GogglesPisano

That’s how I understand it, unfortunately. Government-mandated free-loading.

galaxy flyer

That’s how I was taught it at ALPA.

GF

JohnBurke

I've been both steward and business agent, and while the traditional method is somewhat as you describe, the dismantled model is not. The contract is between the negotiating parties. A pilot union offers no protection for the mechanics, and participants from the pilot group who are filling competing roles as management (chief pilot, etc) do not enjoy the same protections.

It's very possible to have both a union and non-union shop, which weakens the bargaining power of the union. It's also how a company can hire across picket lines or hire outside during a job action (eg, walk-out, strike, etc).

Presently the supreme court ruling is narrow, but on the back side of a slippery slope that may have considerably larger consequences than simply excusing a few employees from paying dues. As a first amendment challenge, the present ruling is already well outside the railway labor act and effectively sidesteps it by going direct to a constitutional challenge. It iis, however, not a one-way street. If the challenge is a refusal to pay dues on the constitutional ground of free speech, the unwillingness to sponsor a group (union) whose policy is not in accord with the protestor, then the precedent not only grants the protestor relief from being bound to the position of the union, but means the union cannot be compelled to speak on behalf of that actor.

The two functions are married at the hip, which is why non-participating (silent) members have been required to pay dues. They were getting collective bargaining benefits. The progression of the current trend in court rendering unravels the status quo.

Allegheny

The recent ruling is a departure from prior rulings but it is limited to public sector unions.


The problem of "free riders" or those who would benefit from a union contract but not pay to support it is known to the supreme court.

466 U.S. 435 (1984) ELLIS ET AL.
v.
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE & STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS & STATION EMPLOYES ET AL.

No. 82-1150. Supreme Court of United States.
Argued January 9, 1984 Decided April 25, 1984 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT






....We remain convinced that Congress' essential justification for authorizing the union shop was the desire to eliminate free riders — employees in the bargaining unit on whose behalf the union was obliged to perform its statutory functions, but who refused to contribute to the cost thereof. Only a 448*448 union that is certified as the exclusive bargaining agent is authorized to negotiate a contract requiring all employees to become members of or to make contributions to the union. Until such a contract is executed, no dues or fees may be collected from objecting employees who are not members of the union; and by the same token, any obligatory payments required by a contract authorized by § 2, Eleventh terminate if the union ceases to be the exclusive bargaining agent. Hence, when employees such as petitioners object to being burdened with particular union expenditures, the test must be whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues. Under this standard, objecting employees may be compelled to pay their fair share of not only the direct costs of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining contract and of settling grievances and disputes, but also the expenses of activities or undertakings normally or reasonably employed to implement or effectuate the duties of the union as exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
With these considerations in mind, we turn to the particular expenditures for which petitioners insist they may not be charged.

Remember also that the RLA since 1926 had section 2 11th.


152 (11th)



Eleventh. Union security agreements; check-off


(b) to make agreements providing for the deduction by such carrier or carriers from the wages of its or their employees in a craft or class and payment to the labor organization representing the craft or class of such employees, of any periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties) uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership: Provided, That no such agreement shall be effective with respect to any individual employee until he shall have furnished the employer with a written assignment to the labor organization of such membership dues, initiation fees, and assessments, which shall be revocable in writing after the expiration of one year or upon the termination date of the applicable collective agreement, whichever occurs sooner.
(c) The requirement of membership in a labor organization in an agreement made pursuant to subparagraph (a) of this paragraph shall be satisfied, as to both a present or future employee in engine, train, yard, or hostling service, that is, an employee engaged in any of the services or capacities covered in the First division of paragraph (h) of section 153 of this title defining the jurisdictional scope of the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, if said employee shall hold or acquire membership in any one of the labor organizations, national in scope, organized in accordance with this chapter and admitting to membership employees of a craft or class in any of said services; and no agreement made pursuant to subparagraph (b) of this paragraph shall provide for deductions from his wages for periodic dues, initiation fees, or assessments payable to any labor organization other than that in which he holds membership: Provided, however, That as to an employee in any of said services on a particular carrier at the effective date of any such agreement on a carrier, who is not a member of any one of the labor organizations, national in scope, organized in accordance with this chapter and admitting to membership employees of a craft or class in any of said services, such employee, as a condition of continuing his employment, may be required to become a member of the organization representing the craft in which he is employed on the effective date of the first agreement applicable to him: Provided, further, That nothing herein or in any such agreement or agreements shall prevent an employee from changing membership from one organization to another organization admitting to membership employees of a craft or class in any of said services.
(d) Any provisions in paragraphs Fourth and Fifth of this section in conflict herewith are to the extent of such conflict amended.
(May 20, 1926, ch. 347, § 2, 44 Stat. 577; June 21, 1934, ch. 691, § 2, 48 Stat. 1186; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 1, 62 Stat. 909; Jan. 10, 1951, ch. 1220, 64 Stat. 1238.)
The effective date of this chapter, referred to in par. Fifth, probably means May 20, 1926, the date of approval of act May 20, 1926, ch. 347, 44 Stat. 577.




There is a great deal of case law in the higher courts that supports this and other prior rulings under the RLA. If the SCOTUS were to reverse they would be overturning many rulings in labor law. A google scholar search for case law produced over 20 pages of different cases. Many in the Supreme Court and some in the appeals courts.

It is a tall order for this new court to reverse almost 92 years of precedent .

742Dash

Then why is it so hard to get a federal civil service job?

Before you slam your fellow citizens with a Fox News talking point you should give some thought to the doctors and nurses at the CDC who travel INTO pandemics in order to stop them before they reach you. The agents at the FBI and IRS who go face to face with organized crime. The civil engineers at DOT who literally climb over our crumbling infrastructure. The researchers at the NIH whose work gives your kids better odds of making it to old age.

"SCE to AUX" came from one of your "weakest players".

Flytolive

You're projecting. From your posts it is obvious you are trying unsuccessfully to shoehorn fake facts into your preconceived political notions. You might want to find a more gullible audience next time.

JohnBurke

To say nothing of wildland firefighters and hundreds of other positions that place demands of long hours, hazardous conditions, and serve critical functions to the tax payer and nation in general...as well as the many who live largely unknown, unrecognized, who keep the government running on a daily basis.

That said, there's a lot of dead wood out there, as well, and after a lot of years of working closely with a number of federal agencies and personnel, I've seen quite a few positions created and maintained specifically for one person, and just to keep that person employed. I've also seen a lot of hiring based strictly on points...not job qualifications. Sexual preference, handicap, ethnicity, veteran status, etc, which determined that the person who was hired got the job over vastly more qualified individuals.

The issue of collective bargaining should be different with public institutions. While the institution of collective representation is absolutely necessary at many companies, the same is not necessarily true of government service, and there is a significant difference between squaring off against a commercial entity and against the taxpayers whom the government serves. On the one hand, pilots vs. management is the dog negotiating with the hand that feeds it, for better living conditions and the nature of the food, while on the other the government employee squares off against the government, which is bankrolled by the taxpayer, while the employee serves the taxpayer. Entirely different environments. There's no question that the bureaucratic structure of the government opens opportunity for abuse, and with that comes some need of defense, and hence unions, but government unions also open the unique situation of the governing body being governed from the bottom up, by union direction.

I'm not a big fan of the government. I've spent a lot of years working very closely with various branches, agencies, offices, departments, bureaus, etc, and have known some exceptional people doing very good work. I've also known a number of *******s who had as much business being in their positions as a battle ship in a tea cup.

The ruling under discussion applies to the unions of public institutions, but it's not a far reach to see it find application beyond, to private industry. Back side of the slope, which is slick. This ruling wasn't settled on the grounds of labor law, but a constitutional challenge; the tight end passed the scrimmage line and ran straight for the end zone. In so doing, the grounds may be set for creation of a new free agent, rather than simply a player who gets paid but sits on the side for the rest of the game, drinking a pina colada.

Bellanca

This is exactly what the political powers at be want: us to be fighting and arguing over paying a small percentage in union dues, all the while the companies, CEOs, etc, are raking in millions and billions. All in the name of 'freedom'.

As much as the seniority system sucks, I certainly don't want to go the to contract flying like many foreign airlines have. I'd rather not have zero job security past my 3-5 year contract, or lose out on upgrade because it's easier to hire street captains, vs upgrade those on property. The work rules aren't stellar at those places, either. Since as a whole airline pilots are an under-cutting bunch, there will constantly be someone in line to undercut the next to fly the newest, shiniest, biggest jet. Somehow NAI is managing to hire despite the fact that people can actually make more money flying at most regionals AND have better work rules and quality of life. But, hey, you can't fly a 737 or 787 international at a regional.... As much as I hope the NAI pilots and ilk are blacklisted from getting hired at the majors, undercutting yes-men are probably precisely the kind of pilots management wants most.

As a regional pilot, I know ALPA has screwed the regionals many times. I also know that my company would screw us over even more if we didn't have ALPA. Definitely a necessary evil.

galaxy flyer

John,

I don’t know of the “dismantled” model, but all members of a “craft” under a working agreement must be represented by the certified bargaining agent. If ALPA is the bargaining agent at airline X, all pilots, not in a management position, must be treated equally under the contract. Pilots cannot leave the union and make their own deal for pay and working conditions. Similarly, airline X cannot offer pilots a separate deal outside the working agreement.

True, the bargaining unit, in this case, only covers pilots that are not in management positions. Other crafts or classes are are different bargaining units.

GF

JohnBurke

This latest ruling is one step toward dismantling that model. While the RLA governs the requirement to represent all covered, by removing themselves from the covered on constitutional grounds, the door opens to remove the requirement for representation. Again, it's an end-run around the RLA, but if the supreme court establishes that an employee is not required to provide dues, it's not far to seek a judgement that the union need not or does not represent, as that's the inference in not paying dues.

Again, slippery slope.