There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

I meant to say agency shop, oops.

 

I'm not sure you understand agency shop, either.

You meant to say:


That's not agency shop, either. It's the Duty of Fair Representation that ANY Bargaining Agent has for EVERY member of the Class or Craft that agent represents. It applies to all unions under the National Labor Relations Act AND the Railway Labor Act.


What you said after that comes closer to describing agency shop:

In a closed shop, every person in the class or craft must be a member of the union.

In an agency shop, every person in the class or craft must be a member of the union, OR pay an agency fee, a fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining.

Whether the employer is a closed shop, an agency shop, or an open shop, the union (the Bargaining Agent) has an obligation to fairly represent each and every person in the class or craft (whether paying dues, paying an agency fee, or paying nothing) - the Duty of Fair Representation.






.

 

I think you might be reading it wrong. I'm talking about forgoing all representation by the union (except collective bargaining).

But back to the question: Has anyone paid agency fees, etc, at their airline but not been a member of the union? What happened?

 

Agency shop describes ALPA on my property. ALPA bargains (exclusive rights) for the craft/class and you're either a member, OR a non-member. Members pay membership dues. Non-members pay a "contract maintenance" fee (agency fee) that cover the costs of bargaining. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing here.

DFR is one thing, extending membership benefits is another.

 

Just to make sure we're crystal clear ...


Representing the employee in case of discipline, or in a grievance, falls under DFR. Non-members get the same representation as members.


Discount life insurance, medical advice from staff physicians, loss of license insurance, and other perks not covered by the CBA are ancillary benefits. Non-members don't get 'em.


(In other words, what you stated in your first post ("there is NO responsibility for ALPA to represent or provide legal resources to a non-member in a disciplinary hearing") was NOT correct.)






.

 

RV5M, are you considering bailing out of ALPA? You just got here man.

I can't say I've always been happy with ALPA, but even if I were so ****ed at them to the point of rage, I would still pay my dues. Here is why.

Putting all the benefits aside for a moment, and even representation, it is not worth it to be that lone-wolf. Guys will treat you differently, not all of them, but a lot of them. I just think it's the wrong way to deal with frustration. There are plenty of productive roles you can take within the organization to effect positive change.

If you're the kind of person that wants to proceed on your principles vs. what is pragmatic then go for it, but first go read Ben Franklin's autobiography. LOL! I'm serious! He's got a cool story about refusing to pay beer dues at a print shop he worked at as a young man because he didn't drink. In the end, he paid them, and willingly.

 

I read the passage. Immediately after BF decides to pay he changes the whole system. Anyway, a lot of that book is written as satire so I'm always a little wary of taking its advice lest I later learn it was meant to be a joke.

Economics aside, the intimidation/poor treatment the union uses to keep people in line is, in itself, a red flag for me. If airline unions are the best choice, why is the issue not open to discussion? Instead, dissenters are suppressed while the union entrenches itself with laws and red tape. How quickly would ALPA fall apart in Right to Work states without the Railway Labor Act?

It's all incredibly complex. I'm not out to get the union and was just looking for examples of poor treatment. Surprisingly little is written about the system, so getting involved would be a good way to understand it better.

 

In the case of an individual pilot who chooses not to be a member, I don't think the poor treatment is sanctioned or encouraged by the union leadership - in fact I'm pretty sure they would discourage it. Where it does exist it comes from the rank and file membership itself.

Personally, I would never treat anyone differently based on a decision to be a member or not. I might rationally discuss their reasons with them, but I'd never let it become personal, and would get along fine with them.

 

I doubt you are truly surprised that non members would be perceived in a poor light by dues paying union members. Many, myself included, would view them as benefiting off the backs of others while not contributing themselves. In any situation this breeds resentment. It is not a red flag it is the nature of man.