Jetjok

When I read the first post in this thread, my initial reaction was: boy, this is a dumb idea. But I thought I'd give it a chance to fill out a little with other responses, before I gave my .02 cents. It has, so here goes.

Wildmanny comes up with a provocative idea, whereby we can remove someone from our union, a dues-paying member, mind you, for performing an "act" that either he (Manny), or some other ad hoc group of guys, deems inappropriate. He even says that that act may be completely legal, but runs "counter to what the union is trying to accomplish." He also suggests an early warning system, whereby the "offender" would get one written or verbal warning, from the LEC, then another from the MEC, if that same offense were to be committed again, and then finally revocation of union membership after the 3rd transgression, for some period of time.

Personally I don't believe asking guys to leave the union, or even worse, kicking them out (even for a day) is the way to handle these problem children. As has been said many times before, education (I believe) is the answer. As well, perhaps our next contract should have language that either eliminates or revises these DP’s or states that these pairings cannot be picked up by anyone and must be assigned to a reserve. To me it makes little sense to assign these onerous trips only to a reserve guy, seeing as they might already be sleep deprived from previous reserve flying, but this is in keeping with our current procedures.

I next started to wonder if, in the history of ALPA, had any dues paying member in good standing ever been asked to leave. I called ALPA today and found out that in fact, members have been asked to leave the organization. Specifics were not available because of the legalities involved, but suffice it to say that it has been done.

Next I went onto the ALPA web site and looked at the Constitution and By Laws and low and behold, found the following. It’s from Article 8; Section 1.
SECTION 1 HEARING OF MEMBERSHIP CASES
A. Any member (including any Inactive member) may be disciplined, fined, or expelled for any of the following acts:

(1) Willful violation of this Constitution and By Laws.
(2) Making a false statement or withholding material information when applying for membership.
(3) Disobeying or failing to comply with a decision of the Board of Directors, the Executive Board, the Executive Council, his Master Executive Council, or his Local Council.
(4) Misappropriating money or property of the Association.
(5) Performing work for or assisting an airline during a period when the members of this Association are on strike against such airline.
(6) Entering into an employment agreement, or any contract which might injure the Association.
(7) Improperly disclosing confidential matter of the Association.
(8) Refusing or willfully neglecting to pay dues, assessments, fines or financial obligations to the Association.
(9) Acting in any manner to circumvent, defeat or interfere with collective bargaining between the Association and an employer or with existing collective bargaining agreements.
(10) Doing any act contrary to the best interests of the Association or its members.

So after reviewing all this information, unfortunately, I still feel that kicking out a member, for any of the reasons that either Wildmanny or any of the other guys has suggested is not in the best long term interests of either FDX ALPA or our pilot group. Again, just my .02 cents.

JJ

cma2407

Why not? You'd be surprised the level of behavior that a group can be trained to, adapted as the norm, or even changed totally.

Just look at this forum. The moderators might be a little heavy-handed at times, but it works. They have molded the behavior to meet their goals.

Group behavior is malleable, and can be altered. Think the Military. The Machinists did it years ago w/Eastern (altho that got a lil' carried away). Tenured professors, kids in the sandbox, sports teams on a winning streak, politicians, welfare recipients, Vegas showgirls, religious organizations, etc.

ALPA doesn't have to go all "Lord of the Flies" to alter the behavior around here, but a nudge in the right direction might be more effective than some of us think. Give 'em a "warning" (hope I don't get another one here!). Gin up the PR machine, write an educational article or two, gin up a "list" (we do it for the PAC donors, don't we?).

Then, don't send them their magazine. That'll get results for sure.

nitefr8r

If you're kicked out of the union, you'll not be required to pay "dues", or more appropriately any contract maintenance fee. Ditto for those who are denied admission to the union.

Jetjok

So what you're saying nitefr8r is that there will be an amendment to the contract, such that if someone is kicked out of the union, their financial responsibility to it stops.... That sounds interesting. As for guys being "denied admission to the union", lest we not forget, ALPA is not a country club, but a labor union, and by its very nature, one that wants everyone working in a specific class and craft to be part of said union.

Wildmanny

Wildmanny comes up with a provocative idea, whereby we can remove someone from our union, a dues-paying member, mind you, for performing an "act" that either he (Manny), or some other ad hoc group of guys, deems inappropriate.



JetJok:

It's just an idea. I'm not trying to be the judge and jury, only trying to think outside the box. Besides, I don't think it would be an "ad hoc" group of guys-it would be the Union, leading at the front, something they should be doing anyway. I know, it is somewhat provocative.

As for your assertion that education is the key, that clearly isn't working. I understand the Union can't come right out and say a blanket statement, "You will not fly DPs." I agree that educating the workforce is the best, but that isn't working. When I was brand new in MEMpho, nobody talked about DPs, it wasn't until this board or perhaps in the crashpad when I heard about them. When I jumped into a different base that seems to have no very few issues with the DP process, I had a boney, now 60+ aged, finger point across the table at my first dinner with a growled voice that said, "You will not fly DPs here (not that I ever had) or you will not touch the stick!" Point taken and this is the education that I'm sure you are talking about. Why not have that same discussion at the Union confab that all newhires go through? I'm beating a dead horse here--the message isn't getting through to the fellas ACROSS the entire crew force.

I'm all for posting their names on a big piece of Day-glo orange tagboard with blinking Christmas lights right next to the main door in Memphis!

So I concede the point. No kicking them out and understand that it is extreme. Can we agree that the orange boards with lights can go up?

WM

Jetjok

Yes, we agree. I've been for posting their names for a very long time.

A300_Driver

Seems to me, this would give the Union the ability to kick out the "offenders" that continuously pick up a DP. I'm not talking about the knucklehead who makes a one time mistake, but those that undermine the SIG and the rest of us for their own self-interest.

PCNUTT

The Wonders of APC.
Approx. a year ago, I had a multi-day pairing w/ a particular f/o. I had recently began reading APC and a DP flying f/o was the focus of ire for a few days/weeks. I checked the f/o's calendar, lo and behold HE was the offender in question. We (the crew) went out for lunch and a beer and discussed the DP issue at length. F/o was NOT getting it. I came back to APC and read a bit more. Bloggers were so irate (he had 6 DP's in one month) they were posting when he was hired, (he was also on probation) pointing out he was "3rd one from left" in new hire photo, approx 10-12 pages of flames for the boy. Frustrated that his ears were deaf to the "foot stomping" I had given, I printed all 10-12 pages of flames and handed them to him during the next activity and said, "they're on to you".

I've casually checked his sked and have not seen any more violations. Behavior, indeed, can be modified. The union leadership needs to grow some stones and call some folks out on this issue in an organized, coherent fashion.

JNYVEGAS

[SECTION 1 HEARING OF MEMBERSHIP CASES
A. Any member (including any Inactive member) may be disciplined, fined, or expelled for any of the following acts:


(10) Doing any act contrary to the best interests of the Association or its members.


Guys since we are pitching in 2 cents worth here is mine. To begin, I do not fly DPs. A a craphouse lawyer, a DP, as determined by the SIG, is just that, a disputed pairing. It is not against the contract in terms of legality. If I was on the SIG, I may feel that one trip should be disputed and someone else may not. I have sent trips to the SIG to have them looked at. Always got a respectful reply, but again, it is the determination of a human being. Like the one part of our bodies.....our opinions are just like that....we all have one.

As for the above post, didn't our MEC chose to rule against the majority of us dues paying members on the age 60 issue? I fly lots of International and the discussion is more against the decision makers as opposed to the DP flyers. Again just my thought. But don't the decision makers fall under #10? contrary to the best interests of the Assoc and it's members? If the majority of us vote for something, aren't they obligated to represent us? Maybe this is an old arguement but it is still valid today.

The comments on people doing stuff for the almighty $$$ can be seen in many areas here, not just DP flying!!! As many of our posts show. Why not the militant talk about those folks?

Talking about throwing people out is more devisive than a handful of dudes flying DPs and ****ing us off.

Again, just my 2 cents worth.

JNYVEGAS

onetime

While we stare at the DP tree, has anyone seen the forest?