Why did PHI pilots reject union?
cool...@aol.com
(Feb R&W). I would like to know the reason PHI pilots rejected union
representation. It would seem to be in the pilot's best interest to get union
help for what is rumoured to be a company that does not pay well for long
hours and hazardous work.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Stan Gosnell
>Old news but I just finished reading an interview with PHI's CEO, Carol Suggs
>(Feb R&W). I would like to know the reason PHI pilots rejected union
>representation. It would seem to be in the pilot's best interest to get union
>help for what is rumoured to be a company that does not pay well for long
>hours and hazardous work.
That's a long story, & probably no one reason.
Interestingly, Scientific American had an article a few months back
reporting research on companies & unions. According to the reproted
research, the highest productivity & profit, by far, was from
companies that had a union and allowed the union input into how the
company was run, in other words, they welcomed the union, & had a good
relationship with it. Companies with no union were in second place, &
companies with a union, but an adversarial relationship with it, were
far back in last place. Examples of the first are Southwest Airlines,
one of the most profitable companies around. They get tens to
hundreds of applications for each job, & can pick & choose. An
example of the last is American Airlines, which under Crandall nearly
went bankrupt, & still has problems. Attitudes, both in management &
labor, are slow to change.
BH206B
>I would like to know the reason PHI pilots rejected union
>>representation.
Allow me to field this as I have a little experience in the matter and am
longwinded as hell.
In the last election for union representation in which PHI pilots voted, the
union was defeated by a mere FOUR VOTES. Hardly an overwhelming majority by
anyone's standard. The union failed at PHI because:
1. There is a large number of helicopter pilots who evidently feel we are
fairly and justly compensated for who we are and what we do.
2. There is also a large number of pilots who believe our CEO Carroll Suggs
when she says she wants to and will make things better for us. Mrs. Suggs is a
savvy businesswoman. She is also a personable, warm and sincere woman who can
be very charming and influential. When she makes a personal appeal to give her
a chance, it is easy to be persuaded.
3. PHI mounted a very effective (and expensive!) anti-union campaign. The
advantage is usually with the company. For instance, PHI pilots are a widely
scattered group. To get their viewpoint across, the company had access to the
pilot roster; the union did not.
Okay, those are the basics. But there's more. The fourth reason gets to the
essence of being a helicopter pilot. Now, I can't speak for PHI management.
But I can talk about pilots. The following is my opinion, based on a
twenty-three year involvement in civilian helicopter aviation, sixteen as a
professional pilot, eleven here at PHI.
We are strongly individualistic. We are not typically "joiners." Very few
helicopter pilots belong to AOPA or HAI or any other "alphabet" groups. IF we
subscribe to ROTOR & WING Magazine, it is because it is free. FLYING? B/CA?
Forget it. The main response you get is, "What did/could AOPA ever do for ME?"
It is hard to get two helicopter pilots to agree on anything. Helicopter
pilots are *generally* not good in multi-pilot situations and have a hard time
understanding and implementing the crew-concept. (However, they will
vehemently argue the opposite.) We are one-man-shows, both in and out of the
cockpit and we like it that way. (And yes, I'm describing myself here, too.)
Of the approximately 800 or so Gulf Coast pilots, I count exactly three who
actively participate in this newsgroup, including myself (and one PHI manager
who posts sporadically).
As a group, helicopter pilots are distrustful of unions. Everyone has a
third-hand war-story. Everyone knows someone whose brother's cousin's father's
friend's son-in-law had some job back in the '70s that paid $80K per year and
the guy didn't even have to show up! Or there was some shop where you couldn't
even go to the bathroom without written permission from your shop steward. Or
a company that "went union" and promptly went out of business because they had
to double everyone's pay. Or some such nonsense. Helicopter pilots are pretty
autonomous once we're in the air. We irrationally paranoid that membership in
a union will somehow diminish that or infringe on our ability to do our job.
(To which I reply: "Yeah. Gee, it must be pure living HELL being an ALPA
member airline pilot.")
There is a prevalent, selfish attitude of "I got mine." You feel it from the
middle-level managers (pilots who've "made good") to the line pilots who've
worked their way into cushy slots that they don't want to jeopardize. The only
committment a helicopter pilot feels is to himself. Nobody wants to do
anything for his fellow professionals, much less the next generation of pilots.
Don't believe me? Just ask one.
And lastly, helicopter pilots are deathly afraid of change. You should have
heard the moaning when the first electronic (non-mechanical) TOT gauges
appeared in our ships. Try this experiment: Give a helicopter pilot an
assignment. Then, when he's started planning it, change the game plan
slightly. Then step back and watch out! Newsman Harry Reasoner once called us
"...brooders, anticipators of trouble." And he was right. We are an
inflexible, suspicious, borderline-paranoid bunch. That a union might actually
change the way we "do business" even slightly is just too disturbing.
Obviously, not all helicopter pilots exhibit all of these personality traits.
Like any group, there are good ones and bad ones. But if you talk to enough
helicopter pilots (like...three) you will see that I'm right. When you add it
all up, it's no surprise that the union failed at PHI. My question is, how did
it ever succeed at Air Log?
Bob Barbanes
Pensacola, Fla.
Petroleum Helicopters
Tongue-tied, twisted
Just an earthbound misfit, I
(Pink Floyd: "Learning To Fly")
BORN2FLIE
ROTFLMAO!!!! Great post!
Born2fly
Living the Dream
Delbert Thistle
JRS
pilots were ineligible to vote contributed to the outcome of the vote also.
I know of 3 pilots that would have voted union if they were eligible and I
imagine there are quite a few more that were not eligible due to hire dates.
Jim Seeliger A&P PHI
cludwig
BH206B
>I believe the very " timely" pay raise and the fact that some new hire
>pilots were ineligible to vote contributed to the outcome of the vote also.
The new pay scale was the subject of a lot of debate. What are the facts? At
the time, everybody was hiring. PHI had just given us a raise. Then Air Log
raised their starting salaries, above ours! At PHI, the union drive had been
underway for some time. They knew there were problems. A new pay scale was
designed, and implemented immediately prior to our second election. Could this
have influenced four voters? The National Mediation Board ruled that this was
not improper.
As for the issue of who was elegible to vote: When enough initial survey cards
were collected to formally petition the National Mediation Board to hold an
election, that officially "locked-in" the pilot roster at the time. Pilots who
were hired after that point (which was around April or May of 1997) were simply
not elegible to vote. We might not like it, but dem's da rules.
Bob
Helimech
quickly hiring a bunch of "anti union" employees. When can there be a union
vote again?
JRS <phi...@tds.net> wrote in message news:7bnm5b$r...@news2.tds.net...
>I believe the very " timely" pay raise and the fact that some new hire
>pilots were ineligible to vote contributed to the outcome of the vote also.
Mark W. Roberts
Starting pay at PHI is currently $31,000.00
Staring pay at Air Log is $30,000.00
This does not reflect per diems, and mileage...just the basic start...
Mark
Bill Sykes
<alli...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>I assume that "hire date" rule is to prevent a company from going out and
>quickly hiring a bunch of "anti union" employees. When can there be a union
>vote again?
You would be correct,Sir. I believe in August.
Bill Sykes
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even
greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any
carelessness, incapacity, or neglect" Author unknown.
Bill Sykes
>Obviously, not all helicopter pilots exhibit all of these personality traits.
>Like any group, there are good ones and bad ones. But if you talk to enough
>helicopter pilots (like...three) you will see that I'm right. When you add it
>all up, it's no surprise that the union failed at PHI. My question is, how did
>it ever succeed at Air Log?
>
>Bob Barbanes
>Pensacola, Fla.
>Petroleum Helicopters
>
>Tongue-tied, twisted
>Just an earthbound misfit, I
>(Pink Floyd: "Learning To Fly")
Very good post Bob! I hope you counted me as one of the three.
Now to answer the question about why Air Log succeeded:
We did not have a warm and fuzzy CEO, who could feign appreciation,
understanding, or compassion for us. No, we had the consumate
bean-counter in the likes of Mr. "If you don't like it, hit the
bricks", Jim Clement, CEO and Chairman of the board, for Offshore
Logistics.
When he came out to speak to us about the union, it was with the
attitude of "How dare you do this, after we have treated you so well!"
In other words, he tried to bully everyone into not voting for the
union. He ended up being the best recruiter the union had. It left no
doubt in anyones mind that the union cared more about us than he did.
This was especially true among the new hires, and the pilots who had
not been with the company for at least 8 years. That's when he had
quit coming out to the field to talk to the employees, so most of them
had never seen him before, let alone hear him speak. Most of the
senior pilots knew how he was, and needed little convincing. But he
made a strong impression on the newer guys, which is what turned the
corner for us. Hell, they were among the strongest supporters!
I will say it again, I was never so proud as the day that the vote
came in, and we had stuck together and won, with about 78% voting in
favor for the union. I couldn't wipe the smile off my face for days
after, nor did I want to.
As Bob pointed out so well, we are a group of individualists, that
rarely agree on anything. The joke around here is, "Ask 3 pilots for
an answer to a question, and you'll get 3 different answers".
(Sometimes 4 because one guy will have 2 different ways of looking at
the question)
I was talking to another pilot today, which I hadn't seen in a while.
He said something that was profound. He said that in flight school
(Army), from the start, everyone was taught to stick together, to be a
unified group. You could do no wrong if everyone in the class, stood
together firmly. Then he said, "What happened to that concept? Where
did we lose that along the way"? I wish I had an answer. All's I know
is that we have somehow forgotten that first lesson we were taught.
Maybe that's why the day the vote came in was so special for me.
Though not 100%, it was the first time in a long time that we held
together as a group. And to this day, at least as far as the union is
concerned, we are still holding together.
The next round of mediation is set for April. It is to be a long
session, and they are to the point of negotiating the money issues. It
is hoped that a final contract will be hashed out at this session.
I'll let you know the results.
BH206B
>We did not have a warm and fuzzy CEO, who could feign appreciation,
>understanding, or compassion for us. No, we had the consumate
>bean-counter in the likes of Mr. "If you don't like it, hit the
>bricks", Jim Clement, CEO and Chairman of the board, for Offshore
>Logistics.
Two things here, Bill. I believe that Mrs. Suggs really does care about her
employees. If the general pilot staff only knew about some of the
extraordinary things she's done above and beyond what would be required or even
expected for employees that have had problems (storm damage, family medical
dilemmas, and other maladies that sometimes befall us), they would have an
entirely different view of her. She IS caring and compassionate, and I
understand why she takes this union push as a personal affront. HOWEVER...
Mrs. Suggs also wears the hat of CEO. So as much as she cares about us, she is
duty-bound to make money for the corporation, which as we all know is the FIRST
responsibility of any corporation. If a business doesn't make money, it has no
reason to be in business. I believe that when push comes to shove, she will do
what she (and her board members) feel is in the best interest of PHI the
corporation. Which is why we pilots can't count on philanthropy. Managements
will continue to pay us as little as they can possibly get away with. If I
were CEO, I'd do the same.
As for Mr. Clement, it is interesting that when you get down to it, he was
simply an employee of Offshore Logistics (not an owner, original investor or
even major stockholder). Yet long after he left the company, he continued to
receive something like $30,000 PER MONTH! because he had a CONTRACT as CEO. He
must have been laughing all the way to the bank. I can imagine him sitting on
a Caribbean beach, sipping a pina colada, thinking about his former employer.
"Get rid of me because I couldn't keep the union out? BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!
Suckers.... Hey honey, bring daddy another frosty one and send that
foot-massage boy over!"
Corporations don't mind letting their upper management have generous employment
contracts, but they fight like hell to keep the rank and file from having them.
Why is this? Care to comment, Mr. Clement? Oh, that's right, he's probably
too busy sport fishing and playing golf to get online.
It's nothing personal. In fact, it's pretty simple. All helicopter pilots
need and deserve a national union for our mutual protection and benefit. When
that is done, companies won't be able to compete on rates by chopping pilot
salaries. No, then the criteria will be service. And as we all know, PHI,
AirLog and Era provide the best service in the Gulf of Mexico.
I'll stop now. My fingers are tired. As probably are your eyes.
Bob Barbanes
Line Pilot, Petroleum Helicopters
"Tongue-tied, twisted. Just an earthbound misfit, I" Pink Floyd
"I believe I can fly..." r kelly
"I just want to fly" Sugar Ray
"Eat your hearts out, boys." R. Barbanes
Mark W. Roberts
> >Like any group, there are good ones and bad ones. But if you talk to enough
> >helicopter pilots (like...three) you will see that I'm right. When you add it
> >all up, it's no surprise that the union failed at PHI. My question is, how did
> >it ever succeed at Air Log?
> >
> >Bob Barbanes
> >Pensacola, Fla.
> >Petroleum Helicopters
> >
> >Tongue-tied, twisted
> >Just an earthbound misfit, I
> >(Pink Floyd: "Learning To Fly")
>
>
> Now to answer the question about why Air Log succeeded:
>
> understanding, or compassion for us. No, we had the consumate
> bean-counter in the likes of Mr. "If you don't like it, hit the
> bricks", Jim Clement, CEO and Chairman of the board, for Offshore
> Logistics.
>
> attitude of "How dare you do this, after we have treated you so well!"
> In other words, he tried to bully everyone into not voting for the
> union. He ended up being the best recruiter the union had. It left no
> doubt in anyones mind that the union cared more about us than he did.
>
> This was especially true among the new hires, and the pilots who had
> not been with the company for at least 8 years. That's when he had
> quit coming out to the field to talk to the employees, so most of them
> had never seen him before, let alone hear him speak. Most of the
> senior pilots knew how he was, and needed little convincing. But he
> made a strong impression on the newer guys, which is what turned the
> corner for us. Hell, they were among the strongest supporters!
<snip>
I only needed this part Bill...
I was one of those "new guys" ( about 7 months) when Jim Clement made
his famous appearance at the Patterson base...and Bill is right,
Clements did himself and the company in for me. I had lost a ton a faith
in them at that point. I am not as vocal about things as others,
concerning our union while at work, but I am a supporter, and I make my
donations to the Local 107 proudly.
It was a no brainer for me...and Jim knew it...because as I know Bill
will remember, that floor was so "silent" when Big Jim asked us to ask
any questions, I could "hear" the sweat rolling down the side of his
face...he had already lost.
I look foward to April 16, 1999 and hope for the very best for all of
us involved, it's damn time...in Solidarity !
Mark W. Roberts
Bill Sykes
>Bill Sykes wrote:
>>We did not have a warm and fuzzy CEO, who could feign appreciation,
>>understanding, or compassion for us. No, we had the consumate
>>bean-counter in the likes of Mr. "If you don't like it, hit the
>>bricks", Jim Clement, CEO and Chairman of the board, for Offshore
>>Logistics.
>
>Two things here, Bill. I believe that Mrs. Suggs really does care about her
>employees. If the general pilot staff only knew about some of the
>extraordinary things she's done above and beyond what would be required or even
>expected for employees that have had problems (storm damage, family medical
>dilemmas, and other maladies that sometimes befall us), they would have an
>entirely different view of her. She IS caring and compassionate, and I
>understand why she takes this union push as a personal affront. HOWEVER...
I don't dispute this Bob. First of all she is a woman and a mother,
and is predisposed to have a caring nature, unlike the "mother-..." we
had at the time. But some of the PHI pilots I talked to during the
last union effort, said the she really put on a "show" at the meetings
she held with the pilots, hence the term, feign.
In any case, there were definetly two very different approaches that
management took at the two companies, which was the point I was trying
to convey. I have no doubt that Mrs. Suggs truely cares more for her
employees, than the management at Air Log does.
>
>Mrs. Suggs also wears the hat of CEO. So as much as she cares about us, she is
>duty-bound to make money for the corporation, which as we all know is the FIRST
>responsibility of any corporation. If a business doesn't make money, it has no
>reason to be in business. I believe that when push comes to shove, she will do
>what she (and her board members) feel is in the best interest of PHI the
>corporation. Which is why we pilots can't count on philanthropy. Managements
>will continue to pay us as little as they can possibly get away with. If I
>were CEO, I'd do the same.
Then you should trust her judgement and be happy with your situation.
If you aren't, then you wouldn't do things the same way.
We had guys making this statement at Air Log too. They said it was the
CEO's responsibility to maximize profit, for the stockholders. I take
exception to this type of thinking.
It's the CEO's job to balance profit, employee satisfaction, and
product quality. There's more, but for the sake of this argument let's
limit it these.
Pay too much, or too little attention, to any one of these areas, and
the others will suffer. At Air Log, attention to maximization of
profit, caused the workforce to feel slighted, which caused attitudes
to be such that the service was not as good as it could have been,
including the the aircraft.
Now, I'm not talking about any "Safety of flight" items here. More
cosmetic, or appearence of the aircraft. Mechanically, the aircraft
were and are sound. Our pilots and mechanics see to that! But to cut
costs, the aircraft weren't cosmetically as good as they could have
been. This makes an impression on customers, which affects profits.
Same with employees. Again, not "Safety of flight" issues, as the
pilots fly professionally. That is inbred in them, and is one of the
reasons the company can exploit them. But it causes attitudes that
aren't beneficial to the company.
Whether dealing with customers, doing something extra when asked,
abusing sick leave, working overtime, and above all paperwork, which
is how we bill for the service, poor attitudes makes for mistakes, and
indifference, which ultimately affects profit. Same applies to the
mechanics, as well as administration personnel.
When the attitudes build to the extent that the majority decides they
need a union, to protect their interests, then the CEO has failed
miserably at the balancing act, and is accountable.
By the same token, spend too much on of for employees, and you price
yourself out of the market. Coddle them too much, and they will not
perform efficiently or effectively, because they feel they don't have
to. All of which affects profit, and quality.
As for quality, skimp on this and customers won't be satified, and
continue to use your product or service. Spend too much to attain it,
and you get less return on your money. Again profit is affected.
No, it's a balancing act, and not simply maximizing profits, (Not your
words, I know). It's a tough balancing act and one has to be very
astute, to make them all work together. Maximizing profit, doesn't
neccesarily mean getting the absolute most for your product or
service, and paying the absolute least to do it.
It means producing a quality product or service, with a well adjusted,
motivated, and loyal (dare we say happy) work force, for a price that
allows a reasonable return, which keeps the company solvent and
growing, and the stock prices up, and possibly dividends, for the
investestors. That is the CEO's job!
>
>As for Mr. Clement, it is interesting that when you get down to it, he was
>simply an employee of Offshore Logistics (not an owner, original investor or
>even major stockholder). Yet long after he left the company, he continued to
>receive something like $30,000 PER MONTH! because he had a CONTRACT as CEO.
He still does!
> He must have been laughing all the way to the bank. I can imagine him sitting on
>a Caribbean beach, sipping a pina colada, thinking about his former employer.
>"Get rid of me because I couldn't keep the union out? BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!
>Suckers.... Hey honey, bring daddy another frosty one and send that
>foot-massage boy over!"
He doesn't have it in him to enjoy this windfall. And he still has an
office and title of "Consultant", with the company. I've been told he
comes in a couple times a week to get his mail.
He is the epitome of Eboneezer Scrooge, a man who values money above
all else. He doesn't understand money's true worth, just the enjoyment
of piling it up, and not spending it. And he certainly doesn't
understand people, or have any compassion for them. No, I think he is
not enjoying his exile, as you described. I would have more respect
for him, if he did.
>
>Corporations don't mind letting their upper management have generous employment
>contracts, but they fight like hell to keep the rank and file from having them.
> Why is this? Care to comment, Mr. Clement? Oh, that's right, he's probably
>too busy sport fishing and playing golf to get online.
Jim Clement does not beleive in or trust, computers. A fact that is
born out at our company, which is just now trying to computerize.
Hell, we don't even have a web site, like most evey other operator
does.
I asked Hans Albert, a former General Manager, about why the company
wasn't computerized better. (We have had an ancient IBM 38 at the
corporate level, but even it was under-utilized). He said that Jim
Clement didn't trust computers. He went on to say that when Clement
wanted to cypher numbers, he wouldn't even use a calculator, he used a
pencil and peice of paper. That is the mindset of Jim Clement.
He was also deathly afraid someone would break into the computer, and
learn company secrets. They had paid consultants to survey the needs
of computers at the company, but never initiated the plan they came up
with. Always, too expensive.
>
>It's nothing personal. In fact, it's pretty simple. All helicopter pilots
>need and deserve a national union for our mutual protection and benefit. When
>that is done, companies won't be able to compete on rates by chopping pilot
>salaries. No, then the criteria will be service. And as we all know, PHI,
>AirLog and Era provide the best service in the Gulf of Mexico.
>
Amen.
>I'll stop now. My fingers are tired. As probably are your eyes.
ditto
>
>Bob Barbanes
>Line Pilot, Petroleum Helicopters
>
>"Tongue-tied, twisted. Just an earthbound misfit, I" Pink Floyd
>"I believe I can fly..." r kelly
>"I just want to fly" Sugar Ray
>"Eat your hearts out, boys." R. Barbanes
Bill Sykes
Micbloo
>A very nasty breed....
M mmmmm, I know a few PD pilots and they are pretty nice guys!!
Gerard
mikepatt...@spammindspring.com
time while waiting for some drug deal to actualize, we started to BS
with him, and when he found out I had just put one of my models in a
tree (controlled flight into terrain!), he offered to hover me over
the tree to get it out. He's a real nice guy!
I declined, as while I greatly admire helicopters and the people who
can fly them, they also scare the hell out of me! (The machines, not
the people, although...) <g>
Mike
ELZee36
>can fly them, they also scare the hell out of me!
You mean you declined a free ride in a helicopter??!!
And if they scare the hell out of you you are on the wrong NG!!
Go, quickly, to" alt. aviation. scared crap of helos"
mikepatt...@spammindspring.com
elz...@aol.com (ELZee36) wrote:
>>I declined, as while I greatly admire helicopters and the people who
>>can fly them, they also scare the hell out of me!
>
> You mean you declined a free ride in a helicopter??!!
Sadly, yes.
> And if they scare the hell out of you you are on the wrong NG!!
> Go, quickly, to" alt. aviation. scared crap of helos"
Well, I think it's sort of my version of going to the FunHouse on
Halloween. It scares me, in a fun sort of way, and I hope that someday
I'll screw up my courage and take a ride in one. After all, all these
nice people are here, helo's CAN'T be THAT bad, right? <vbg>
Meanwhile, I'll just watch and smile and learn.
Mike