Fedex-Latest Jetflyer
11-08-2008, 04:28 AM
#1
"blue collar thug"!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Fedex-Latest Jetflyer
Got this in an email. Sounds pretty good to me.............
UNION BUSINESS AND THE MONITORED APPROACH CONCEPT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Since the spirit of change seems to be in the air today, especially in
light of the Chairman's last email concerning the internal challenges we
face as a Union, I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest a
possible solution, which even if proven unfeasible or too difficult, at
least offers a hopeful mindset that refutes defeatism and embraces the
idea of doing things in a smarter, better way.
THE PROBLEM AS I SEE IT.
There seems to be the perception among many pilots, myself included, of
a broad disconnect between what we the electorate (rank and file pilots)
see as concerns and what our elected officials (the MEC) see as the
solution and as such, I offer the following idea as a way to possibly
bring the two back together. If you are like me, you are tired of
hearing about the endless political dog fighting and the promise of
better days ahead. It doesn't seem to make any difference who the
players are; the same old problems seem to always rear their ugly heads.
In my view, the problem is indicative of a more basic, fundamental
problem, one of structure. So, if you want positive action, if you want
to stop repeating the same mistakes over and over again, then perhaps we
need to look at the design of our Union and simply put, build it better.
Why can't we build a system that is more responsive to pilot concerns,
one that gives our Reps better tools from which to gauge our sentiments
and yet one still allows the Rep a certain degree of latitude from which
to govern? If we can do this, quite simply, it gives us a better shot at
getting it right the first time and avoiding costly mistakes. Maybe the
old way of doing things, with our Reps locked in some Vegas hotel
conference room have become passé or at the least, too controversial
given the more immediate tasks at hand? We live in a computer driven,
web based world, where people are much better informed about the issues,
or at least have better tools in which to become and remain so? So why
not tap into this resource in a creative and productive way?
As it stands now, we have two fundamentally separate things that don't
necessarily properly compliment one another. We have polling and we have
voting and most would agree that often there seems to be a big
disconnect between the two. The problem with polling comes down to one
of confidence. Many have suggested, as evidenced by this discussion,
that it is precisely this disconnect which contributes to a lack of
faith in the credibility of the data produced. Some on the other hand
have argued that the data can be skewed by asking questions specifically
designed to elicit specific responses and still others fear the data,
while reliable, can be tossed aside by a not so conscientious Rep
without any fear of accountability, aside of course from the possibility
of recall/re-election, which in the case of recall we know is purposely
designed to be especially difficult and as for reelection, lets face
it.....by then, the damage is done. So again, it is delayed
accountability at best and using the corporate world as an example, I
don't feel much better when a wayward CEO gets the boot...along with a
multimillion dollar golden parachute. Plainly put, there is too much at
stake. There must be a better way.
Now let's take a look at voting. With voting, the problem is simple. We
typically vote only for elections and for ratification........and as we all
know from experience.........a lot happens in the middle between those two
events. Yes, it seems to be the "in-between" that is our biggest problem.
Therefore, given all of the above, why don't we research the possibility
of developing a FDX ALPA specific (no national involvement) voting
system that essentially combines the two concepts in a reliable
way, where we can better track performance and ensure
accountability? Sure, it would require greater participation, but I
contend the primary reason for the lack of participation in our process
(voter apathy) has more to do with feelings of frustration, than a lack
of a desire to participate. It seems like in our current structure
today, if you speak out against the status quo, expect to be bloodied.
Case in point, my last few posts have not exactly elicited a positive
response from our MEC (although, to their credit, there are a growing
number of exceptions within the MEC, which is not the case unfortunately
with it's officers), but on the other hand, I have received overwhelming
support from the Joe and Jane pilots out there who are frustrated and
angry over the apparent lack of responsiveness on the part of the MEC.
What some in the MEC have yet to grasp, is that an outspoken electorate
is good for the process and that stifling dissent and marching in false
lockstep, where we sweep problems under the rug, fools no one in the
long run, not the company and certainly, not the pilots.. You give a
pilot direct, genuine input into his or her pay and work rules and watch
what happens. Yes, my friends, "we fly the heavy metal, we can handle
the truth".
I realize some of you might be asking yourselves if this would undermine
our Representative system of governance. Well, these types of specifics
would be better addressed by a dedicated working group of pilots,
specifically tasked with doing the research, but off the cuff, I
would say no, absolutely not, in fact it should enhance it. We could
design the system with certain, tailor made safeguards upon which we all
agree, some of which I will address shortly. I am not advocating doing
entirely away with our representative form of governance, for that would
require a very informed electorate and be too tedious and besides, I am
not interested in voting on the color of the walls in the office, but on
the big issues, you bet I am interested. Again, with the proper
safeguards in place it begs the question; could we do much worse? Most
pilots are pretty independent types, accustomed to accepting
responsibility for their own errors and I truly believe that most could
live with a mistake and learn from it, if they were assured that what
they say truly mattered. I contend if properly designed, the system
would not be a substitute for your Rep, on the contrary, it would just
be another tool to use, providing timely information to assist in making
informed decisions. More importantly, it gives us the electorate,
accountability and accountability gives us greater faith in one another
and in the system. This is where the tie in with the Monitored Approach
Concept, of which we are all familiar, comes in play. Throwing the
autopilot and flight director on during approach is not enough,
intelligence and sophistication in its use, along with a Master Monitor
is..........Threat and Error Management on a grander scale if you will.
As for some of the possible safeguards, again a matter for much deeper
research, but a possible suggestion might be to build the system to
allow certain latitude upon which the Rep could use the information in
accordance with a fixed or flexible set of parameters based on voting
participation percentages. For instance, if voting participation
exceeds ....say 2/3rds, your Rep would be obligated to vote in accordance
with the numbers. On the other hand, if voting fell below those numbers,
your Rep could be allowed greater latitude with which to make the call
based on his judgment. If new information were to pop up at the last
minute, we could build in a few stop gaps measures to deal with the
situation as well. In this age of email and email alerts, I don't see it
as such a big problem that can't be overcome.
Folks in all honesty, without a thorough investigation into the
possibilities, I would prefer to hold all of my opinions, but I have a
sense, with all the technology we have at our disposal, we can do better
than what we are doing now.
The benefits I can see right off the bat, just to name a few:
The big one.....Voter empowerment.
Direct encouragement of the electorate to get involved and stay informed
and knowing that their vote truly counts. Accountability for the voter
to participate is inherent here as well.
Gives the Rep a clear way to keep his finger on the pulse of the group
and a responsibility to ensure his constituents are informed on the
issues. He would received reliable, verifiable information. Having it
tied to participation would give us direct evidence of his or her
accountability to us.
Cost savings. Smaller government or better, more efficient
government. Since no one will tell me how much we spend on the Wilson
Center Polls, (another glaring problem in itself, which also begs the
question as to why, since we all contribute dues to this effort, we are
precluded from knowing how our money is spent), but alas, this only
strengthens my argument that something is broke and we need to fix it.
The power comes from us, not the other way around. Think about how much
time and money in Flight pay loss we could save by eliminating the fat
and streamlining the process? I prefer to see my rep out there hub
turning with me, asking me how I feel about the issues rather than
guessing or assuming and shooting from the hip, no matter how pure the
intention. Right now, many of us feel like we have to jump through hoops
to ask a reasonable question and woe anyone if you speak out of turn or
speak out about something the MEC finds ..........well, irritating. I think it
is time to say to the MEC; too bad, we're all too damn tired to jump
anymore. This time....why don't you jump? We voted, it's our dues money,
we paid for a ticket on this ride we are entitled to speak our minds in
any manner we see fit. You can't on one hand stifle the debate from
within and then judge us harshly when we seek other forms of expression.
It is our right and more specifically our duty to speak out as good
union members. I will make you a deal, we will support you, but first,
you have to support us!
In closing, if this idea is again found to not be feasible at this time,
I am all ears as to a better suggestion. Anything is better than more of
the same. Perhaps we could start off slow, using the system in a test
mode, only in matters of lesser importance until we work out all the kinks?
As for me though....the first test I would like to see and I can't
believe I am saying this, is a vote on whether or not we should
investigate a return to a general vote among the membership for all the
MEC Officers, in the same way we did in FPA. I don't honestly know if
that would be an allowed revision to the C&B, but didn't we get the
Block Rep change, so why not this? Biggest dues contributor in all of
ALPA you say? I don't see a problem.
Folks, we have a great many intelligent pilots, brilliant people,
computer techies, whom I am sure would love to sink their teeth and
their pocket protectors (sorry, couldn't resist) into this problem. (I
have a few names to suggest right off the top of my head) So, I say we
move this union into the future? Are you with me? Again, if this is
idea is found to not be viable, I say we keep looking, because the end
result is worth every effort.
So before you give up and resign yourself to voter apathy, remember the
words of George Bernard Shaw: SOME MEN SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE AND ASK
WHY. OTHERS DREAM THINGS THAT NEVER WERE AND ASK WHY NOT.
Fraternally,
J.. D.....
UNION BUSINESS AND THE MONITORED APPROACH CONCEPT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Since the spirit of change seems to be in the air today, especially in
light of the Chairman's last email concerning the internal challenges we
face as a Union, I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest a
possible solution, which even if proven unfeasible or too difficult, at
least offers a hopeful mindset that refutes defeatism and embraces the
idea of doing things in a smarter, better way.
THE PROBLEM AS I SEE IT.
There seems to be the perception among many pilots, myself included, of
a broad disconnect between what we the electorate (rank and file pilots)
see as concerns and what our elected officials (the MEC) see as the
solution and as such, I offer the following idea as a way to possibly
bring the two back together. If you are like me, you are tired of
hearing about the endless political dog fighting and the promise of
better days ahead. It doesn't seem to make any difference who the
players are; the same old problems seem to always rear their ugly heads.
In my view, the problem is indicative of a more basic, fundamental
problem, one of structure. So, if you want positive action, if you want
to stop repeating the same mistakes over and over again, then perhaps we
need to look at the design of our Union and simply put, build it better.
Why can't we build a system that is more responsive to pilot concerns,
one that gives our Reps better tools from which to gauge our sentiments
and yet one still allows the Rep a certain degree of latitude from which
to govern? If we can do this, quite simply, it gives us a better shot at
getting it right the first time and avoiding costly mistakes. Maybe the
old way of doing things, with our Reps locked in some Vegas hotel
conference room have become passé or at the least, too controversial
given the more immediate tasks at hand? We live in a computer driven,
web based world, where people are much better informed about the issues,
or at least have better tools in which to become and remain so? So why
not tap into this resource in a creative and productive way?
As it stands now, we have two fundamentally separate things that don't
necessarily properly compliment one another. We have polling and we have
voting and most would agree that often there seems to be a big
disconnect between the two. The problem with polling comes down to one
of confidence. Many have suggested, as evidenced by this discussion,
that it is precisely this disconnect which contributes to a lack of
faith in the credibility of the data produced. Some on the other hand
have argued that the data can be skewed by asking questions specifically
designed to elicit specific responses and still others fear the data,
while reliable, can be tossed aside by a not so conscientious Rep
without any fear of accountability, aside of course from the possibility
of recall/re-election, which in the case of recall we know is purposely
designed to be especially difficult and as for reelection, lets face
it.....by then, the damage is done. So again, it is delayed
accountability at best and using the corporate world as an example, I
don't feel much better when a wayward CEO gets the boot...along with a
multimillion dollar golden parachute. Plainly put, there is too much at
stake. There must be a better way.
Now let's take a look at voting. With voting, the problem is simple. We
typically vote only for elections and for ratification........and as we all
know from experience.........a lot happens in the middle between those two
events. Yes, it seems to be the "in-between" that is our biggest problem.
Therefore, given all of the above, why don't we research the possibility
of developing a FDX ALPA specific (no national involvement) voting
system that essentially combines the two concepts in a reliable
way, where we can better track performance and ensure
accountability? Sure, it would require greater participation, but I
contend the primary reason for the lack of participation in our process
(voter apathy) has more to do with feelings of frustration, than a lack
of a desire to participate. It seems like in our current structure
today, if you speak out against the status quo, expect to be bloodied.
Case in point, my last few posts have not exactly elicited a positive
response from our MEC (although, to their credit, there are a growing
number of exceptions within the MEC, which is not the case unfortunately
with it's officers), but on the other hand, I have received overwhelming
support from the Joe and Jane pilots out there who are frustrated and
angry over the apparent lack of responsiveness on the part of the MEC.
What some in the MEC have yet to grasp, is that an outspoken electorate
is good for the process and that stifling dissent and marching in false
lockstep, where we sweep problems under the rug, fools no one in the
long run, not the company and certainly, not the pilots.. You give a
pilot direct, genuine input into his or her pay and work rules and watch
what happens. Yes, my friends, "we fly the heavy metal, we can handle
the truth".
I realize some of you might be asking yourselves if this would undermine
our Representative system of governance. Well, these types of specifics
would be better addressed by a dedicated working group of pilots,
specifically tasked with doing the research, but off the cuff, I
would say no, absolutely not, in fact it should enhance it. We could
design the system with certain, tailor made safeguards upon which we all
agree, some of which I will address shortly. I am not advocating doing
entirely away with our representative form of governance, for that would
require a very informed electorate and be too tedious and besides, I am
not interested in voting on the color of the walls in the office, but on
the big issues, you bet I am interested. Again, with the proper
safeguards in place it begs the question; could we do much worse? Most
pilots are pretty independent types, accustomed to accepting
responsibility for their own errors and I truly believe that most could
live with a mistake and learn from it, if they were assured that what
they say truly mattered. I contend if properly designed, the system
would not be a substitute for your Rep, on the contrary, it would just
be another tool to use, providing timely information to assist in making
informed decisions. More importantly, it gives us the electorate,
accountability and accountability gives us greater faith in one another
and in the system. This is where the tie in with the Monitored Approach
Concept, of which we are all familiar, comes in play. Throwing the
autopilot and flight director on during approach is not enough,
intelligence and sophistication in its use, along with a Master Monitor
is..........Threat and Error Management on a grander scale if you will.
As for some of the possible safeguards, again a matter for much deeper
research, but a possible suggestion might be to build the system to
allow certain latitude upon which the Rep could use the information in
accordance with a fixed or flexible set of parameters based on voting
participation percentages. For instance, if voting participation
exceeds ....say 2/3rds, your Rep would be obligated to vote in accordance
with the numbers. On the other hand, if voting fell below those numbers,
your Rep could be allowed greater latitude with which to make the call
based on his judgment. If new information were to pop up at the last
minute, we could build in a few stop gaps measures to deal with the
situation as well. In this age of email and email alerts, I don't see it
as such a big problem that can't be overcome.
Folks in all honesty, without a thorough investigation into the
possibilities, I would prefer to hold all of my opinions, but I have a
sense, with all the technology we have at our disposal, we can do better
than what we are doing now.
The benefits I can see right off the bat, just to name a few:
The big one.....Voter empowerment.
Direct encouragement of the electorate to get involved and stay informed
and knowing that their vote truly counts. Accountability for the voter
to participate is inherent here as well.
Gives the Rep a clear way to keep his finger on the pulse of the group
and a responsibility to ensure his constituents are informed on the
issues. He would received reliable, verifiable information. Having it
tied to participation would give us direct evidence of his or her
accountability to us.
Cost savings. Smaller government or better, more efficient
government. Since no one will tell me how much we spend on the Wilson
Center Polls, (another glaring problem in itself, which also begs the
question as to why, since we all contribute dues to this effort, we are
precluded from knowing how our money is spent), but alas, this only
strengthens my argument that something is broke and we need to fix it.
The power comes from us, not the other way around. Think about how much
time and money in Flight pay loss we could save by eliminating the fat
and streamlining the process? I prefer to see my rep out there hub
turning with me, asking me how I feel about the issues rather than
guessing or assuming and shooting from the hip, no matter how pure the
intention. Right now, many of us feel like we have to jump through hoops
to ask a reasonable question and woe anyone if you speak out of turn or
speak out about something the MEC finds ..........well, irritating. I think it
is time to say to the MEC; too bad, we're all too damn tired to jump
anymore. This time....why don't you jump? We voted, it's our dues money,
we paid for a ticket on this ride we are entitled to speak our minds in
any manner we see fit. You can't on one hand stifle the debate from
within and then judge us harshly when we seek other forms of expression.
It is our right and more specifically our duty to speak out as good
union members. I will make you a deal, we will support you, but first,
you have to support us!
In closing, if this idea is again found to not be feasible at this time,
I am all ears as to a better suggestion. Anything is better than more of
the same. Perhaps we could start off slow, using the system in a test
mode, only in matters of lesser importance until we work out all the kinks?
As for me though....the first test I would like to see and I can't
believe I am saying this, is a vote on whether or not we should
investigate a return to a general vote among the membership for all the
MEC Officers, in the same way we did in FPA. I don't honestly know if
that would be an allowed revision to the C&B, but didn't we get the
Block Rep change, so why not this? Biggest dues contributor in all of
ALPA you say? I don't see a problem.
Folks, we have a great many intelligent pilots, brilliant people,
computer techies, whom I am sure would love to sink their teeth and
their pocket protectors (sorry, couldn't resist) into this problem. (I
have a few names to suggest right off the top of my head) So, I say we
move this union into the future? Are you with me? Again, if this is
idea is found to not be viable, I say we keep looking, because the end
result is worth every effort.
So before you give up and resign yourself to voter apathy, remember the
words of George Bernard Shaw: SOME MEN SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE AND ASK
WHY. OTHERS DREAM THINGS THAT NEVER WERE AND ASK WHY NOT.
Fraternally,
J.. D.....
11-08-2008, 05:38 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Drinking from the fire hose
Posts: 305
JD has hit MANY nails right on the head!!! It is mandatory that the MEC start involving the crew-force BEFORE decisions are made. If 12 people think they are smarted than the other 4500+ they are sadly mistaken. The 4500+ contain a number of lawyers (OK you know how much I like them
), CPA's, business owners, negotiators, etc. that can be tapped for comments, discussions, and expertise. I agree that a "system" needs to be developed to increase this two way communication besides the outmoded e-mail and phone service. I wholeheartedly agree that we need a quick, straightforward (no more Wilson type questions), internal "voting" system to obtain input from the crew-force on important issues.
However, I think mandating that a Rep vote a certain way because of a 2/3 majority "poll" is not the way to go. I think it's mandatory that a Rep know and understand the views, wants, and needs of his block and be their representative (that's why he or she was voted in). A representative may need to vote against a present view because of new or changing information BUT he must accept the consequences from his block and LEC. The consequence and /or solution is to make the recall process "easier". If you don't represent your block or you can't make an argument that is accepatble to them them they need to be able to get rid of you. The process for recall right now is NOT user "friendly" to the membership and needs to be changed!!
), CPA's, business owners, negotiators, etc. that can be tapped for comments, discussions, and expertise. I agree that a "system" needs to be developed to increase this two way communication besides the outmoded e-mail and phone service. I wholeheartedly agree that we need a quick, straightforward (no more Wilson type questions), internal "voting" system to obtain input from the crew-force on important issues.However, I think mandating that a Rep vote a certain way because of a 2/3 majority "poll" is not the way to go. I think it's mandatory that a Rep know and understand the views, wants, and needs of his block and be their representative (that's why he or she was voted in). A representative may need to vote against a present view because of new or changing information BUT he must accept the consequences from his block and LEC. The consequence and /or solution is to make the recall process "easier". If you don't represent your block or you can't make an argument that is accepatble to them them they need to be able to get rid of you. The process for recall right now is NOT user "friendly" to the membership and needs to be changed!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
