He Just Won't Go Away....
05-20-2009, 06:39 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
“A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past; he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.”
Sydney Harris
I would like to propose an alternative view to that generally held on this thread. First I must present a disclaimer that I am not a union rep, in management, or over sixty. I am not even 100% sure that I work for the same airline as others on this forum. Nor do I know the individuals referred to in any social way.
However, with that being said, I do know that both of them have held one of the most difficult jobs that any employee or manager can hold. From everything I have heard, they discharged those duties well enough to negotiate an agreement between the company and the pilots that resulted in our first ALPA contract. I for one am proud and thankful to them and the company for finally hammering out an agreement that literally was the culmination of over ten years of work and five representational elections.
There have been many difficult and divisive issues facing us. It is not a mortal sin for the MEC to agree to what the negotiating committee thinks is the best deal they can get, given a reasonable effort. Actually, it is the responsible thing to do. It may be a mistake, but to say that approving the existing LOA was totally wrong is making several assumptions as to what would have happened if it had not been approved. I do know that there are going to be two new FDA’s opening up and pilots will be going there to fly airplanes. I am confident FDA issues will be major topics at the upcoming negotiations and hopefully progress will be made.
The next issue is one that I don’t completely understand: the 777 bid. This is the message I received from my block rep before the last 777 bid closed.
“In this vein, we as your Council Officers would like to make it clear that we have no hidden agendas, and no one should read between the lines.
Please be sure that you bid whatever domicile, aircraft or seat that will meet your personal needs both financially and/or quality of life. If you still have contract questions that effect your bidding, please contact Contract Enforcement at [email protected].”
To cut directly to the point, some pilots think the union has given them a wink-and-a-nod to not bid the 777. Please do not make this mistake. Such a belief is in error. Let us make it patently clear: “Bid what you want to fly.”
Many of you want to know what the intent of a particular passage of the contract is and use that as a way to interpret it. I am pretty sure that the intent of the contract when new airplanes are introduced is to smoothly bring them into the system and have pilots ready to fly them. I think historically that many (perhaps most, in the old days when planes didn’t last as long) were introduced between contracts like ours.
The third issue is the barbeques that our representatives have attended as part of our national and international union affiliation. If I am not mistaken, one of the big issues that arose when the pilots were considering joining ALPA was that we had to have a say in the national agenda and in the politics of ALPA. We didn’t want “other airline” pilots to have all the voice. This was very important to a lot of our pilots. I say let our representatives go to their weenie roasts in peace. What do you think would happen to any influence we might have if we decided not to go? Or to be silent when we are invited to speak. Besides, traveling halfway around the world to get a free meal is not all it is cracked up to be.
I should probably stop now before I alienate the rest of you. But one last thing: I am glad one of our guys got a job at National and I think he has earned it.
“No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up”
Lily Tomlin
Sydney Harris
I would like to propose an alternative view to that generally held on this thread. First I must present a disclaimer that I am not a union rep, in management, or over sixty. I am not even 100% sure that I work for the same airline as others on this forum. Nor do I know the individuals referred to in any social way.
However, with that being said, I do know that both of them have held one of the most difficult jobs that any employee or manager can hold. From everything I have heard, they discharged those duties well enough to negotiate an agreement between the company and the pilots that resulted in our first ALPA contract. I for one am proud and thankful to them and the company for finally hammering out an agreement that literally was the culmination of over ten years of work and five representational elections.
There have been many difficult and divisive issues facing us. It is not a mortal sin for the MEC to agree to what the negotiating committee thinks is the best deal they can get, given a reasonable effort. Actually, it is the responsible thing to do. It may be a mistake, but to say that approving the existing LOA was totally wrong is making several assumptions as to what would have happened if it had not been approved. I do know that there are going to be two new FDA’s opening up and pilots will be going there to fly airplanes. I am confident FDA issues will be major topics at the upcoming negotiations and hopefully progress will be made.
The next issue is one that I don’t completely understand: the 777 bid. This is the message I received from my block rep before the last 777 bid closed.
“In this vein, we as your Council Officers would like to make it clear that we have no hidden agendas, and no one should read between the lines.
Please be sure that you bid whatever domicile, aircraft or seat that will meet your personal needs both financially and/or quality of life. If you still have contract questions that effect your bidding, please contact Contract Enforcement at [email protected].”
To cut directly to the point, some pilots think the union has given them a wink-and-a-nod to not bid the 777. Please do not make this mistake. Such a belief is in error. Let us make it patently clear: “Bid what you want to fly.”
Many of you want to know what the intent of a particular passage of the contract is and use that as a way to interpret it. I am pretty sure that the intent of the contract when new airplanes are introduced is to smoothly bring them into the system and have pilots ready to fly them. I think historically that many (perhaps most, in the old days when planes didn’t last as long) were introduced between contracts like ours.
The third issue is the barbeques that our representatives have attended as part of our national and international union affiliation. If I am not mistaken, one of the big issues that arose when the pilots were considering joining ALPA was that we had to have a say in the national agenda and in the politics of ALPA. We didn’t want “other airline” pilots to have all the voice. This was very important to a lot of our pilots. I say let our representatives go to their weenie roasts in peace. What do you think would happen to any influence we might have if we decided not to go? Or to be silent when we are invited to speak. Besides, traveling halfway around the world to get a free meal is not all it is cracked up to be.
I should probably stop now before I alienate the rest of you. But one last thing: I am glad one of our guys got a job at National and I think he has earned it.
“No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up”
Lily Tomlin
George Carlin
First let me say, I have no problem with WR getting this job and find it ironic that the title of this thread is wrong. Taking this job he is going away. He is disappearing into the vast hole that sucks up 2% of my pay and sends me back a nice magazine. Kind of of like Congress, all things being equal any actions they take are more likely to hurt my check book as opposed to helping it.
I must say this again. I had no problem with the MEC endorsing the FDA LOA. I had a big problem with their open warfare on any opposition to the LOA. In retrospect who has been proven more accurate on the questions surrounding the LOA, the cynics or the MEC mouthpieces echoing the company line?
As far as the barbeques I must agree with my President. They set a bad image in these tough economic times. Unless of course Harry Reid needs a couple of bucks for his campaign.
Best of luck to WR. I hope he proves to be a voice of the freight dogs as opposed to sh!t screen for the establishment.
05-20-2009, 06:58 AM
#32
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by CurtissRobin;613764
[I
[I
“In this vein, we as your Council Officers would like to make it clear that we have no hidden agendas, and no one should read between the lines. [/I]
Please be sure that you bid whatever domicile, aircraft or seat that will meet your personal needs both financially and/or quality of life. If you still have contract questions that effect your bidding, please contact Contract Enforcement at [email protected].”
To cut directly to the point, some pilots think the union has given them a wink-and-a-nod to not bid the 777. Please do not make this mistake. Such a belief is in error. Let us make it patently clear: “Bid what you want to fly.”
Please be sure that you bid whatever domicile, aircraft or seat that will meet your personal needs both financially and/or quality of life. If you still have contract questions that effect your bidding, please contact Contract Enforcement at [email protected].”
To cut directly to the point, some pilots think the union has given them a wink-and-a-nod to not bid the 777. Please do not make this mistake. Such a belief is in error. Let us make it patently clear: “Bid what you want to fly.”
05-20-2009, 11:01 AM
#33
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
Now, you don't think a lawyer wrote this in response to a perceived "job action" do you? The Friday before the Monday final 777 bid we get a missive from the union which say's, in effect, you can make more money on the MD-11 than the 777 and that the 777 work rules aren't defined , yada, yada. Later, this legalese disclaimer comes out and you want to use this as a source document for your assertion that they (DW and his band of merry men) didn't really say what they said. Nice try but I ain't buying it. BTW, I have heard from two independant sources close to the action, that when the MEC confronted DW over his decision to bid the 777, after disouraging the membership from doing so, he threatened to sue them. If true, he just about disfunctional as you can get. I can't wait to get the letter telling us to "welcome DW back to the line and congratulate him on a job well done"! My parrot needs new cage lining.
05-20-2009, 01:34 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
For those of you that had heartburn with the previous leadership, I would remind you that a new set of guys are rolling in. The other gents have largely moved on. Granted, one has gone on to a National post but that had nothing to do with your current MEC reps. We are trying to stay focused on the here and now. Rather than embroil everyone in issues that allegedly occured, I suggest you put the energy into getting ready to support your new MEC Chairman and his team. They'll need a lot of support to be successful.
What some of you need to do is read up on the United case with reference to illegal work actions. I'm not an RLA expert or attorney, but the synopsis is that ALL of you are considered "union officials" in the eyes of the court. Discussing work actions...be it sick outs, not picking up open time, etc all can be considered union sanctioned activities--even if its LINE guys, not union officers, doing the bantering. If taken to task by the courts, the union can still be found liable for actual damages--and those can be high. Continue after that, however, and be considered "in contempt" of court, and the rules change. You can now be fined punitive damages and that can inflict grave financial harm on any union. (See APA for an example).
I would remind all of you, as D Larusso has tried to do, that "harmless" internet banter isn't always so harmless. I used these forums as a non-rep to attack age 60 changes and the LOA, and to vent my frustration at many things I thought could be done better. However, the whole "...what we OUGHT to do is...." when it comes to work actions, bidding, etc. type threads can cause problems, and have caused problems for other MECs in the past.
When the UAL guys went to court, they had a FEMALE, Democratic appointed judge. They thought they had it made. Instead, she crushed them and found in favor of the airline across the board. This mess was started by 4 yahoos...not even a huge group. Here's the secret: Nobody in the judiciary, Republican or Democrat, seems to likes airline pilots, especially when they are accused of disruption of service. Additionally...and this is important...IF your group is found guilty of doing an illegal self help action, the courts can dis-allow self help during the RLA negotiation process if its been proven you have abused it before. In short--stupid comments or half-assed efforts will not only won't be effective, they run the risk of preventing us from using those tools if and when it is legally sanctioned. So by talking "tough", you can actually weaken your union's position.
Why don't the reps spend more time on the boards now? Because there is a concern, somewhat legitimate, that even showing up somehow "validates" illegal, unprofessional, or otherwise unhelpful banter. Several of us have chafed at such restrictions and tried to straddle the fence and use these media for some good while working around the bad. However, that's not always easy, and the tone of recent threads has made me wonder if any future participation is warranted.
So...back to the main point. If you have questions, call your reps. I really don't get that many calls--2-4 a week is average. I can take quadruple that and still get my work done. We are here to work for you and we want you to be involved.
Next...what did or didn't happen...while it might be an interesting story...is largely academic. If you thought the last group of officers did a great job, then thank them and buy them a beer on the line. (For those that actually end up back on the line...) If you didnt' like the job they did, then realize in about 40 days a new set of guys are stepping up with some pretty big challenges. We will need some new committee folks, volunteers, and a solid group of guys behind them to move forward. I strongly suggest we drop the gossiping....be it about outgoing MEC folks or pilots in trouble with management, and get out this gutter sniping. There is too much real work to be done for guys to be looking backwards. I'm not here to defend anyone, or try to whitewash events. What I am trying to do is remind you that the important challenges are the ones coming up, and the change many of you longed for has happened...so I suggest letting it go...
My two cents....worth what you paid.
What some of you need to do is read up on the United case with reference to illegal work actions. I'm not an RLA expert or attorney, but the synopsis is that ALL of you are considered "union officials" in the eyes of the court. Discussing work actions...be it sick outs, not picking up open time, etc all can be considered union sanctioned activities--even if its LINE guys, not union officers, doing the bantering. If taken to task by the courts, the union can still be found liable for actual damages--and those can be high. Continue after that, however, and be considered "in contempt" of court, and the rules change. You can now be fined punitive damages and that can inflict grave financial harm on any union. (See APA for an example).
I would remind all of you, as D Larusso has tried to do, that "harmless" internet banter isn't always so harmless. I used these forums as a non-rep to attack age 60 changes and the LOA, and to vent my frustration at many things I thought could be done better. However, the whole "...what we OUGHT to do is...." when it comes to work actions, bidding, etc. type threads can cause problems, and have caused problems for other MECs in the past.
When the UAL guys went to court, they had a FEMALE, Democratic appointed judge. They thought they had it made. Instead, she crushed them and found in favor of the airline across the board. This mess was started by 4 yahoos...not even a huge group. Here's the secret: Nobody in the judiciary, Republican or Democrat, seems to likes airline pilots, especially when they are accused of disruption of service. Additionally...and this is important...IF your group is found guilty of doing an illegal self help action, the courts can dis-allow self help during the RLA negotiation process if its been proven you have abused it before. In short--stupid comments or half-assed efforts will not only won't be effective, they run the risk of preventing us from using those tools if and when it is legally sanctioned. So by talking "tough", you can actually weaken your union's position.
Why don't the reps spend more time on the boards now? Because there is a concern, somewhat legitimate, that even showing up somehow "validates" illegal, unprofessional, or otherwise unhelpful banter. Several of us have chafed at such restrictions and tried to straddle the fence and use these media for some good while working around the bad. However, that's not always easy, and the tone of recent threads has made me wonder if any future participation is warranted.
So...back to the main point. If you have questions, call your reps. I really don't get that many calls--2-4 a week is average. I can take quadruple that and still get my work done. We are here to work for you and we want you to be involved.
Next...what did or didn't happen...while it might be an interesting story...is largely academic. If you thought the last group of officers did a great job, then thank them and buy them a beer on the line. (For those that actually end up back on the line...) If you didnt' like the job they did, then realize in about 40 days a new set of guys are stepping up with some pretty big challenges. We will need some new committee folks, volunteers, and a solid group of guys behind them to move forward. I strongly suggest we drop the gossiping....be it about outgoing MEC folks or pilots in trouble with management, and get out this gutter sniping. There is too much real work to be done for guys to be looking backwards. I'm not here to defend anyone, or try to whitewash events. What I am trying to do is remind you that the important challenges are the ones coming up, and the change many of you longed for has happened...so I suggest letting it go...
My two cents....worth what you paid.
05-20-2009, 02:36 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 68
DW's Jumpseat Position
IF your group is found guilty of doing an illegal self help action, the courts can dis-allow self help during the RLA negotiation process if its been proven you have abused it before. In short--stupid comments or half-assed efforts will not only won't be effective, they run the risk of preventing us from using those tools if and when it is legally sanctioned. So by talking "tough", you can actually weaken your union's position.
Where is the settlement paperwork on that one Albie?
05-20-2009, 02:50 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't part of that MEC, and obviously don't have a clue as to what you are refering to. If you want to PM me or send it to my ALPA account I'll get smarter on it. Again...not being smart...I just don't know what issue/settlement you mean.
05-20-2009, 02:58 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 68
Not this again....
the synopsis is that ALL of you are considered "union officials" in the eyes of the court. Discussing work actions...be it sick outs, not picking up open time, etc all can be considered union sanctioned activities
Shame on you for not knowing
05-20-2009, 03:23 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
