Any Gouge on the FDX ALPA mtg in AOC?
05-09-2007, 12:46 PM
#31
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
I dont plan on leaving any to my daughter! I plan on living to enjoy my retirement. But that may be just me!
She'll just have to use the education we provide to make a way for herself - worked for me, worked for my wife!
05-09-2007, 01:52 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
I'll bet the only thing that ****es you off is the fact that you re-joined just in time to miss the grandfather clause for nonmembers.
That is the only silver lining in this shiatsandwich, at least you will have to keep paying the maintenance fee after you quit the next time you don't get your way.
Hypocrite.
FJ
05-09-2007, 02:04 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
"He said that if he gets recalled because he did the right thing for those on our seniority list than he can live with that."
If he is recalled it would not be because he thinks he did the right thing by a small percentage of our pilots. It will be because he refuses to allow the members to have a say on huge issues effecting their careers and quality of life. Putting emotion aside, his refusal to allow us a say as dues paying members is the real issue here. Wonder what the next edict will be that DW gives us no say on? Democracy obviously has no place in his rule, especially when he knows he will lose. That's hardly heroic in my book.
If he is recalled it would not be because he thinks he did the right thing by a small percentage of our pilots. It will be because he refuses to allow the members to have a say on huge issues effecting their careers and quality of life. Putting emotion aside, his refusal to allow us a say as dues paying members is the real issue here. Wonder what the next edict will be that DW gives us no say on? Democracy obviously has no place in his rule, especially when he knows he will lose. That's hardly heroic in my book.
I think he was flaunting his position a little bit and doesn't really understand the animosity and discontent that he has caused.
Funny how he can take a stand for doing the "right" thing on this little side issue while completely caving on doing the "right" thing on the big picture thing, which is the age change to begin with.
If ALPA agrees that it is discrimination to have ICAO pilots over 60 flying into the US then ALPA and ALPA PAC should have been raising the roof over on the hill to prevent that from ever occurring. That would have been the "right" thing.
ALPA has proven that it is ineffective in protecting the interests of the majority of its members and I am afraid that it will be the death toll of ALPA national.
FJ
And for the dense ones like FH, I am not advocating quitting the union, and I have stated several times that I felt that the age change would occur (or not occur) regardless of what ALPA did. What I can't understand is how the leadership of the union can so cavalierly disregard the will of the majority of its membership. What issue will the leadership cave on next? Cabotage? Open skies?
I guess the sky is the limit.
05-09-2007, 02:38 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Send the signal. Initiate the recall. Win or lose--our MEC reps need to understand they are accountable.
I personally do not feel the need to see DW's face in the ALPA magazine at the national level. Nothing personal....but we've decided to close the door to input from the floor. I can live with the decisions, but the process is flawed if our guys are dictating to us instead of informing us and giving us the chance to have input. I'd like them to at least "think" before hitting "send" and consider how these positions will be taken by the union body, not just the 40 or so buddies they socialize with in the same seniority block.
I personally do not feel the need to see DW's face in the ALPA magazine at the national level. Nothing personal....but we've decided to close the door to input from the floor. I can live with the decisions, but the process is flawed if our guys are dictating to us instead of informing us and giving us the chance to have input. I'd like them to at least "think" before hitting "send" and consider how these positions will be taken by the union body, not just the 40 or so buddies they socialize with in the same seniority block.
05-09-2007, 02:51 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: headbanging
Posts: 954
DW and Democracy?
I went to the meeting last night and understand the point about getting onboard so we can have some say in what position we get F%&*ed in.
I have two beefs.
1) ALPA has allegedly been against changing the Age 60 rule this whole time? Maybe on paper, but we sure got our asses handed to us by Bush II and the APPAD fogies. I don't get a warm fuzzy that we were really "fighting the fight". However, that is now water under the bridge.
2) My main beef is that Dave talks about democracy within the group and then tells us "this is what we are doing, I don't care that most of you don't agree with it". Last time I checked, like any elected official, they work for us. Not the other way around. If we want to be retarded and go down in flames fighting this thing, then they should let us (as long as it's a majority). Even if I don't agree with something, I'll take the bitter pill if it's what the majority wants.
I get the feeling we are just along for the ride with DW and crew and I don't like it.
I did email him when this first came out and his response was "if he loses his job over this, then so be it." I think it might just be the answer.
I have two beefs.
1) ALPA has allegedly been against changing the Age 60 rule this whole time? Maybe on paper, but we sure got our asses handed to us by Bush II and the APPAD fogies. I don't get a warm fuzzy that we were really "fighting the fight". However, that is now water under the bridge.
2) My main beef is that Dave talks about democracy within the group and then tells us "this is what we are doing, I don't care that most of you don't agree with it". Last time I checked, like any elected official, they work for us. Not the other way around. If we want to be retarded and go down in flames fighting this thing, then they should let us (as long as it's a majority). Even if I don't agree with something, I'll take the bitter pill if it's what the majority wants.
I get the feeling we are just along for the ride with DW and crew and I don't like it.
I did email him when this first came out and his response was "if he loses his job over this, then so be it." I think it might just be the answer.
05-09-2007, 03:01 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
How did DW get elected? What is his history and what did he say he wanted to do for the membership?
Why didn't someone run against with a simple campaign of no over 60 and, if it happens, no retroactivity?
Were we all so stupid on this issue no one thought of it?
Why didn't someone run against with a simple campaign of no over 60 and, if it happens, no retroactivity?
Were we all so stupid on this issue no one thought of it?
05-09-2007, 03:31 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11
Posts: 315
I too was pretty upset with the tone of DW's email the other day and I attended the meeting last night. Although I wasn't as smitten with DW's responses as SomeGuy was, I at least understand DW's position better.
My take: ALPA National and Capt Prater have been back-dooring this thing all along and now they are coming out in the open and asking us to help them fast track the issue. I simply don't believe that we won't have a voice if we continue to oppose the change.
DW and the rest of the pro-change MEC and national officers believe that we are better off with a NPRM process of change as opposed to the legislation that is pending in the FAA reauthorization bill. I can buy that. They also maintain that our best chance of stopping the legislative efforts of Congress and influencing the NPRM process is to suddenly change our 50 year history of opposition to the age change. This I don't buy.
So, if we want to have the FAA make the change and hopefully include language that protects our disability and pension programs we need to suddenly pretend like we are in favor of the change. That is what they are going to do regardless of the results of the polls they have been taking because that is what all their advisers and lobbyists in DC are telling them to do.
FJ
My take: ALPA National and Capt Prater have been back-dooring this thing all along and now they are coming out in the open and asking us to help them fast track the issue. I simply don't believe that we won't have a voice if we continue to oppose the change.
DW and the rest of the pro-change MEC and national officers believe that we are better off with a NPRM process of change as opposed to the legislation that is pending in the FAA reauthorization bill. I can buy that. They also maintain that our best chance of stopping the legislative efforts of Congress and influencing the NPRM process is to suddenly change our 50 year history of opposition to the age change. This I don't buy.
So, if we want to have the FAA make the change and hopefully include language that protects our disability and pension programs we need to suddenly pretend like we are in favor of the change. That is what they are going to do regardless of the results of the polls they have been taking because that is what all their advisers and lobbyists in DC are telling them to do.
FJ
One more thing about last night that really infuriated me is the fact that DW and the other pro-change crowd refuse to admit that his change will have a negative impact on the junior members. Yes he admits that the change is coming from external forces and that it sucks, but he doesn't sell that very well because you can tell that he is really in favor of the change. He said that everyone, particularly the junior folks, will get another 5 years of earnings to recoup lost pensions from their former carrier or make their high 5. A couple of folks in the audience stated the obvious that sure they'll get 5 more years, but it will be as an FO. He seems to think that most guys won't be able to hold the class 1 medical that will be required or won't want to go to training so the impact probably will be minimal and likely none at all.
I guess he hasn't taken a look at the training letters in the -10 and 72 lately because they are full of over 60 guys going to the back in hopes of making it back into the left seat.
If he wants to talk about unity and respect he ought to at least be honest enough to publicly acknowledge the fact that this is a windfall for the senior guys who we just propped up in the last contract and a definite blow to the career progression to those who are not yet widebody Captains. The senior pro change crowd refuses to even admit that some will suffer while they gain and that is what really makes my blood boil.
They want our support down the line to continue to protect their retirement benefits (that don't even want to use) but they won't even sweet talk or kiss us after they finish up spuging up our backs. Unity has to be a two way street, and they are only going one way.
FJ
I guess he hasn't taken a look at the training letters in the -10 and 72 lately because they are full of over 60 guys going to the back in hopes of making it back into the left seat.
If he wants to talk about unity and respect he ought to at least be honest enough to publicly acknowledge the fact that this is a windfall for the senior guys who we just propped up in the last contract and a definite blow to the career progression to those who are not yet widebody Captains. The senior pro change crowd refuses to even admit that some will suffer while they gain and that is what really makes my blood boil.
They want our support down the line to continue to protect their retirement benefits (that don't even want to use) but they won't even sweet talk or kiss us after they finish up spuging up our backs. Unity has to be a two way street, and they are only going one way.
FJ
I would vote yes on a recall with a clear conscience.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
