kool-Aid.
As for all the SKW pilot bashing on here, advice is fine but bashing is uncalled for, so BACK OFF and show some professionalism. Start focusing on your own company’s problems and let us deal with ours!
I personally feel that my increase in pay over the next two year might net me $2K and I’d gladly pay $2K over 2 years to send a BIG FAT NO to St. George. I want at least ASA +3% across the board, 25% for 1st yr and 2%+ for COLA (prefer 3+). Anything less is a disgrace and if this pay proposal passes then I’m once again baffled by the unbelievable sugar high our pilots have from drinking Jerry’s Kool-Aid.
As for all the SKW pilot bashing on here, advice is fine but bashing is uncalled for, so BACK OFF and show some professionalism. Start focusing on your own company’s problems and let us deal with ours!
No bashing here, just an observation based on the post of some of those very same users. I have a few friends over there and I wish them nothing but the best, they will all vote no, and I'm glad you will too. As far as my company is concern don't you worry, I make more flying a 50 seater than all others with my same longetivity flying 70-90 seaters...that wasn't a low blow, just a reality. Again best of luck brother.
Anything any pilot group gets good or bad affects the rest of the industry...that's also a very vivid reality.
01-21-2008 | 06:20 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
From: 737 Right
The only two SKW pilots on here that said they're going to vote YES are Slap and TW. Where as I believe; Bla, ANP, Rick, JJ (myself), Seatown, EngOut, KingAir, CopCar, FlyingHunter, ExpAB, SharkAir, Seatle, otter, wafly, duvie, ficone, reelbig and a few others a all voting NO on this BS pay package.
01-21-2008 | 06:34 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Pilot sleeping.
The only two SKW pilots on here that said they're going to vote YES are Slap and TW. Where as I believe; Bla, ANP, Rick, JJ (myself), Seatown, EngOut, KingAir, CopCar, FlyingHunter, ExpAB, SharkAir, Seatle, otter, wafly, duvie, ficone, reelbig and a few others a all voting NO on this BS pay package.
I personally feel that my increase in pay over the next two year might net me $2K and I’d gladly pay $2K over 2 years to send a BIG FAT NO to St. George. I want at least ASA +3% across the board, 25% for 1st yr and 2%+ for COLA (prefer 3+). Anything less is a disgrace and if this pay proposal passes then I’m once again baffled by the unbelievable sugar high our pilots have from drinking Jerry’s Kool-Aid.
I personally feel that my increase in pay over the next two year might net me $2K and I’d gladly pay $2K over 2 years to send a BIG FAT NO to St. George. I want at least ASA +3% across the board, 25% for 1st yr and 2%+ for COLA (prefer 3+). Anything less is a disgrace and if this pay proposal passes then I’m once again baffled by the unbelievable sugar high our pilots have from drinking Jerry’s Kool-Aid.
01-21-2008 | 06:37 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,963
Likes: 0
From: SkyWest Capt.
No bashing here, just an observation based on the post of some of those very same users. I have a few friends over there and I wish them nothing but the best, they will all vote no, and I'm glad you will too. As far as my company is concern don't you worry, I make more flying a 50 seater than all others with my same longetivity flying 70-90 seaters...that wasn't a low blow, just a reality. Again best of luck brother.
Anything any pilot group gets good or bad affects the rest of the industry...that's also a very vivid reality.
Anything any pilot group gets good or bad affects the rest of the industry...that's also a very vivid reality.
BTW, I have a friend who works for XJT and he started class two weeks after I started with SKW. His W2’s were $300 higher than mine after yr 1 and I beat him by almost $5K in year two. Just saying, we can argue all you want but that's all we’ll be doing.
I voted YES for ALPA and I’ll vote NO for this BS pay proposal!
Last edited by JetJock16; 01-21-2008 at 06:47 PM.
01-21-2008 | 06:42 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,963
Likes: 0
From: SkyWest Capt.
Excellent, I as well have spoke to most all of my friends and with the exception of one (pig headed) all are going to vote NO. Let’s keep our fingers crosses and take it one pilot at a time.
01-21-2008 | 06:50 PM
#19
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: I don't know where I am
The only two SKW pilots on here that said they're going to vote YES are Slap and TW. Where as I believe; Bla, ANP, Rick, JJ (myself), Seatown, EngOut, KingAir, CopCar, FlyingHunter, ExpAB, SharkAir, Seatle, otter, wafly, duvie, ficone, reelbig and a few others a all voting NO on this BS pay package.
I personally feel that my increase in pay over the next two year might net me $2K and I’d gladly pay $2K over 2 years to send a BIG FAT NO to St. George. I want at least ASA +3% across the board, 25% for 1st yr and 2%+ for COLA (prefer 3+). Anything less is a disgrace and if this pay proposal passes then I’m once again baffled by the unbelievable sugar high our pilots have from drinking Jerry’s Kool-Aid.
As for all the SKW pilot bashing on here, advice is fine but bashing is uncalled for, so BACK OFF and show some professionalism. Start focusing on your own company’s problems and let us deal with ours!
I personally feel that my increase in pay over the next two year might net me $2K and I’d gladly pay $2K over 2 years to send a BIG FAT NO to St. George. I want at least ASA +3% across the board, 25% for 1st yr and 2%+ for COLA (prefer 3+). Anything less is a disgrace and if this pay proposal passes then I’m once again baffled by the unbelievable sugar high our pilots have from drinking Jerry’s Kool-Aid.
As for all the SKW pilot bashing on here, advice is fine but bashing is uncalled for, so BACK OFF and show some professionalism. Start focusing on your own company’s problems and let us deal with ours!
Why do you deserve MORE than the ASA guys who actually have a union?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
