Northwest Pilots' Union Leaders Face Recall

[Minnesota_Flyer]

From BNA:

The governing council of the Air Line Pilots Association's Northwest Airlines chapter has scheduled a special meeting April 25 to consider recalling the council's chairman and vice chairman, the union announced April 20. Members of the council, which elected the two top leaders in October, will cast separate votes on whether to recall Chairman Mark McClain, who has been chairman since 1999, and Vice Chairman Bill Bartels, who is serving his first term, ALPA chapter spokesman Will Holman said April 21. The meeting in Bloomington, Minn., was called by seven of the council's 12 elected members. One of the seven was Bartels, who represents Northwest first officers based in Detroit. McClain, a 30-year pilot, is not eligible to vote because he is not an elected council member, Holman said.

The recall effort comes as ALPA members are in the midst of voting this month on ratification of a tentative four-year agreement reached with the airline in early March. It would extend a temporary 24 percent pay cut for some 5,000 pilots and make other concessions. The Eagan, Minn.-based carrier, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September, has imposed or negotiated labor cost-cutting agreements totaling more than $1 billion annually.

Holman declined to specify what prompted the recall effort. "The challenges we've faced over the last couple of years have displayed differences of opinion among the elected leaders," he said. McClain did not respond to a request for comment.

[Bog]

Maybe we can find a way to recall the "leaders" at ALPA National, too.

[Doug Taylor]

Good luck to them.

It's exceptionally difficult to recall an elected official. We tried to can ours in SLC a few months ago, but they were certainly clever.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

More from Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/1778/story/390789.html -- registration site):

Mark McClain, the veteran chairman of the Northwest Airlines pilots union, may be forced out of office today, and most of those pushing for his recall also oppose a concessionary pilots' agreement negotiated in March. The 12 voting members of the union's executive council deadlocked concerning a recommendation on the tentative agreement, but McClain joined the negotiating committee in urging rank-and-file pilots to ratify the deal.

The movement to replace McClain is evidence of the sharp divisions within the executive council and within the 5,700-pilot group about how to respond to Northwest's demand for $358 million in annual cutbacks. Failure to ratify the agreement could lead to a judge imposing even more onerous provisions. McClain's public support for the concessionary deal "caused a rift" among union leaders, said Mike Ristow, the pilots union representative on Northwest's board of directors.

. . .

Pilot negotiators warned their members Friday that they, too, think Judge Allan Gropper would allow Northwest to void the existing contract if pilots reject the tentative pact. That action would permit Northwest to impose pay rates and work rules on the pilots that negotiators predict would be worse than the tentative deal.

Members of the Northwest branch of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) agreed to a 15 percent pay cut in late 2004. In November, 64 percent of Northwest pilots who voted decided to accept an additional, temporary, pay cut of 23.9 percent. In early March, Northwest and the union reached a long-term tentative agreement.

But now a large number of Northwest pilots are organizing to defeat the agreement that would keep concessions in place through 2010 or 2011. A ratification vote is scheduled to be completed May 3. Pilots are allowed to change their votes until the final day.

In a memo to pilots, the negotiating committee warned that "it is unknown whether Congress would continue to work on pension reform legislation which mainly benefits one employee group [Northwest pilots], if the tentative agreement is rejected."

Northwest and ALPA leaders have jointly lobbied to win support for a pension provision that would give the airline up to 20 years to fully fund its defined-benefit pension plans. United Airlines and US Airways have terminated their plans.

Industry sources said Northwest pilots stand to lose $1.7 billion in benefits over the life of the defined-benefit plan if Congress doesn't give the carrier more time to make contributions and the plan is terminated.

Bill Bartels, vice chairman of the Northwest pilots union, said Monday that he is opposed to linking the fate of the pension bill with ratification of the Northwest pilots agreement.

Bartels, a Northwest first officer based in Detroit, is an outspoken opponent of the agreement. Politically, he is closely tied to A. Ray Miller, an Airbus A330 captain from Detroit. Miller has aligned himself with the first officers on the executive council in opposing the tentative agreement and seeking McClain's ouster. . . . Miller, who organized the junior pilot opposition to the tentative agreement, could not be reached for an interview Monday.

[Kristie]

I wonder why the negotiating committee is using the pension as ammunition? most pilots already know that pensions are gone...it's not really a bargaining chip anymore...

IMO, it shouldn't be "between" pension and TA... it should be both pension and TA...but we know pensions are more than likely gone...so since that's the case, the effort should be going to the TA.

[kellwolf]

Looks like he survived the re-call. Turns out the MEC decided unanimously that it was better to show a united front in the face of the TA.

"The MEC agreed unanimously that now is not the time to do a recall," said pilot Jon Lewis, who opposes the tentative agreement and had sought a recall vote.

Lewis, a DC-10 first officer based in the Twin Cities, said the vote on the tentative agreement and the recall effort should not have been linked. But he acknowledged that many people had connected the issues.

McClain said that after escaping the recall, he will focus on securing federal legislation to protect pilot pensions and explaining the ramifications of accepting or rejecting the new contract.

Personally, I think the "united front" was shattered when some MEC people urged the pilots to vote for the TA and some urged the group to vote against it. How can you show a united front if you openly disagree?

Now it looks like McClain is going to fight to get government legislation to protect pensions. Day late and a dollar (or five) short if you ask me. By the time he gets it pushed through (if he does) there won't be more than one or two pension plans left to protect.....

[Kristie]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

Personally, I think the "united front" was shattered when some MEC people urged the pilots to vote for the TA and some urged the group to vote against it. How can you show a united front if you openly disagree?

it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever to keep someone in the MEC who obviously is not going for the best possible results FOR the pilots...united front or not.. there is none at the moment and they need to get someone in there that will help patch the "united" and put the front back in "front"...

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Kellwolf may have better insight on this than me, but I think there is a very signficant split between older and younger pilots on ratification. NWA is still dangling the pension carrot, promising to keep the pilot pension plan if about a dozen things all happen (including pilot ratification and the pension legislation). The older pilots (IMHO) are willing to do just about anything, including accept pay reductions, to hang on to pension benefits (which may be worth literally millions to senior pilots). The younger pilots, who either see the writing on the wall or see that pensions are 30 years away -- pay cuts are now, are not so willing to take a pay cut to save the pension plan. My guess is it gets uglier at NWA before it gets better.

MF

[flyover]

Originally Posted by Kristie

it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever to keep someone in the MEC who obviously is not going for the best possible results FOR the pilots..

Is it possible that reasonable, sincere people can disagree on what the "best possible results FOR the pilots" is?

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by flyover

Is it possible that reasonable, sincere people can disagree on what the "best possible results FOR the pilots" is?

Exactly.

See Minnesota_Flyer's post above for an excellent example of potential dichotomy in contract negotiations.