AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,513
- 0
Leadership or structure? Have had lots of leaders for the last 20 years all working under the same structure. It proves once again that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."From what you describe the problem lies within your own AAA leadership structure.
Its not a question of totally direct vs. representative. Have posted on this many times. Certain issues require the super majority of votes affecting say the "Bill of Rights", other issues may require only a simple majority, then some may only require the rep's to vote while others may just require the leadership. The virtual voting mechanism under development will easily allow voting by the pilots and actually be the least expensive way to communicate. So "enormously" expensive it will not be. Computers are actually so cheap these days we can place them in the crew rooms for the cost of one mass mailing. Finally, coalitions and such will not be a problem because of the different levels of voting requirements. For example: Pay, benefits and working conditions changes would fall under the Bill of Rights and require a super majority of votes. In no case can one single person sign for issues that affect all pilots. It will be quite easy to keep the system from becoming "moribund" due to the block representation and ease of communicating. Each rep will have a smaller constituency to keep informed and represent.As for the other stuff about how USAPA will do it differently, the effort may be commendable but will ultimately prove to be ineffective. Running a union by referendum will not work. Direct democracy vs. representative democracy such as USAPA is advocating is ripe with pitfalls that will only serve to confuse and then enrage the members. Will the votes be binding, non binding and who decides? It proves to be an enormously expensive way to govern and it opens up too many opportunities for coalitions with divergent agendas to establish themselves and tie up votes. The whole process will eventually become moribund.
Lots of discussion went into the name USAPA. Since we would only represent the USAirways pilots, what's in a name? It's really about the structure and how we operate as a union. But since you bring up the need to speak to the membership at each member carrier, talk about "moribund", there would not be enough time or "unpaid volunteers" to present a case to each LEC at all the carriers of this association. Now that would be interesting if not impossible. Besides, most LEC meetings are poorly attended and binding votes affecting all LEC pilots are cast by the few. Because as you know, not all of the LEC pilots can be off on the single day of the month for individual LEC meetings.I maintain that the only way to attempt to change the direction of current pilot representation is to establish a union and not an association. ALPA may seem to be a top down organization but the whole seniority integration debacle is proof that it is not. AAA has been asking ALPA to do things that ALPA is not allowed to do. If this were a union then the president could do what your MEC has been asking. The ALPA membership by virtue of their representatives put these policies into place, not national. In order to change things you have to start with the members and work your way up. You've been appealing to the wrong people. Prater, Rice, the EC etc., cannot possibly do what has been asked of them until the membership at each local lobbies their rep who then takes it to their MEC who then takes it on up the chain until it eventually reaches the BOD. That is a bottom up organization and the east has been lobbying the tail end of the donkey.
See above. Once again, it's the structure, not the name.What USAPA is asking for is a union yet they are holding themselves out to be an association which many feel has failed them. Why not look into becoming a union? That is really the only way to quickly deal with and solve the major issues the pilots of this industry are concerned about such as seniority integration and seniority in general.