|
The RLA and Leverage
1 Attachment(s)
Here's a simple chart that depicts the increase of leverage as the RLA process plays out. This chart is very basic and it is meant to impart a very basic idea: for the great bulk of the time spent trodding down the path of the RLA, leverage accumulates slowly. But, it accelerates dramatically during the final stages of the RLA process.
Yes, we need to approve a strike authorization - and the higher the vote in favor, the more leverage we hand to the NC. But, as they say, "stay frosty." A SAV does not dramatically improve our leverage right away. However, it paves the way for the development of tremendously more leverage later in the process. It IS an absolute necessity. It's important to note that the RLA specifies no time limit for mediation. That's what the break symbol on the x-axis signifies. The likely record for shortest time spent in mediation before being released into a cooling off period was the railroads last year at 136 days. As of today, we have been in mediation 148 days. Not that it's impossible to be released earlier, but typically, it probably does not start to become realistic for a labor group to be released from mediation until it has at least exceeded the average time in mediation for all cases before the NMB. It's difficult to determine that number because the data is hard to come by, but a partial analysis (emphasis on "partial") of mediation cases over the last five years puts the average time in mediation at well over 500 calendar days if adjustments are made for the pandemic and close to 700 days if those adjustments are removed. There are individual cases, mostly due to their union's fumbling, that have gone way over 1,000 days. ABX, for example, went 2,342 days. But they had a representation dispute going on, an injunction issued against their union (IBT) for an illegal job action, and then the pandemic. The "We Are Here" arrow shows about where we are right now in the cultivation of leverage under the RLA. Attachment 7410 |
Excellent post as always and a great tool to help visualize it. Thank you for the effort.
|
Originally Posted by Lewbronski
(Post 3588238)
Here's a simple chart that depicts the increase of leverage as the RLA process plays out. This chart is very basic and it is meant to impart a very basic idea: for the great bulk of the time spent trodding down the path of the RLA, leverage accumulates slowly. But, it accelerates dramatically during the final stages of the RLA process.
Yes, we need to approve a strike authorization - and the higher the vote in favor, the more leverage we hand to the NC. But, as they say, "stay frosty." A SAV does not dramatically improve our leverage right away. However, it paves the way for the development of tremendously more leverage later in the process. It IS an absolute necessity. It's important to note that the RLA specifies no time limit for mediation. That's what the break symbol on the x-axis signifies. The likely record for shortest time spent in mediation before being released into a cooling off period was the railroads last year at 136 days. As of today, we have been in mediation 148 days. Not that it's impossible to be released earlier, but typically, it probably does not start to become realistic for a labor group to be released from mediation until it has at least exceeded the average time in mediation for all cases before the NMB. It's difficult to determine that number because the data is hard to come by, but a partial analysis (emphasis on "partial") of mediation cases over the last five years puts the average time in mediation at well over 500 calendar days if adjustments are made for the pandemic and close to 700 days if those adjustments are removed. There are individual cases, mostly due to their union's fumbling, that have gone way over 1,000 days. ABX, for example, went 2,342 days. But they had a representation dispute going on, an injunction issued against their union (IBT) for an illegal job action, and then the pandemic. The "We Are Here" arrow shows about where we are right now in the cultivation of leverage under the RLA. Attachment 7410 Love it! |
The only problem is the two slanted parallel lines on the lower (time) axis showing the scale is discontinuous between where we are now and release to self help, meaning that actual release might well be far far away and the time scale for such release not truly represented by the graph as depicted. One can represent it graphically like this which clearly helps explain the sequence, but any honest representation - which this is - must acknowledge that the RLA is an onerous process designed to preserve the right to strike in theory while making it intentionally as difficult and lengthy a process as possible to actually exercise that “right.”
That’s no criticism of the OP, merely an acknowledgement of the intent of the lawmakers who crafted the RLA and their skill in accomplishing that intent. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3588367)
The only problem is the two slanted parallel lines on the lower (time) axis showing the scale is discontinuous between where we are now and release to self help, meaning that actual release might well be far far away and the time scale for such release not truly represented by the graph as depicted. One can represent it graphically like this which clearly helps explain the sequence, but any honest representation - which this is - must acknowledge that the RLA is an onerous process designed to preserve the right to strike in theory while making it intentionally as difficult and lengthy a process as possible to actually exercise that “right.”
That’s no criticism of the OP, merely an acknowledgement of the intent of the lawmakers who crafted the RLA and their skill in accomplishing that intent. |
Originally Posted by jetset
(Post 3588372)
And the idea that the “leverage” works for both the union as well as the company depending on how it plays out.
|
Please send that chart to SWAPA comm so they can put it in the RP! There’s still so much misunderstanding on the line.
|
Originally Posted by jetset
(Post 3588372)
And the idea that the “leverage” works for both the union as well as the company depending on how it plays out.
True, The company can start looking for 10,000 pilots that want to be called a scab and work for a 3rd tier airline . I am sure the the list is long of pilots that want to work for a place that calls them a bunch of plumbers . |
Originally Posted by Mozam
(Post 3588423)
True, The company can start looking for 10,000 pilots that want to be called a scab and work for a 3rd tier airline . I am sure the the list is long of pilots that want to work for a place that calls them a bunch of plumbers .
|
Leverage is best used in what the company is doing. Dividend distributions, stock grants to the board and senior executives. That’s where leverage works in the pilot group in the form of education. Aka, they pay themselves but they can’t be bothered to pay us. This also works well in mediation when the company formally puts compensation on the table.
Seems like you guys are more concerned about the pilot group then management. Management is the ones that caused the meltdown, has stalled negotiations, abuses the contract, creating very dense trips to where you can’t do anything, JA on top of JA. You have to hammer what management is doing. RLA will take us to a conclusion when or if we get a deal. It’s much easier to sit next to a guy and discuss what improvements need to be made and then back it up with what management is currently doing. Explain to the guy next to you that if you want a contract sooner rather than later you must for vote yes on SAV is a lot easier than you think. Trip by trip and pilot by pilot. Their are times when the job is busy but their are down times when the flight deck is not. That’s a good time to discuss the SAV and improvements that are necessary to get it ratified. Every guy I have flown with has had great opinions on what is important to them in a AIP. Steer them towards SWAPA’s FlightPlan 2020 because that’s what the NC is negotiating on. Almost all of them are in favor of a SAV. Believe it or not their are many at SWA that have already been through multiple SAV’s and some have actually walked. Know your audience. A guy who only has less than ten years vs a guy who has twenty have different want’s. Education on the misdeeds of management with the pilots whether your junior or senior is universal. The best unifier is bad management. Work wonders. |
I don’t think it’s going to move as slow as you think. Alaska, Delta, Spirit, and Jetblue will all be under new contracts by next month. American, United, and Southwest will have to follow or pilots will stop showing up for class.
|
Originally Posted by REF 5
(Post 3588477)
Leverage is best used in what the company is doing. Dividend distributions, stock grants to the board and senior executives. That’s where leverage works in the pilot group in the form of education. Aka, they pay themselves but they can’t be bothered to pay us. This also works well in mediation when the company formally puts compensation on the table.
Seems like you guys are more concerned about the pilot group then management. Management is the ones that caused the meltdown, has stalled negotiations, abuses the contract, creating very dense trips to where you can’t do anything, JA on top of JA. You have to hammer what management is doing. RLA will take us to a conclusion when or if we get a deal. It’s much easier to sit next to a guy and discuss what improvements need to be made and then back it up with what management is currently doing. Explain to the guy next to you that if you want a contract sooner rather than later you must for vote yes on SAV is a lot easier than you think. Trip by trip and pilot by pilot. Their are times when the job is busy but their are down times when the flight deck is not. That’s a good time to discuss the SAV and improvements that are necessary to get it ratified. Every guy I have flown with has had great opinions on what is important to them in a AIP. Steer them towards SWAPA’s FlightPlan 2020 because that’s what the NC is negotiating on. Almost all of them are in favor of a SAV. Believe it or not their are many at SWA that have already been through multiple SAV’s and some have actually walked. Know your audience. A guy who only has less than ten years vs a guy who has twenty have different want’s. Education on the misdeeds of management with the pilots whether your junior or senior is universal. The best unifier is bad management. Work wonders. If that’s what you’re saying, I don’t look at it that way. Dissatisfaction with management can be harnessed to harden a labor group’s resolve to leverage the credible threat of a legal strike. But I don’t think dissatisfaction with management by itself is really a form of leverage. We’re all still showing up for work even though many of us are very dissatisfied with management and their antics (millions upon millions in bonuses splashed around the C-suite while slashing PS?). When these guys are staring down the barrel of a legal strike and all the loss of revenue that entails, then they will care. A SAV is a big step toward credibly posing that threat but there will still be a ton of resolve this pilot group will need to demonstrate until we maximize our leverage as we enter into a cooling off period and a PEB. Until then, nothing much has fazed them. Yes, let’s allow our disappointment and dissatisfaction with management fuel our walk toward maximizing our leverage via the RLA. But I still want to get paid and I still want better work rules and benefits regardless of how nice management is and regardless of how much they say they love me. |
Originally Posted by Lewbronski
(Post 3588746)
Not sure what you mean when you say, “Leverage is best used in what the company is doing.” You seem to me to be suggesting that dissatisfaction with management produces leverage.
If that’s what you’re saying, I don’t look at it that way. Dissatisfaction with management can be harnessed to harden a labor group’s resolve to leverage the credible threat of a legal strike. But I don’t think dissatisfaction with management by itself is really a form of leverage. We’re all still showing up for work even though many of us are very dissatisfied with management and their antics (millions upon millions in bonuses splashed around the C-suite while slashing PS?). When these guys are staring down the barrel of a legal strike and all the loss of revenue that entails, then they will care. A SAV is a big step toward credibly posing that threat but there will still be a ton of resolve this pilot group will need to demonstrate until we maximize our leverage as we enter into a cooling off period and a PEB. Until then, nothing much has fazed them. Yes, let’s allow our disappointment and dissatisfaction with management fuel our walk toward maximizing our leverage via the RLA. But I still want to get paid and I still want better work rules and benefits regardless of how nice management is and regardless of how much they say they love me. |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 3588742)
I don’t think it’s going to move as slow as you think. Alaska, Delta, Spirit, and Jetblue will all be under new contracts by next month. American, United, and Southwest will have to follow or pilots will stop showing up for class.
|
Originally Posted by DownAndDirty
(Post 3588826)
Sure they will. Just keep lowering the bar and the classes will always be full. Problem solved.
|
Originally Posted by DownAndDirty
(Post 3588826)
Sure they will. Just keep lowering the bar and the classes will always be full. Problem solved.
A training department and CA nightmare. |
Originally Posted by Lewbronski
(Post 3588746)
Not sure what you mean when you say, “Leverage is best used in what the company is doing.” You seem to me to be suggesting that dissatisfaction with management produces leverage.
If that’s what you’re saying, I don’t look at it that way. Dissatisfaction with management can be harnessed to harden a labor group’s resolve to leverage the credible threat of a legal strike. But I don’t think dissatisfaction with management by itself is really a form of leverage. We’re all still showing up for work even though many of us are very dissatisfied with management and their antics (millions upon millions in bonuses splashed around the C-suite while slashing PS?). When these guys are staring down the barrel of a legal strike and all the loss of revenue that entails, then they will care. A SAV is a big step toward credibly posing that threat but there will still be a ton of resolve this pilot group will need to demonstrate until we maximize our leverage as we enter into a cooling off period and a PEB. Until then, nothing much has fazed them. Yes, let’s allow our disappointment and dissatisfaction with management fuel our walk toward maximizing our leverage via the RLA. But I still want to get paid and I still want better work rules and benefits regardless of how nice management is and regardless of how much they say they love me. I showed up to work for the last two and I’m still showing up for this one. In both cases of the SAV both were 98%-99%. We’ll get their. |
Originally Posted by DownAndDirty
(Post 3588826)
Sure they will. Just keep lowering the bar and the classes will always be full. Problem solved.
|
Originally Posted by TransWorld;[url=tel:3589010
3589010[/url]]Can they lower it below 1,500 hours? Lol
|
Originally Posted by ZapBrannigan
(Post 3589074)
Would you want to put your family on the airplane if they did? Asking for a friend...
|
Originally Posted by TransWorld
(Post 3589010)
Can they lower it below 1,500 hours? Lol
|
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
(Post 3589100)
I’d prefer not to put my family on one with a 1,500 fresh ATPed CFI. Certainly not on a 737.
Yet. |
Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
(Post 3588762)
I believe they meant to the mediator/nmb bod which I agree with to an extent. You want to show what your asking for is reasonable and management has no issues with the ability to pay. It seems you missed a step. Petition for release from mediation. That’s a big step and needs to put forth a good argument as to why you believe mediation is not working. If you don’t hear something back in a timely fashion your leverage is not going up and could be argued it went down a bit. It can be a bit of a gamble. IMO you won’t get to that point and will have an agreement in mediation. As others have pointed out management doesn’t really have a whole lot of options with the shortage.
2) Yes, the RLA and the NLRA (which the courts have mostly accepted as pertaining to RLA cases in terms of the requirements of good faith bargaining) require that both sides "exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements." However, "reasonable" does not mean that our contractual demands have to be constrained by what the company perceives as "industry standard" or really, by any other measure other than what our economic strength as a labor group can obtain. I wrote a very long post on this recently called "Unreasonable to seek better than narrow body?" Check it out. A few pertinent quotes from RLA cases: … the labor laws allow economic strength ultimately to control the establishment of contract terms, regardless of which side may have better reasons for its position … It is ‘permissible for a party to engage in `hard bargaining,' utilizing its economic power to its advantage to retain as many rights as possible’ subject only to necessity that there be a subjective ‘desire to reach ultimate agreement.’ The union disputed the claim that there would be a cost increase estimated to be 294% but Chief Judge Peckham found it simply ‘unnecessary to the resolution [of the good faith bargaining issue] to determine the actual figures. [The airline] is effectively asking the court to hold that the sheer size of the Teamsters' economic demands, and the distance between the parties after a long period of negotiations, amounts to a lack of reasonable effort by the union to reach an agreement.’ The district court concluded it was forbidden by ‘the strong federal labor policy against governmental interference with the substantive terms of collective-bargaining agreements’ from pursuing the matter further. REA is a private enterprise corporation operating under a laissez faire economy; the circumstance that it cannot meet the demands of a competitive system and may face bankruptcy, if such be the fact, does not require its employees to accept a wage they deem inadequate and to surrender their legal right to strike once the procedures under the [RLA] have been met. To hold that the employees' assertion of their rights manifests a failure to exert every reasonable effort to resolve all disputes and thereby constitutes a [RLA] violation is without validity. It suggests that a court has the power to apply a coercive force upon the employees to yield to the carrier's offer even though they deem it inadequate—in effect, it would impose upon them the financing of an undercapitalized carrier … While BRAC was required to exert every reasonable effort to end the dispute, this did not mean that it was required to surrender its position entirely, or the legal rights of its members. It is well settled, however, that movement toward the position of the other side is not a requirement of good faith bargaining. Courts must resist finding violations of the RLA based solely on evidence of hard bargaining, inability to reach agreement, or intransigent positions. Plaintiff's other allegations — including that defendants have not significantly altered their proposals from the [original] proposal — similarly fall short of stating a claim for bad faith bargaining. Plaintiff misconceives the scope of the duty "to exert every reasonable effort" to reach an agreement, which does not require one side to accede to the other's proposals: [M]ovement toward the position of the other side is not a requirement of good faith bargaining.... Mere insistence on demands that seem extremely harsh to the other side and that a neutral party may consider "hard" is not a violation of bargaining duties. An employer may insist on positions consistent with ... its asserted needs, even if the union may consider the proposals greedy. "Courts must resist finding violations of the RLA based solely on evidence of hard bargaining, inability to reach agreement, or intransigent positions." Here, plaintiff essentially asks the court to find bad faith predicated on U.S. Airways' lack of flexibility and its unwillingness to become more generous as the bargaining process progresses. But a company's bargaining positions do not violate the statutory standards merely because they are "obstinate and unyielding, |
[QUOTE=Lewbronski;3590604]1) As far as I know, formally asking the NMB for a proffer of arbitration is not a required step in the RLA process (like one party filing for mediation) nor in the SWAPA constitution (like a SAV). Unions do write letters to the NMB requesting that it proffer arbitration. Here's a copy of a letter the attorney for the BMWED and SMART-MD, two of the unions involved in the national coalition of railroad unions labor dispute last year, wrote asking the NMB to proffer arbitration in their case. The letter was written in February of last year. The NMB ended up proffering arbitration in June. Since it's not required either by the RLA nor by the SWAPA constitution, I don't know that it impacts leverage very much.
2) Yes, the RLA and the NLRA (which the courts have mostly accepted as pertaining to RLA cases in terms of the requirements of good faith bargaining) require that both sides "exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements." However, "reasonable" does not mean that our contractual demands have to be constrained by what the company perceives as "industry standard" or really, by any other measure other than what our economic strength as a labor group can obtain. I wrote a very long post on this recently called "Unreasonable to seek better than narrow body?" Check it out. A few pertinent quotes from RLA cases: It may not be required but there’s no chance you’re ending mediated talks without a formal request to do so. The request to proffer arbitration letter that you provided seems extremely short and I’m a bit surprised they were released with just that document. There has to be more than just that. F9 document was 40ish pages long with a ton of documents attached and spanned the 3 years of negotiations to that point. After the request was made nothing for months. Not even a statement. It became clear we were not getting released. It had to be one of the strongest arguments for release in the history of airline mediation. We are talking about bill franke here. Leverage was definitely a problem when that happened. The good news is now you’re not dealing with the same nmb bod. |
After a deeper read of the railway union attorney’s letter it reads like a formal request to be released from mediated talks. It alludes to several other documents submitted along the way demonstrating further meditated talks would be fruitless.
I’m not disagreeing with your overall premise that leverage goes up exponentially further into the process at all. I agree with it. I’m just pointing out there’s potential pitfalls along the way. This is one of them. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:03 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands