myrkridia

I disagree that the bar needs to be raised for recall. What the meeting showed is that whichever side is most organized stands the highest chance to win. My biggest gripe with the whole thing is that it is structured in a way where very few are bound to participate unless there is an overwhelmingly large motivating factor. Even then, there are tons of factor that prevent people from attending even if they want to. The prevailing tone at the meeting was extremely against the recall and that became obvious within the first few minutes.

First Break

Maybe... just maybe... that wasn't due to one side's "organization" - but instead was due to the ridiculously thin and contrived pretext for the recalls in the first place.

CRJphlyer

This. Every single thing that everyone wanted to recall those reps for had already been discussed and explained. There are things I don’t like in the PMRC too. But recall?? No.

myrkridia

That's not how I see it, but I can understand why you'd hold that opinion. I am not trying to deride organizing, just my observation on how it went.

Starcheck102

I think it’s a GOOD thing whenever the pilots speak on the issues, and wonder why the winning side of this debate wants to restrict the membership.It isn’t thin or contrived that 5:40 is more than 5:15. Consider the lesson of history; ever since 2004, this union has struggled toward the objective of making a day at work worth as much as any other day at work, whether that day is spent in a cockpit, a simulator, on sick leave, or on vacation.

5:40 for ALPA work upends that objective, and moves the contractual goals to the back burner.

The second problem is that the new “ALPA-while-sick” policy confers three benefits that no line pilot can enjoy:

1. A bigger paycheck while out sick.

2. A longer interval before going on disability, and

3. A larger profit sharing check.

The third problem is that the Council 44 reps cannot show that they have made these changes at the behest of the membership. Quite the opposite. Many pilots reached out to their reps in opposition to the PMRC proposals when they were first trotted out.

The Council 81 FO rep was even warned that he would face recall if he supported the changes. In due course he was recalled by an overwhelming super-majority of his constituents.

The Council 44 reps answered that clear line pilot message by acting like adolescents at the last Delta MEC meeting, pretending to hide behind newspapers whenever the Council 81 Captain rep spoke in plenary.

None of these issues passes the pilot lounge sniff test. The PMRC changes elevate ALPA work above flying the line, and our results in collective bargaining will suffer for this.

We can either act proactively to balance the scales between the line and union work, or we can react in the wake of a scandal. With the current writing of the Policy Manual, it’s just a matter of time.

Kevin O’Mahoney

FangsF15

I opposed the PMRC FPL changes. However, while I recognize I'm probably in the minority in the following, I think a counterpoint is worth considering regarding "ALPA while sick".

Volunteering for ALPA affords all kinds of 'benefits not available to the line pilot'. Pre-posted ALPP days for schedule management, more nights at home (at least for those who live in greater ATL, which a lot do), access to vehicles/apartments for some, etc. None of them are available to the line pilot, but we don't throw spears over those things...?

Also, the number of folks who will use ALPA while sick is relatively low, and the number who delay disability by using it is extremely low, like 1 or maybe 2 a year low. If that. But in the cases where it does happen, I submit having the continuity in that position (be it the MEC chair, a Rep, Committee Chair, or foot soldier volunteer) is more beneficial to our union than extending a small benefit to those few. Besides, it's a contingency safety net, not an everyday/month 'bennie".

Finally, much like I have sympathy for commuters because I used to commute, I see 'ALPA while sick' a little differently. As someone who has gone on LTD 2x, I see the genuine benefit for those who have an unforeseen medical event or accident. When I was out on LTD for 2+ years, I tried to volunteer for a major committee - like, literally unpaid volunteer just to have something to do - and was told that was an insurmountable hurdle. It feels dumb and short-sighted to keep folks like that from giving back, even if they do get some pay. Even though the current rules (I think) don't allow for doing "ALPA while LTD", having ALPA while Sick makes it a little easier to argue/get an exception.

Again, I know many will disagree, and that's fine. Just something to consider.

Valar Morghulis

At the meeting they showed the analysis of the average daily pay, and it was in excess of 5:40. According to the PM, that gets re-evaluated every year, as it should be.

Course correction to the reps? Sure, that’s what elections are for, and just so happens, one is starting literally next month. I talked with some of the people at the meeting around me, and most found that a recall at this point a questionable use of resources.

CBreezy

There were virtually no resources used for this recall except a postcard mailing.
What was questionable?

Cranberry

Could have gone to the aquarium instead.

FangsF15

Meh.

In the grand scheme of things, that was a really, really weak attack by the Reps. That is no reason to throw our governance out the window.