SkyWest Conference Call

Reply Subscribe

Page 3 of 10

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

11-08-2007, 04:51 PM

#21

Freightpuppy

Freightmama!

Joined APC: Dec 2005

Position: 757/767 FO

Posts: 2,880

Quote:

Originally Posted by WAVIT Inbound

I don't have a huge problem with the Anti-ALPA setiment. It's when I hear the Anti-Union PERIOD setiment that I cringe when I hear it. When we become totally closed minded about a union then it is scary. I truly did not feel that ALPA was right for SkyWest however. I know I might get flamed for that comment but that is how I feel. I will be completley open to a union that I feel can really benefit SkyWest and is not just out for there 2800 due's paying members.

I can understand and I actually agree with you that ALPA may not be the best but those were the choices presented....

Which is worse?

Management having you by the balls or the lesser of two evils. That's the way I look at it. I'm not an ALPA lover by any means.

11-08-2007, 04:56 PM

#22

WAVIT Inbound

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2006

Position: SkyWest Captain

Posts: 466

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freightpuppy

Just because those were my only two choices this time does not mean I was willing to settle for the union that I thought was not the right fit for SkyWest. If I would have voted ALPA and they were voted in I would be stuck there. It would be much harder to get them out for a more favorable union. Patience is a virture. I do believe we will eventually be strong enough to support an in house union.

11-08-2007, 05:01 PM

#23

mccube5

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2005

Posts: 722

Quote:

Originally Posted by WAVIT Inbound

It would be much harder to get them out for a more favorable union. Patience is a virture. I do believe we will eventually be strong enough to support an in house union.

i could be wrong here (someone correct me if i am), but im pretty sure the process of getting them out is as simple as voting to get them in. if you guys find something else better down the road go to that. the point people here keep trying to make, like beating a dead horse i might add since some of these guys at skw wont pull their head out of their , is to get some representation now when things appear to be so rosy because when it hits the fan youre gonna wish you had something to protect those immediate pay cuts mgmt will impose because they can instead of themselves and some investors taking a smaller hit for a short time.

wow does that seem like one long run on sentence but im sticking with it!

Last edited by mccube5; 11-08-2007 at 05:02 PM. Reason: grammar??

11-08-2007, 05:06 PM

#24

ExperimentalAB

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Apr 2007

Posts: 3,817

Thanks ya'll for really, really caring and looking out for us...It warms my heart

11-08-2007, 05:55 PM

#25

rickair7777

Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined APC: Jan 2006

Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim

Posts: 40,275

Quote:

Originally Posted by mccube5

i could be wrong here (someone correct me if i am), but im pretty sure the process of getting them out is as simple as voting to get them in.

Yup, you're wrong. It's a little more complicated than that...it requires a special election of a DIFFERENT representive organization (or possibly an individual) who then holds all the power the previous union had. This newly elected representative entity may then voluntarily disolve the contract and give up all it's representative rights...but why would it do that?

Since no organization which has the funding to conduct such an election campaign is likely to want to give up it's new power, it is almost impossible to achieve total decertification under most circumstances. It is more practical to vote in a different union...this has been done before.