New Bid Out
10-13-2017 | 01:00 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Simple answer - basically, the union in place was controlled by management and scabs. The CAL guys were afraid of getting screwed if they merged with an ALPA carrier and sought to get ALPA back on property.
The CAL guys had a choice of being a scab airline fighting an ALPA carrier in case of merger or allowing the scabs into CAL ALPA. They chose the SCABS. The scabs voted for ALPA and I would assume they were allowed into whatever union CAL had before (their new)ALPA.
The CAL guys had a choice of being a scab airline fighting an ALPA carrier in case of merger or allowing the scabs into CAL ALPA. They chose the SCABS. The scabs voted for ALPA and I would assume they were allowed into whatever union CAL had before (their new)ALPA.
https://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa...-12_01.032.htm
10-13-2017 | 01:26 PM
#132
Banned
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Simple answer - basically, the union in place was controlled by management and scabs. The CAL guys were afraid of getting screwed if they merged with an ALPA carrier and sought to get ALPA back on property.
The CAL guys had a choice of being a scab airline fighting an ALPA carrier in case of merger or allowing the scabs into CAL ALPA. They chose the SCABS. The scabs voted for ALPA and I would assume they were allowed into whatever union CAL had before (their new)ALPA.
The CAL guys had a choice of being a scab airline fighting an ALPA carrier in case of merger or allowing the scabs into CAL ALPA. They chose the SCABS. The scabs voted for ALPA and I would assume they were allowed into whatever union CAL had before (their new)ALPA.
All of this is wrong. It's illegal to certify a union and not let everyone on property into said union. Scabs aren't a legal entity and there is no clause is US labor law defining them (of course, we can;t hurt their feelings at work :/ )
If the scabs were on property at the time of the election then they get to be members. Shocking that people don't understand this.
If the scabs were on property at the time of the election then they get to be members. Shocking that people don't understand this.
The merger is not that old, have you forgotten the JS and JP deals that delayed integration, contract and weakened ALPA on the property. I’m proud to say that post all that, good people took hold of the combined ALPA gaining us a good contract and an organization that will enforce it much as it existed at pre-merger UAL
I’m kinda curious, why do many CAL types need to defend the action of their SCABS?
10-13-2017 | 01:27 PM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
Likes: 0
All of this is wrong. It's illegal to certify a union and not let everyone on property into said union. Scabs aren't a legal entity and there is no clause is US labor law defining them (of course, we can;t hurt their feelings at work :/ )
If the scabs were on property at the time of the election then they get to be members. Shocking that people don't understand this.
If the scabs were on property at the time of the election then they get to be members. Shocking that people don't understand this.
What CAN be done in future is a simple change to the C&BL that would bring all members of a newly represented airline into ALPA as apprentice members, then Section II, Article 4 could be applied. Until we raise the bar, we only have ourselves to blame.
Last edited by awax; 10-13-2017 at 01:38 PM.
10-13-2017 | 02:43 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 859
Likes: 0
None of it is wrong. You want to quote law when you don’t care to look at motive. It was both the non-scabs and scabs that requested a certification vote to protect what was stolen. Thus, the non-scabs voted to allow the SCABS into ALPA on their shirttails.
The merger is not that old, have you forgotten the JS and JP deals that delayed integration, contract and weakened ALPA on the property. I’m proud to say that post all that, good people took hold of the combined ALPA gaining us a good contract and an organization that will enforce it much as it existed at pre-merger UAL
I’m kinda curious, why do many CAL types need to defend the action of their SCABS?
The merger is not that old, have you forgotten the JS and JP deals that delayed integration, contract and weakened ALPA on the property. I’m proud to say that post all that, good people took hold of the combined ALPA gaining us a good contract and an organization that will enforce it much as it existed at pre-merger UAL
I’m kinda curious, why do many CAL types need to defend the action of their SCABS?
I'm not here posting about right or wrong or mergers or who's side is better, just clarifying how all the scabs got into alpa in the first place.
10-13-2017 | 04:13 PM
#135
Banned
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
From: Tom’s Whipping boy.
10-14-2017 | 03:33 AM
#136
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Most of the guys that read this board are big boys and could take just about anything you throw them, most understand unionism - feel free to ruffle some feathers. We’re assuming you actually lived through that period and have first hand knowledge. Please, no sad SCAB story especially if it’s family.
10-14-2017 | 03:44 AM
#138
Banned
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
The scabs fought this decision tooth and nail because they were afraid of it setting a precedent, unfortunately none of them ever lost any seniority again. I don’t remember all the details but I used to fly with Bob Wilson a lot and he was an absolute genius when it came to union matters.
Bob was a good man and very savvy but I think he let emotion get in the way of this one from a legal standpoint. i.e. not following DK's recommendations.
Que Allen with another diatribe.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
