View Poll Results: T/A Vote Yes or No
Voters: 277. You may not vote on this poll
TA Poll
09-04-2023, 08:49 PM
#71
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2022
Posts: 90
I’m voting no because a group of boisterous blowhards hijacked the forums and booted damn near everyone out under the guise that their newly appointed regime would bring amazing change and a truly industry leading contract. A year later we have a replacement worker in a position at ALPA national, and a TA that doesn’t stack up to what they swore they would get us.
Even that psychopath SW and her anti-vax jugheads are unhappy with the TA.
Even that psychopath SW and her anti-vax jugheads are unhappy with the TA.
09-05-2023, 03:44 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 804
You have political factions within the mec that are just looking to point fingers so they can claim they pointed fingers. I don't believe we are in a healthy place MEC wise. I like Captain Garth but we are fractured as a group. Too many self interests. They voted on bullet points but the final language written by lawyers, interpreted by other lawyers, and argued against by "grey" language attorneys... we aren't where they said we were. Just my opinion after 3 contracts.
09-05-2023, 04:10 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2022
Posts: 148
No here.
To me QOL = predictability in a schedule.
If I have a scheduled day off, that should remain a scheduled day off. I can see being in an out base and the company saying, “hey we gotta throw you on another line” (I’d accept that), but when you are in a base and they are rolling with nearly 50% RSVs, it’s unacceptable to me. I should absolutely be able to say no and not have to file fatigue or sick to not do it. Hell, most of the time (like 98% because the add pay is great) I’d say sure thing, but again, it should be my choice.
My other issue is that I still don’t see an approved calculus for the gline, am I missing it? That also ensures me that at x% seniority I can reasonably expect to hold a line or not. That is very important to me when I consider possibility of upgrade in the future. As such I can schedule against that. With the gline being set at pretty much wherever the schedulers want it, there is zero predictability unless I’m at like 30% seniority and that, is a long long time from now.
Again, predictability of schedule is critically important to me. I have a lot of kids and do my darndest to schedule for games, graduations, birthdays, etc. It makes it my hill to die on, so to speak.
It is a lucrative contract and I’m happy with the negotiating committees work. Unfortunately, there a couple of must haves that aren’t there for me, so again, no.
Let me know if I missed something in my reading of the TA that negates either of these statements, I’d love to vote yes.
To me QOL = predictability in a schedule.
If I have a scheduled day off, that should remain a scheduled day off. I can see being in an out base and the company saying, “hey we gotta throw you on another line” (I’d accept that), but when you are in a base and they are rolling with nearly 50% RSVs, it’s unacceptable to me. I should absolutely be able to say no and not have to file fatigue or sick to not do it. Hell, most of the time (like 98% because the add pay is great) I’d say sure thing, but again, it should be my choice.
My other issue is that I still don’t see an approved calculus for the gline, am I missing it? That also ensures me that at x% seniority I can reasonably expect to hold a line or not. That is very important to me when I consider possibility of upgrade in the future. As such I can schedule against that. With the gline being set at pretty much wherever the schedulers want it, there is zero predictability unless I’m at like 30% seniority and that, is a long long time from now.
Again, predictability of schedule is critically important to me. I have a lot of kids and do my darndest to schedule for games, graduations, birthdays, etc. It makes it my hill to die on, so to speak.
It is a lucrative contract and I’m happy with the negotiating committees work. Unfortunately, there a couple of must haves that aren’t there for me, so again, no.
Let me know if I missed something in my reading of the TA that negates either of these statements, I’d love to vote yes.
09-10-2023, 08:15 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,902
I think the FDX TA failed with less of a margin than the poll there showed.
09-10-2023, 08:46 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,695
No here.
To me QOL = predictability in a schedule.
If I have a scheduled day off, that should remain a scheduled day off. I can see being in an out base and the company saying, “hey we gotta throw you on another line” (I’d accept that), but when you are in a base and they are rolling with nearly 50% RSVs, it’s unacceptable to me. I should absolutely be able to say no and not have to file fatigue or sick to not do it. Hell, most of the time (like 98% because the add pay is great) I’d say sure thing, but again, it should be my choice.
My other issue is that I still don’t see an approved calculus for the gline, am I missing it? That also ensures me that at x% seniority I can reasonably expect to hold a line or not. That is very important to me when I consider possibility of upgrade in the future. As such I can schedule against that. With the gline being set at pretty much wherever the schedulers want it, there is zero predictability unless I’m at like 30% seniority and that, is a long long time from now.
Again, predictability of schedule is critically important to me. I have a lot of kids and do my darndest to schedule for games, graduations, birthdays, etc. It makes it my hill to die on, so to speak.
It is a lucrative contract and I’m happy with the negotiating committees work. Unfortunately, there a couple of must haves that aren’t there for me, so again, no.
Let me know if I missed something in my reading of the TA that negates either of these statements, I’d love to vote yes.
To me QOL = predictability in a schedule.
If I have a scheduled day off, that should remain a scheduled day off. I can see being in an out base and the company saying, “hey we gotta throw you on another line” (I’d accept that), but when you are in a base and they are rolling with nearly 50% RSVs, it’s unacceptable to me. I should absolutely be able to say no and not have to file fatigue or sick to not do it. Hell, most of the time (like 98% because the add pay is great) I’d say sure thing, but again, it should be my choice.
My other issue is that I still don’t see an approved calculus for the gline, am I missing it? That also ensures me that at x% seniority I can reasonably expect to hold a line or not. That is very important to me when I consider possibility of upgrade in the future. As such I can schedule against that. With the gline being set at pretty much wherever the schedulers want it, there is zero predictability unless I’m at like 30% seniority and that, is a long long time from now.
Again, predictability of schedule is critically important to me. I have a lot of kids and do my darndest to schedule for games, graduations, birthdays, etc. It makes it my hill to die on, so to speak.
It is a lucrative contract and I’m happy with the negotiating committees work. Unfortunately, there a couple of must haves that aren’t there for me, so again, no.
Let me know if I missed something in my reading of the TA that negates either of these statements, I’d love to vote yes.
09-10-2023, 09:05 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 725
We will vote to see if this TA is sufficient for the majority or not. If it is not successful, more negotiations will ensue, and a new TA will be the result. When and what that will look like are unknown, but to vote yes assuming that there are no possible improvements is just as moronic as voting no and thinking they will miraculously be granted.
If you think there are no cons to this TA, you are either dumb or woefully naive. If they are acceptable to you, then vote yes. If not, vote no. But don’t let fear of the future compromise your judgment or morals.
09-10-2023, 09:15 AM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,695
What in the previous TA did we give up to get this one?
We will vote to see if this TA is sufficient for the majority or not. If it is not successful, more negotiations will ensue, and a new TA will be the result. When and what that will look like are unknown, but to vote yes assuming that there are no possible improvements is just as moronic as voting no and thinking they will miraculously be granted.
If you think there are no cons to this TA, you are either dumb or woefully naive. If they are acceptable to you, then vote yes. If not, vote no. But don’t let fear of the future compromise your judgment or morals.
We will vote to see if this TA is sufficient for the majority or not. If it is not successful, more negotiations will ensue, and a new TA will be the result. When and what that will look like are unknown, but to vote yes assuming that there are no possible improvements is just as moronic as voting no and thinking they will miraculously be granted.
If you think there are no cons to this TA, you are either dumb or woefully naive. If they are acceptable to you, then vote yes. If not, vote no. But don’t let fear of the future compromise your judgment or morals.
But to answer your question… YES, what was negotiated is acceptable to me and I believe it’s a significant improvement. I personally don’t care what your thoughts are on pros/cons OR how you’ll vote. Unlike many I can make my own determination based on what is acceptable in this TA based purely on what has been provided to us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
