|post updated July 26, 2009| {disclosure: 9A PDT; I've edited this post slightly due to feedback from readers. Words are symbols, right? They aren't Reality. I try my best... The important thing is not to necessarily rearrange words on paper, but take right actions out there in the Real world... What do YOU think this communique should say? After all, this is a group action. If the group doesn't properly act toward change, the choice has been made for status quo.}
L747 Trustee David Ross has responded to my June 15, 2009 letter [pdf here]. You can read Ross' letter dated July 20, 2009 [pdf click here].
Mr. Ross asserts that "The current Trusteeship does not involve those issues that occurred with Horizon pilots." He may be right. L747 being taken over by the International probably has something more to do with internal Teamster politics. But regardless, by Intl. General President Hoffa's own admission, L747 elected officials lied to L747 members and potential new members regarding the forced paying of back dues, which is illegal according to the union's policy and common case law [click here for his April 15, 2009 ltr].
Workers need good consulting in our attempts to stay employed as we interact with critical players in any corporation to keep our companies vibrant and growing: management, our customers and investors. If we don't interact properly, we'll see what we're seeing: our business going backwards with not only the loss of jobs, but consumption opportunities for our customers and a safe place to invest for investors.
As a key work group at Horizon Air and Alaska Air Group, the Horizon Air Pilots hold good or bad fortunes for our future in our hands. If we're smart, we'll structure productive relationships. If not, we'll stay in Organized Labor's dark ages, where all that is known or tried is to fight management, ignore our customers and think our stockholders are the enemy (and aren't most of us ALK stockholders?).
I continue to recommend that we respond to the corruption and lies at L747 by parting ways and beginning anew. I don't think productive human relationships can be built on deceit and fraud.
I recommend:
Obviously, we will need lots of help. If you truly care about your job and pension security, you're going to have to get involved at some point or level. Nobody can watch over what's important to you better than yourself. We strongly feel that joining the Ownership Union® offers advantages that no other union can match, particularly when it comes to empowering the individual.
Why would you want to give up your autonomy by permanently joining any particular mainline union? To get out, if the relationship heads south, takes practically an act of Congress, and involves bureaucrats from the federal government as well as management of our companies. We need a simpler exit strategy.
Consider AFFILIATION per a contract with a mainline union or third-party consultant for services we desire. Make it short term –– a year or two, with set performance criteria built in. If the union/consultant doesn't deliver, we depart, and negotiate a new service contract with a new, agreeable service provider.
While we set up this process, you can join the U.S. Dept. of Labor certified Ownership Union® now. You maintain your extensive worker rights under state and federal statutes. And it's inexpensive: $25 to sign up. Dues until the contract is renegotiated are $25/mo Capts and $15/mo for FOs. We will collectively bargain to have the lion's share of the costs of negotiation and enforcement included in the negotiation. It just does not cost that much money to get this done if approached properly.
The Ownership Union® is a facilitator. What does any group want to do? We offer alternatives, measure and then go out and set up the necessary relationships to erect the infrastructure.
The keys are COOPERATION, INTEGRATION and FLEXIBILITY. And TRANSPARENCY! Corporate governance and union governance are undergoing huge changes right now due to the ongoing economic collapse. There are many new exciting, sustainable ideas out there. We feel we're offering some. Take the time to investigate and make up your own mind. We'll be here in one form or another like we have since 2002.
At Horizon Air/Alaska Airlines, workers are not alone. We are buttressed by potentially hundreds of thousands of our partner stakeholders, including customers, investors and contractor/vendors. The Ownership Union® is working to organize all for everyone's inter-connected mutual benefit.
Enjoy the rest of the summer,
Steve Nieman
President, the Ownership Union®
Below is appended certain paragraphs from Section 3 of the National Mediation Board's Representation Manual regarding Authorization "A" Cards. You can read that a majority (50% plus one) must sign A cards to trigger a dispute of representation that the NMB is empowered to resolve:
3.0 EVIDENCE OF DISPUTE - AUTHORIZATIONS
3.1 Form and Content of Authorizations
Each authorization must be signed and dated in the employee's own
handwriting. See NMB Rules §1206.3 (29 CFR §1206.3). Although not
required, it is recommended that the authorization include the
pg8
employee’s job title and employee number. If the carrier does not
utilize employee identification numbers, the authorization should
include the last four digits of the employee’s social security number.
Petitions are not accepted.
Authorizations submitted to the NMB must be in alphabetical order on
a system-wide basis. Failure to provide authorization cards in
alphabetical order on a system-wide basis may result in the return of
authorizations to the submitter. Duplicate authorizations should not be
submitted.
The language on authorization cards must be unambiguous and the
NMB must be able to determine the employee’s intent.
In an accretion application, the authorization cards must be
unambiguous and state clearly the sole purpose of the card. The NMB
will not accept authorization cards requesting a representation election
as support for accretion applications or certification by card check.
Cards which both request an election and authorize the applicant to
represent the employees will also not be accepted as support for
accretion applications or certification by card check.
3.2 Age of Authorizations
Authorizations must be dated within one year from the date of the
application for the NMB's services. See also NMB Rules §1206.3 (29
CFR §1206.3).
3.601 Percentage of Authorizations Required
If the craft or class involved in the investigation is represented
and is covered by a valid existing contract between any such
representative and the carrier, the application must be
supported by a majority (more than 50%) of valid authorizations
from individuals in the craft or class. In all other circumstances,
an application must be supported by at least thirty-five (35)
percent of valid authorizations from individuals in the craft or
class. See also NMB Rules §§1206.2 and 1206.5 (29 CFR
§§1206.2 and 1206.5). The percentage of authorizations
required in a merger is governed by Manual Section 19.0.
dateline April 15, 2009
“Notice of Trusteeship”
TO: Officers and Members of Local Union 747
FROM: James P. Hoffa, General President
I have recently been informed that the International Union is in danger of
losing certification for several bargaining units that have been assigned
for representation purposes to Local 747 as a result of the Local's failure
to perform its duties as the bargaining representative of their members.
As set forth below, a decertification petition has recently resulted in the
loss of representation rights at one carrier and another petition is being
processed. Other petitions are threatened to be filed by members who want
to receive the representation they expected when they joined the Teamsters.
It does not appear that the officials of Local 747 are reacting to these
decertification efforts in a manner that is likely to convince these members
that future services will be improved and they should remain Teamsters.
During the course of investigating these complaints about the Local's representation,
I have also been informed that certain officers of Local 747 may have engaged
in financial improprieties relating to their compensation and to the payment
of legal fees. The representation problems appear to be compounded by complaints
that efforts are being made by Local 747 to collect dues from workers who
have chosen the Teamsters as their bargaining representative prior to the
negotiation of a collective agreement, in violation of pledges made to those
members and contrary to general practices within the Union.
The credible information and reports reflect the following:
1. Local 747 and its President Principal Executive Officer, Ernest "Gene" Sowell,
are parties to an employment contract that they have intentionally concealed
from Local 747's membership through the inclusion of a confidentiality provision.
The employment contract provides that Local 747 shall employ and pay Sowell
for services performed as the Local's General Counsel and Executive Administrator.
The contract specifies that Sowell is "responsible for handling all
legal matters of the ... " Local Union. Local 747 has paid Sowell more
than $1.2 million since 2005 (not including health and pension coverage)
for his work as General Counsel, while incurring steadily increasing amounts
of outside legal fees for services that contractually are required to be
handled by Sowell. Additionally, in both 2007 and 2008, Local 747 incorrectly
and misleadingly reported on its LM-2 reports that its principal outside
counsel, Patrick Flynn, was paid for his services as an arbitrator, not as
the Local's counsel.
The remaining members of the Local Union Executive Board have either not
performed their duty to oversee the employment contract or have failed to
challenge Sowell's apparent abrogation of his responsibilities under the
employment contract.
2. Local 747 is in immediate danger of losing bargaining units to ongoing
decertification efforts generated by its failure to represent its members.
Unless action is taken to convince members that the Teamsters Union is capable
of performing as their bargaining agent, the Local Union, Airline Division
and International Union will be injured. And it is apparent that the current
leadership of Local 747 has not been responsive to the complaints of these
disaffected members and has no prospect of redressing the problems at this
time.
A. Great Lakes: Local 747 was assigned representational responsibility for
the Great Lakes pilot group but has provided little, if any, representation.
On April 9, 2009, the decertification election was completed and the members
rejected continued representation by Local 747 by a vote of 209-0. Local
747 did not attempt to oppose the effort or correct the underlying issues
that gave rise to it. Nor did it assist the Airline Division's efforts to
convince the pilots to remain Teamsters.
B. Cape Air: The Cape Air pilot group voted for Teamster Representation approximately
three years ago and still does not have a first contract. An independent
organization has now filed an application with the National Mediation Board
to replace the Teamsters as the pilot group's bargaining representative.
The Cape Air pilot group is scheduled to commence voting under the supervision
of the National Mediation Board this month. Their votes will determine whether
the Teamsters are ousted as the unit's bargaining representative and, whether
the unit has any bargaining representative at all.
C. North American Airlines: The pilots working at North American Airlines
are also expressing their desire to oust the Teamsters as their bargaining
representative. The pilot group's executive council leadership has advised
that if Local 747 remains as their assigned bargaining representative, the
unit would in all likelihood file to decertify the Teamsters. Indeed, credible
reports indicate that another union is now actively soliciting authorization
cards to displace the Teamsters at this airline.
In addition to other grievances regarding representation, the pilots are
upset with Local 747's attempts to collect dues from them retroactive to
the date the Teamsters were certified as their bargaining representative.
Consistent with then-existing Airline Division policy, the pilots were assured
that they would not have to pay dues until they secured a first contract.
Near the end of the contract negotiations, Local 747, however, pressured
many of the pilots to pay retroactive dues, advising them that this was the
only way in which they could participate in the contract ratification vote.
Local 747 pressured several of the pilots to sign promissory notes agreeing
to pay retroactive dues, and continues to collect dues in accordance with
the terms of such unauthorized promissory notes.
D. Gulfstream International Airlines: The on-the-property leadership of the
Gulfstream International Airlines pilot group recently wrote a letter advising
the International Union that “there is a lack of faith that our local
will do anything to improve our situation, or protect our members from a
vengeful management should they bring any grievances.” They also complained
about Local 747's lack of bargaining preparation and training for the unit's
rank-and-file bargaining committee.
The International Union has been advised that some of the pilots have contacted
another labor organization seeking help to decertify the Teamsters and
Local 747 and to assume the representation of the carrier. Although the
pilot group's leadership sought assistance from Local 747 to avoid a fullscale
decertification effort, neither the Local 747 Business Agent nor anyone
else followed through to provide any such help.
E. Omni Air International: It appears that Local 747 has not taken any
steps to establish any on-the-property leadership and work-standards related
committees in the more than one year period since they voted to join the
Teamsters, in violation of the Local 747 Bylaws. Several of the pilots
who had voluntarily agreed to pay dues to the Local even before securing
their first contract are now resigning their membership and refusing to
pay membership dues in protest of Local 747's inadequate representation.
F. Republic Air and Affiliates: It appears that the pilot group is dissatisfied
with Local 747 because of its leadership's failure to provide any representation
with respect to grievances. There is a backlog of grievances that fill
up several pages of the Local 747 on-line magazine.
G. Kalitta: The Kalitta Air pilot group has expressed deep frustration
with Local 747 for many months based on Local 747's perceived failure to
provide representation to the unit through the timely processing of grievances
and on account of the Local's failure to communicate with the unit. Their
on-the property leadership advised the Airline Division that unless the
International assigned them to another Teamster local, they would decertify
the Teamsters. Efforts by Airline Director Bourne to redress the problems
have been thwarted by Local 747 President Sowell's insistence that the
Local be compensated for lost revenue in the event the members are transferred
to another Teamster Local.
For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to my authority under Article
VI, Section 5(a) of the International Constitution, I am imposing an emergency
trusteeship over the affairs of Local 747, effective immediately. The emergency
trusteeship is being imposed: (1) to correct financial corruption or malpractice;
(2) to assure the performance of Local 747's duties as a bargaining representative;
and (3) because the affairs of Local 747 are being conducted in such a
manner inconsistent with established policies and practices, which jeopardize
the interests of the International Union and Local 747 and violate the
rights of Teamster represented workers.
I have appointed Brother David Ross as Temporary Trustee and Brother Dan
Brannan as Assistant Trustee. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article
VI, Section 5 of the International Constitution, you will soon be receiving
a notice of hearing to determine whether the temporary trusteeship should
be continued or dissolved. Separate notice of that hearing shall be posted
by the Temporary Trustee.
A copy of this Notice shall be posted immediately in the Local Union Headquarters
and in such other places as will ensure the members of Local 747 are informed
of the Trusteeship.
April 15, 2009 Notice from General President Hoffa
https://www.local747.org/
dateline June 29, 2008
Hello All,
I'm sending this blind email out to those of you who have expressed interest
in what I and a few others have been trying to accomplish with the Ownership
Union® at Horizon Air, Alaska Airlines and selected other companies since
2002. (The Ownership Union® is a Dept. of Labor registered union, file
number LM-542-291.)
Yesterday on June 28, I received my annual audit by IBT L747 of my service
fee requirement as a nonmember. I believe it contained errors of what I am
required to pay or be fired, and it is my right under various federal statues
and common law to challenge these amounts.
Some of you may know that I won a long arbitration with L747, which lowered
these service fees in the years 2003 through 2005. The decision was handed
down on by Arbitrator Jack Clarke on Sept. 26, 2007. Some of the filings in
this long, four-year case can be read at: http://ourunion.org/L747arbit/L747arbitpdfs.html
I have begun my challenge of L747 service fees for the years 2006 and 2007
(L747's Statements of Germane and Nongermane Expenses lag the current timeline
by one year). This is done by simply mailing a letter in accordance with L747's
Objection Procedures (which could itself be challenged, since how can the Teamsters
dictate anything to nonmembers?)
I have attached my letter in Word format. I invite you to edit your copy slightly
to account for your identity and send it in. Consider beginning your challenge
to an organization that forces us to pay money to it on its terms, or have
our employment and incomes terminated.
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES
I support various methods of how stakeholders can own asset equity and the
income that this represents, which can supply a second income to our hourly
paychecks. But one of the first ownership questions is: DO YOU OWN YOURSELF?
I don't believe any organization or union can make me a slave, or force me
to live in a way that violates basic human rights of association with individuals
and institutions of our choosing. They can assert that they can, but it is
also our right to challenge those assertions. I invite you to join my efforts.
Effective change only happens when individuals come together in a spirit of
organizing around justice. We all instinctively know that humans work much
better together when treated openly, fairly and honestly.
It is possible to have a worker union without enslaving the members, which
we have accomplished at the Ownership Union®. One big part is how the union's
activities are funded. At the Ownership Union®, we are funded by a negotiated
percent of revenue of the company where the worker members earn their living.
There is no hourly wage tax to fund the union, which also limits democratic
voting.
When the union is funded by the company income that we all help to create,
this removes obstacles so that proper democratic voting can be administered.
Everybody votes.
Workers are not even required to join the Ownership Union®. If they participate
and contribute by continuing to work their jobs –– they're helping,
and deserve a right to share in decision making that affects the pay and conditions
of their employment. There is no "free-riding" because union funding
is taken from revenues generated by the whole.
Obviously, if individuals want to run for union officer positions and be involved
in union administration, membership is required according to the union's bylaws.
Some criticize the Ownership Union® as merely a "company union." What
do you think? The union is autonomous and totally separate from any corporate
entity that the union does business with. It either lives or dies on the support
(or not) of people connected to it.
The only current cost to join the Ownership Union® is $25. An application
can be found at: http://ourunion.org/OURcatch_all/ourapp071201.pdf/. If you
want to get involved in union affairs or help the union economically, the cost
is $25/mo.
I urge all Alaska Air Group, Inc. stakeholders to join the Ownership Union®,
and help build productive relationships between stakeholders. Indeed, we already
have worker, customer and stockholder members, but we need to further organize
and grow this coalition.
Only the Ownership Union® has run director candidates for the AAG board
for the last six years.
At the stockholders meeting last month, Ownership Union® member Terry Dayton,
sponsor of a shareholder resolution urging cumulative voting, won a majority
stockholder vote. This victory amends the AAGs bylaws, which should ensure
that workers at AAG companies could win our first seat on the AAG board in
2009 (if we can properly organized the 4-5% ownership of the stock shares that
workers own through our 401ks).
Thanks for your time, and I hope you join me in your own individual capacities
in helping secure our jobs and pensions at Horizon Air and Alaska Airlines.
We need to confront the current conflict model of traditional labor/management
interaction, which hinders building productive relationships with our customers
and investors.
We need to replace coercion with loving cooperation.
Regards,
Steve Nieman
President, the Ownership Union®
15204 NE 181st Loop
Brush Prairie WA 98606-9669
home (360) 687-3187
cell (360) 904-2926
fax (360) 666-6483
stevenieman@mac.com
home page www.ourunion.org || www.votepal.com
p.s. Please forward this email on to your personal networks
p.s.s. You can view the voting results of the 2008 AAG stockholders meeting
at (if this link doesn't work, goto www.votepal.com/: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=109361&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2NjYm4uMTBrd2l6YXJkLmNvbS94bWwvZmlsaW5nLnhtbD9yZXBvPXRlbmsmaXBhZ2U9NTc0MDM5MyZhdHRhY2g9T04%3d
June 29, 2008
Mr. Ernest E. Sowell, President
IBT Local 747
1419 FM 1960 Road
Houston, TX 77073
SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL; RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Tracking #70070220000401368741
Re: Local 747's ("L747") 2007 Statement of Germane and Nongermane Expenses ("SGNGE")
Dear Mr. Sowell:
I write reponding to the L747 published 2007 SGNGE, which I received via
certified mail on June 28, 2008. Be advised that per my rights under U.S.
Dept. of Labor regulations, Washington state law, statutory and common law,
as well as the L747's "Policies and Procedures Applicable to Agency
Fees," I hereby file a complaint about the correctness of L747's allocation
of germane and non-germane expenses in the 2007 SGNGE.
As you are aware, on Sept. 26, 2007, Arbitrator Jack Clarke issued an Opinion
and Award (AAA Case No. 70 673 00424 04), which resolved my multi-year arbitrations
between 2003 through 2005. On page 14 (1), he ruled to allocate all per capita
taxes paid to the International Union to the non-germane category and recalculate
the service fees for those years accordingly.
This is the second calendar year that I have objected after my objections
for 2003, 2004 and 2005. I wrote a letter dated Nov. 11, 2007, sent to you
via certified mail objecting to the correctness of L747's 2006 SGNGE (copy
enclosed). You never responded to my letter, nor began the challenge procedure
to protect my rights as a non-member as required by Chicago Teachers Union
v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986).
In L747's June 23, 2008 letter to me re: Obligatory Service Fee Dues and
Assessments Owed, the breakout for service fee regular dues shows an only
4% reduction. Putting all of the IBT per capita taxes into the non-germane
category, the percentage reduction for 2006 is 15% less and 2007 is 13% less.
Yet, this letter states only a 4% reduction, because the payment to the International
is not being properly accounted for.
I assert that I am paying monies to the International that support the IBT's
political, ideological and other non-representational activities for which
no nonmember can be required to pay. I assert that these errors have resulted
in my overpaying of the amounts I am obligated to pay as a non-member. I
call your attention to the recent ruling by Arbitrator Clarke regarding this
charge for prior years.
Please be advised that my objection is continuing in nature from year to
year until revoked by me.
I request that my complaints of errors in both 2006 and 2007's SGNGE be submitted
to an independent arbitrator for hearing and decision.
If you insist on requiring that I pay only a 4% reduction in my service fees
for years 2006 and 2007, please advise me when you have made necessary arrangements
to begin arbitration of this case dealing with L747's 2006 and 2007 SGNGE.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/
Steve Nieman
15204 NE 181st Loop
Brush Prairie, WA 98606
stevenieman@mac.com |home: (360) 687-3187 | fax: (360) 666-6483
dateline Feb. 15, 2008
Who Me? How to Deal with Defensive PeopleJames Tamm
Santa Clara University School of Law
Acoworker responds with anger whenever someone disagrees with him. A husband retreats into silence whenever he gets into an argument with his wife. An employee buries her boss in piles of irrelevant information whenever she is asked a question.
These behaviors might appear different, but they're all just variations of the same problem -- defensiveness. Additional forms of defensive behavior include habitually claiming, "I already knew that," when corrected... rationalizing or explaining away every misstep... or chronically making fun of others to deflect criticism from oneself.
Defensive people believe that their reactions protect them from outside attack. In fact, defensive people are unconsciously trying to shield themselves from their own doubts about their significance, competence or likeability.
We all get defensive sometimes and to some degree, but most of us learn to limit our defensive tendencies. Those who don't curb their defensiveness make life difficult for themselves and those who live and work with them. Their chronically defensive behavior promotes conflict and divisiveness... encourages rigid thinking that stifles creativity... and brings out the defensiveness in others.
Here's how to control your defensiveness -- and better deal with the defensiveness of those around you...
DEALING WITH DEFENSIVE PEOPLE
The best way to blunt other people's defensiveness is to not become defensive yourself, even when provoked (more on that later). If you start to get upset, remind yourself that this person's defensiveness is rooted in his/her insecurities and has little to do with you. Arguing back will only make the person more insecure. Instead...
*Be a good listener.* After the emotional moment has passed, offer the defensive person a chance to speak with you about the situation that led to the defensiveness. During the conversation, resist the urge to evaluate, criticize or suggest. Just listen intently, and take both the words and emotional content into account. Every now and then, summarize what you're hearing to make sure you understand -- and to make sure the person knows that you're really listening.
/*Example:*/ A coworker is upset with you because you criticized his proposal in a meeting. Rather than defend your position, listen to what your coworker has to say, then summarize -- "You felt I misunderstood your recommendations" or "You were embarrassed in front of your colleagues."
By listening, you help the defensive person feel understood and accepted, easing his insecurities and making future defensive reactions less likely.
*Change the way you argue.* Try "interest-based negotiation." With this strategy, your first goal is to state your opponent's underlying interests to his satisfaction. Your second goal is for him to do the same to you. Only then do you start proposing solutions. This creates an atmosphere of understanding that makes defensiveness less likely.
/*Example:*/ I once mediated a labor strike in which the union insisted on a 7% raise, though the union leaders knew that management couldn't go past 4%. The discussions became adversarial. Through interest-based negotiation, management learned that the underlying goal of the union negotiators was not the 7% raise itself, but to make good on a promise they had made to their members to deliver a 7% raise. The parties agreed to a 7% raise for six months of the year, the equivalent of a 3.5% annual raise, which was within management's budget. Union members were happy with the 3.5% increase overall and pleased to have the negotiations resolved.
MANAGING YOUR OWN DEFENSIVENESS
The most difficult step in overcoming defensiveness in yourself is acknowledging that you are indeed defensive. You probably consider your responses to perceived criticisms to be rational and justified when they occur. Reconsider them after the moment of confrontation has passed. Do they still seem appropriate, or were they unwarranted and unhelpful? If you're not certain, ask your spouse or a trusted friend -- and try not to get defensive at the reply. If you feel you tend to be defensive, identify the form your defensiveness takes. Are you belligerent? Uncommunicative? Overly talkative?
/*Other warning signs of defensiveness:*/ Tightening in the gut... general sense of paranoia... adrenaline rush... feeling that you lack allies... a sense that you have been personally rejected, though the subject under discussion is only tangentially related to you.
To cut off defensive reactions...
*Intercept the physical symptoms of defensiveness,* such as rapid, shallow breathing and a quickened pulse. It will be easier to alter your behavior if you can alter these physical reactions. Head to the restroom and splash cool water on your face... take a short walk to calm down... or if there's no time for a break, take a few long, deep breaths.
*Monitor your thoughts. *If your mind is telling you, "This guy is out to get me," or "She doesn't think I'm very smart," you're likely to become increasingly defensive. Respond to negative thoughts with positive self-talk.
/*Examples:*/ "I know this is difficult, but I can get through it"... "They're entitled to a different opinion"... "If I listen carefully enough, maybe I can learn something."
*Develop a reaction appropriate to your particular form of defensiveness.* If you tend to flood others with information when you feel attacked, force yourself to remain quiet for a full minute. If you tend to shut down, push yourself to say something. If you counterattack when you feel confronted, take a few deep breaths and find something that you can agree with in what's being said.
There are times when we must defend ourselves against verbal attacks, but these times are rare -- and knee-jerk defensiveness isn't effective anyway. Defensive reactions make us feel temporarily better about ourselves but rarely paint us or our opinions in a favorable light. Defensiveness provides no defense -- it only makes us seem less credible.
dateline Jan. 2, 2008
Dear Horizon Air Flt Ops Management and other concerned parties:
I would like to communicate frankly my feelings about this whole Aviation Safety Action Program ("ASAP"), and how its implementation has played out when it comes to corporate governance and the values we supposedly hold dear.
This year I start my 30th year of employ with Horizon Air. Unfortunately, this length of contribution is not commensurate with the most basic of considerations of my being allowed to participate in governance of our company. As a matter of principle, I will not associate with an organization like the Teamsters that continue strong ties with organized crime, currently operate under federal trusteeship-oversight, and support a non-democratic procedure for union voting.
The XV Amendment to the US Constitution makes it illegal to deny the right to vote to any citizen. Yet the Teamsters have structured a voting system dependent on being a member and paying dues on hourly wages. If a member is in arrears, that individual's vote is thrown out. The IBT has steadfastly maintained that both members and non-members alike have no right to access their books and records. So there is no way to independently determine whether the Teamster's financial records are correct to determine eligibility for voting by Horizon Air pilots. In other words, the Teamsters can get whatever vote they want; the system is ripe for abuse.
Corruption in union voting has occurred in the past at Horizon Air. In the Dec. 7, 2001 special assessment vote, almost half of the 308 votes were thrown out, including mine. This is why I resigned from the union in the Fall of 2002. My records showed I was paid up-to-date, but when I asked the union for access to their records to justify disallowing my vote, it was denied. These ballots were voided even though HAPs were still in the 90 day Agency Shop window per the contract that allowed them time to decide whether or not to join. Not surprisingly, the vote passed.
Why would management at our company sign on to this dubious voting procedure when it comes to aviation safety?
I see union voting inequities extending to the AAG management's approach to proxy voting, which sends another wrong signal to company stakeholders.
Currently as some of you might know, there are a group of AAG workers/customers/stockholders who have begun a challenge to review how the stockholder vote was conducted by management at the last shareholders meeting in Anchorage in June. This effort has been met with opposition by management of the AAG.
Is it any wonder why economic support of stakeholders of our companies appears to be waning? I do not see how our companies can survive in a competitive economy when contributions from stakeholders are shunned. We need all the help we can get.
The fact that we even have to vote on a safety-critical program like ASAP is further evidence of our company's current dysfunctional disposition. If those in power were truly accountable to company stakeholders, and if those stakeholders were truly empowered themselves by our governance structures, I believe this program would have been legitimately installed long ago. The fact that both sides have used this program as a political football to demonstrate how much power they have (or don't have) is sad commentary on the state of affairs at our company.
Since it has been determined that this program's go-ahead will be voted upon, I respectfully request that myself and ALL HAPs be allowed to vote regardless who the Teamsters assert are eligible. I've talked to many QXTeamsters who say they are not up-to-date with their dues, and doubt they will be able to vote on this important issue. This is flat wrong.
The fact that I currently pay only 4% less of full membership dues as a service fee payer to L747, which supposedly justifies denying my right to vote, is, in this case, irrelevant. Trust is the chief element in ASAP. If all HAPs are not allowed to vote, trust in ASAP will be a long time coming (if ever).
If I indeed am not allowed to vote, this proves my premise that our companies are on a grave course, and I believe it just a matter of time before our stakeholders and the market punish us severely.
Remember, the Teamsters are not alone in this regard. All AS/QX unions tie voting to paying money (like a poll tax) with no audit trail. Union income could be negotiated as a percent of corporate profit or revenue, which would ensure democracy and the eligibility of all workers to vote.
Either we live in a democracy and act accordingly –– or we don't. The USA was formed upon the premise that all citizens are equal and can participate in the workings of our society and government through the hallowed mechanism of voting. Yet in recent years, I see many officials in government, corporations and unions thumb their noses at this critical institution.
For some reason, our culture seems to have hit some kind of dead zone when it comes to governing fundamentals this country was founded on. Perhaps some people think they don't matter anymore. I disagree. Failure to follow fundamental human rights/duties has led to increases in terrorism we see throughout the world today, which seem based on a total disregard for the sanctity of all life.
Like all of society, we have company stakeholders here who are Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, as well as those who profess no particular faith. All of the prophets and aesthetics preached many common precepts, namely love, compassion and grace –– but most of all, emphasis on the individual and his/her relationship with Life. Quantum physics teaches us the same. Every person matters, and how we interact with the world determines everything from the success of a company to whether or not our environment will be protected. Running a business doesn't somehow permit us to operate in a values vacuum.
I respectfully ask that you grant me and all HAPs our inalienable right to vote on this matter before our work group. There can be no obstacle that cannot be overcome by granting this important request.
My vote is: |X| Yes for ASAP
Particular Problems with ASAP and the ERC
Until the Dec. 2007 ASAP memorandums from Jim Buckley and Larry Freer/Gene Hahn, this is the first I've seen or read about specifics of ASAP. Perhaps there have been other communications, but because I'm not an IBT member, I have not been privy, and until now have not been informed enough to comment.
Right off the bat, I see some significant problems, the primary one being governance of the program. (I find this true in corporations and unions in general; governance structures are weak and nobody seems to think it matters, but it does. Any concentration of power is a BAD thing and invites abuse.
Regarding the Event Review Committee ("ERC"):
I believe these details should be disclosed. And any barriers to participation should be removed.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I wish a productive 2008 for Horizon Air, Alaska Airlines and all our many important stakeholders. Without their continued patronage, we will cease to economically exist.
Sincerely,
Steve Nieman
What the Teamsters Union has been working hard to keep from its members, potential members and the general public is now available for inspection.
It is a damning 302-page report by a former federal prosecutor hired by Teamsters President Jim Hoffa that points an accusatory finger at Hoffa, citing continuing corruption within Teamster ranks, continued Teamster ties to organized crime and an alleged cover-up orchestrated out of Hoffa’s own office.
The report linking Hoffa and the Teamsters to continued mob control, as well as internal corruption that is alleged to put personal finances of Teamster officers ahead of better contracts for members, grew out of a federal racketeering investigation that almost led to a government takeover of the Teamsters in 1989.
To avoid that takeover, the Teamsters agreed to operate under a court order known as a consent decree. The consent decree was imposed on the Teamsters, in part, according to the report now available, because Teamster leaders had ignored evidence of organized crime infiltration and corruption.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the Teamsters have paid out about $3 million annually in rank-and-file dues to fund internal monitoring under the consent decree.
As part of the consent decree, Hoffa created a so-called anti-racketeering program called Project RISE, which stands for Respect, Integrity, Strength and Ethics.
To head the project, Hoffa hired former federal prosecutor Edwin H. Stier, who previously cleaned up a mob-dominated Teamsters Local 560 in New Jersey that was prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
But, according to Teamsters for a Democratic Union (a watchdog group of IBT members), “this public relations ploy backfired for Hoffa when Stier and his staff of investigators and lawyers resigned on the grounds that Hoffa had ‘backed away from the Teamsters’ anti-corruption plan in the face of pressure from self-interested individuals,’some with ties to organized crime.”
Upon resigning from Project RISE, Stier said he had grave doubts about Hoffa’s commitment to continuing the clean up, particularly when the offenders are Hoffa’s own political allies in the union.
Stier, in his resignation letter, said that “organized crime again threatens the union” and that Hoffa’s response to Project RISE’s investigation of continued mob influence over the union in Chicago was one of "active resistance – not to the criminal elements and mob ties, but to the investigation itself.”
According to Stier, “Jim Hoffa has . . . permitted anti-corruption investigations to be undermined to a degree that honest Teamsters who came forward with information believing that the union would protect them now feel abandoned.”
Stier resigned in April 2004, and his report was kept undercover – until this week, when Teamsters for a Democratic Union obtained a copy and published the 302-page report on its website at www.tdu.org.
According to the report, “Since June 2003, it has become increasingly obvious that the IBT leadership's commitment to the reforms symbolized by Project RISE has wavered. As a result, the credibility of the IBT anti-racketeering reform program has been severely undermined.
“A perception has taken root among both supporters and opponents of the reforms,” says the report, “that the IBT's top leadership no longer supports the program and will not permit anti-racketeering investigations to threaten the most powerful remaining organized crime influences in the union, which are centered in the Chicago area.”
The report alleges corruption within various Teamster locals and alleges efforts by at least one top Hoffa aide to stop any investigation into that corruption.
According to the report, the Teamsters have failed to honor their consent decree by ignoring allegations such as whether Teamster officials solicited bribes from rank-and-file members in exchange for jobs.
Also not investigated by the Teamsters’ top leadership, says the report, is whether seven Teamsters in one local are “members or associates” of a Chicago organized crime family.
• The report questions whether “kickbacks or other improper payments were generated through a dental and vision plan maintained by a Teamster local.”
• The report questions whether trustees of another Teamster local wrongly administered pension and other benefit plans by “permitting persons and entities with ties to organized crime, involvement in racketeering schemes, or both, to be vendors to or employees of the plans.”
• The report questions whether a Teamster business agent “is associated with organized crime and/or has engaged in prohibited associations with organized crime figures, and whether payments to the business agent from the local's benefit plans reflect fair compensation for services actually rendered to the plans pursuant to an arm's-length employment agreement.”
The report questions whether a “principal officer” of one Teamster local entered into sham collective bargaining agreements with two employers, and whether those employers have ties to organized crime.”
The report states, “There is a pattern of Teamster employers, many of which have demonstrable organized crime connections, using non-union labor to perform jobs that are or could be subject to a collective bargaining agreement, a practice that is apparently condoned by some Teamster leaders.
“Credibility,” says the report, “cannot be restored if IBT officials known to be hostile to investigating organized crime and corruption issues, particularly in the Chicago area, are permitted to exercise authority over investigative activities.”
After making the report public, Ken Paff, the chief executive of Teamsters for a Democratic Union, said of Hoffa that he “is someone who has been among the most friendly within labor to President Bush. He came into office as a defender of the old guard within the Teamsters, running on his father's name. And as for militancy, the only strikes he has called have been at Overnite and at Red Star, and they both ended in terrible defeats for the union.”
To view the entire 302-page report, paste the following address into your Internet browser: http://www.tdu.org/Stier%20Report.pdf
dateline June 10, 2005
Alaska Railroad President and CEO Pat Gamble has a management style that CEOs in the lower-48 should try to emulate. What makes Gamble’s management method even more amazing is he is a retired four-star general.
As railroaders know, former generals are not well-received among the rank-and-file, and most have not lasted long in their posts. Some have gone down in flames.
That’s because their autocratic personalities and rigid ways were not compatible with a new breed of railroader looking for more predictable working schedules, improved working conditions and greater recognition of their many valuable contributions.
That does not describe Gamble, who, for sure, is a rare breed. And he accepts he still has a lot to learn after barely four years in his post and no prior railroad experience.
“In the military we never had unions,” Gamble told some 600 UTU members and guests June 11 at a UTU regional meeting luncheon here. Not to worry.
Gamble’s management philosophy is straight-forward and refreshing. “When people work for you, you are responsible for the quality of their life on and off the job,” he said. “My job is to figure out what motivates people to come to work, to want to stay on the job and do the best job possible. Like a spirited race horse, you give them some direction, but let them run and do their job,” Gamble said.
“People are the key to success,” Gamble said. In exchange for employees who bring to the job a positive attitude, dignified work ethic, honesty and a desire to grow the business, Gamble says he seeks to return job security, improved wages and benefits, and a secure retirement.
“Management and labor must collaborate” in a partnership, Gamble said, recognizing that human nature tends to seek a comfort zone by holding on to the past. But the world won’t stop and technology will continue moving forward, he said. “If you want to make the best of things, you have to get out in front, shape the future and make it work for you.”
His case in point is the technology for positive train control and a collision avoidance system the Alaska Railroad is installing. Observing that when a single organization represents both sides of the cab – as the UTU does on the Alaska Railroad – protecting jobs, while embracing new technology, is more easily achievable.
The key to that job security is the UTU Constitution’s unique Article 80, which guarantees craft autonomy and ensures no craft may dominate another.
The Alaska Railroad expects to have its collision avoidance system fully operational by September 2007. Locomotives already are equipped with global positioning systems that permit a computer to determine, within a few centimeters, the position of trains; and permit crews to determine, before reaching signals, whether switches are properly aligned.
Gamble seeks what he calls a “creative tension” between management and labor.
This means, he said, both sides not simply talking to the other, but listening, collaborating and not leaving the table until both have found a mutually acceptable means of achieving harmonious goals. It is another way of defining interest-based bargaining, of which the UTU has been an advocate of in the rail industry.
Management to Gamble is empowering his train and engine service crews by investing in training, education and the tools they require to do their jobs. “Training and education are not expenses; they are investments,” Gamble said.
A case in point is the Alaska Railroad’s harsh winters. Gamble noted that historically, crews setting cars at industrial sidings would plow through high snow banks that sometimes resulted in expensive derailments of the locomotive. So Gamble empowered his crews with the authority not to set cars if the conductor determines snow is too high. They may delay – sometimes until the next day – until the snow is cleared away. The result has been virtually zero locomotive derailments.
Profitability of the Alaska Railroad has been improving under Gamble, who said the railroad, in turn, has a responsibility to share those improved profits with employees.
At the bargaining table, Gamble said, management and labor work from the same script: “We can fix something. We can buy something. We can put the money in employees’ pockets” Management and labor then jointly determine how to share that pie so as to assure a customer-focused and safe railroad, job security and motivated employees.
“I only wish other railroad CEOs, officers and managers would adopt that philosophy,” one UTU member from the lower-48 told Gamble after his talk. After Gamble left the podium, he spent some 45 minutes chatting with regional meeting attendees and answering their questions, one-on-one.
Quote of the day: Alaska Railroad President and CEO Pat Gamble, a former jet fighter pilot and Air Force deputy chief of staff: “It’s a lot harder to get lost on a rail line than flying a jet.”