ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[AAA73Pilot]

So when you were criticizing ALPA for trying to maintain that right, you were being, to put it politely, disingenuous? Deceitful? Just what were you trying to accomplish?

Do we have a double standard here for USAPA? If the company comes to USAPA and tries to remove the right for USAPA reps to travel PS on union business, and USAPA tries to stop it, will you criticize USAPA?

Geez. It's a non issue. What is your point?

Like I said you will try to twist anti USAPA rhetoric out of nothing. Honey you would be better served to move on and quit making yourself look like an ........... Your supposed intelligence is failing you here.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Really just one standard Bear - ALPO all bad, USAPA all good.

Jim

Yeah!! You got that right.

 

[EastUS]

Really just one standard Bear - ALPO all bad, USAPA all good.

Jim

Well...at least that has some accurate historical basis to work from. ALPA, in it's inception and earlier times, was a fine organization staffed by caring and tough men. I wish it were the case still..but those days, and that quality of men within the organization, are long since extinct. From anything that I've read and heard about early ALPA..it seems very clear to me that the sorry current crop of bloated, and utterly worthless political hacks in Herndon, have as much in common with "Real ALPA" as do the clowns running amok in DC's various houses of government have with the Founding Fathers.

It's fine to be a member of an honored, and once feared division. It's of little use if the only thing sadly left of said unit's the name, and the current crop of "warriors" run shrieking at the sound of the first shot on any actual Field. I'm still open to hearing about ANY great Alpa "victories" in recent years that you might care to mention. What would truly help teh ALpa cause at this point's not some adolescent fear-mongering-FUD, but rather a list of noteworthy accomplishments for the line pilots. Ummm...Got any?...ANY at all?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You see - I don't disagree with that at all. I just take it one step further in the cases where the pilots voted. Enough went along with what they were told (they jumped too, in other words), or at least enough did that the concession passed. You can certainly say they were led along.....like sheep to the slaughter. But not everyone - there were no votes too - so who's at fault when pilot's don't think for themselves or worse yet don't even care enough to vote.



Any method that is accepted, grudgingly or not, works. You could do it alphabetically, by age, by hair color, SS number, whatever, and as long as it was accepted it'd work. Any method can also be declared unworkable by a group that thinks they're adversely affected.

The problem comes, as always, when a solution that was accepted as working before suddenly becomes unworkable depending strictly on who thinks they got the short end of the stick.

Jim

No, I don't really agree with this. There are systems which are inherently fair and understood by all. Go to an elementary school and ask any third grader. They'll agree and understand that experience and longevity (long words for third graders, but it's the concept here that's important) should equate to more priveleges, just like 4th graders are given more priveleges than third graders. ALPA, by trying to redefine what constitutes seniority by coming up with odd, complicated formulas based on size, shape, survivability, etc just makes the system unworkable. It's also the backbone of American unionism. Unions have based everything on the concept that experience (airmanship) equates to a more marketable position and higher wages/benefits.

I agree that one should keep the job that one brought to the merger. But once the merger occurs, you cannot go back and say that one should have more or less because of some nebulous reason. It's obvious that the purchaser saw some value of purchasing the other company, and that there is really no way to "forecast" what would have happened at either company at some hypothetical time in the future. The only really FAIR way to merge the two companies is to use the UNIVERSAL fairness rule, seniority, as defined by Merriam-Webster.

If there's anything we as pilots should have learned over the past 8 years is that ANYTHING can happen, and that the truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Post #122
b737fo
Advanced
Group: Registered Member
Posts: 206
Joined: 8-May 07
Member No.: 11,332

QUOTE (EastUS @ Mar 12 2008, 10:23 AM)
Well..We most certainly didn't ever get ANY "support" from the west "Fellow Pilots" in Alpo, so I guess we'll never know....

In any case; That was then..This is now. It's time for some changes. QUOTE


Let's not distort reality Mr. EastUS. To say that the West did not give ANY support is not accurate. The West MEC was in full support and agreed with the East MEC stance on positive space travel for union travel.

I told you Bear you would find a way to twist this into an anti USAPA diatribe. The original conversation started as support from the west, but specifically on pay parity. Followed by b373fo's above post on positive space support as the only thing coming from the west. How it got twisted to anti USAPA by you and your continuing diatribe is what is disingenuous. Get over it. We know where you stand. Next. Again.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Wrong, as usual.

The correct response..........

Excuse me? You're speaking for us now?

You are too funny. It took me a while to figure you out. My fault for playing your game.

Have a nice evening.

 

[EastUS]

Wrong, as usual.

The correct response from EastUS

MS Bear..Should the day ever dawn that I feel the need to rely on your judgement for what any "Correct response" from me should be...I'll spare society of the further burden of my presence

Points given..It's been fun.

Have a good evening.

 

[usabusdriver]

Yet isn't that how USAPA is set up - the pilots in a base elect their reps (insert correct terminology) and the reps vote. Yes - roll call votes mean issues must go to the membership, certain issues require a membership vote - but not much different from what you claim is so wrong with the present system - you didn't get a vote on every single issue. Seems to me your real complaint is what issues you didn't gat to vote on rather than how the MEC is elected.

PS - personally, I'd replace the "roll call requires a membership vote" thing with ironclad and comprehensive language on what issues require a membership vote - like any (and I mean any) contract changes. None of that wishy-washy "if it materially affects pay and working conditions" nonsense. Why? The roll call is just a protective measure to prevent several small bases having control of the "MEC" thru their senatorial voting power - it's like rolling the U.S. House and Senate into one. The issue being decided seems much more relevant to mandatory membership vote than whether the MEC decides something minor by senatorial or roll call vote.

Jim

Jim,

The ALPA structure has been around a long time and does a relatively good job at representing the different councils in the MEC.

One thing to ponder. The MEC Chairman and Vice Chair are elected by the MEC, and therefore work at the pleasure of and are beholden to the MEC, which is a good thing. If the MEC Chairman or Vice Chairman decides to do something that is different than the direction the MEC has established, because of their belief that he/she has a mandate from the pilot group since “they elected me didn’t theyâ€￾, chaos is sure to reign.

 

[CactusFlyr]

Only if you say so.

I come up with a lot original stuff when warranted. Your problem is you can never tell the difference. Besides, I get really tired of having to repeat myself to people who don't like or agree with what I say. But if you want answers that I know, why don't you ask something original instead of repeating the same old line phrased a thousand different ways. Kind of like the ALPA web boards. It does get old.

We all know our sides, do you really think you're going to sway opinions to your side with FUDS?

I will give credit where it's due. Jim, BoeingBoy, did point out a vote that I either missed or simply forgot. That was good and I appreciated him bringing it up. I'll do the same for you, but right now you haven't even come close.

Sorry, I am just here for the entertainment.

 

[EastUS]

Or that it worked but just didn't go the way you thought it should? If this is the case, the AFA/IAM/etc seniority didn't "work" by your definition since there are undoubtedly some West folks that don't think those should have been DOH. Remember the West AFA trying to change AFA merger policy?

Or maybe a third choice - what "works" is whatever meets your definition of the right way to do it. Doesn't fit your definition it's unworkable.

Jim

"Just to be sure - you're saying that pilots are incapable of thinking for themselves, so just do what they're told by their ALPO "handlers? Sorta like a trained monkey?"

By no means. THAT would be classic Alpoid thought..which came quickly, and with surprising ease to YOUR mind I'll properly note It is my feeling that people must be informed to make intelligent choices. That requires a completely different approach than we can always depend on ALpa to provide. Just witness the current FUD campaign/etc for example.

"Just to be sure again, you're saying that the Shuttle integration didn't work? " I made no recent mention of the shuttle issue, and you know that I was EAL, and supported DOH for them in any case. Ah..good sir..is it indeed your turn to make pretenses towards being "ingenious" tonight? I'd thought you above all such Sigh...life is full of disappointments it seems. You may find yourself sliding off Mount Pompous in short order should you follow this line of thought.

"since there are undoubtedly some West folks that don't think those should have been DOH." Agreed. Some are certainly not fully pleased, BUT; you'll notice ZERO open revolt occurring from DOH....PERIOD.

"Or maybe a third choice - what "works" is whatever meets your definition of the right way to do it. Doesn't fit your definition it's unworkable" Neg. "What works" must actually WORK in the real world/light of day. Alpa "Merger policy" clearly doesn't. Alpa should properly take care of such issues without the need for revolution, or resorting to Von Clausewitz for guidance. Instead..Alpa established the very basis for the contemporary conflict, and they need to GO...

 

[Phoenix]

I'm still open to hearing about ANY great Alpa "victories" in recent years that you might care to mention. What would truly help teh ALpa cause at this point's not some adolescent fear-mongering-FUD, but rather a list of noteworthy accomplishments for the line pilots. Ummm...Got any?...ANY at all?

"Me.. Me.. Me.. pick me" (raises hand to respond to question)

"I have something that an ALPA rep did really well and I can say it was a success. It happened a number of years ago in CLT. Yeah, can you believe something good happening in CLT!?!
But really, I am serious, one of the CLT reps did something awesome. I won't tell you his name but I will tell you that he is now one of the interim CLT reps for USAPA.

ALPA -1
USAPA +1

 

[usabusdriver]

It depends on the timing and makeup of the class. If the people in the class are CEL guys, they could be eligible to vote but were off the property until class time. Or they could be off the street as new hires and if they fly one revenue trip after IOE then they too will become eligible to vote before polls close. Unlike some posters from the west, the guy handing out USAPA lanyards may have become educated on the issues and believes in USAPA. You and I weren't there so we will never know what actually transpired. But brainwashing? Your trying to give us way too much credit. Thanks though.

AAA737,

To vote in the upcoming representation election, a pilot must have been eligible on Nov 13, 2007.

 

[ableoneable]

Really just one standard Bear - ALPO all bad, USAPA all good.

Jim

I think Jim has it down here.

The Behavior Matrix

Union: ___________USAPA____________/__________ALPA

Action: You Name it.

Reason: __________Good_____________/___________Evil


Simply type any activity; talking to pilots, issuing press releases, talking to management, whatever, into the "Action" column and the data processor will feed it through the dynamic matrix and determine the cause/effect of and for the action.

 

[Phoenix]

AAA737,

To vote in the upcoming representation election, a pilot must have been eligible on Nov 13, 2007.

Speaking of voting, isn't the NMB mailing out bidding instructions with an example before the actual election on the 20th? Did anyone receive their instructions yet?

 

[BoeingBoy]

One thing to ponder. The MEC Chairman and Vice Chair are elected by the MEC, and therefore work at the pleasure of and are beholden to the MEC, which is a good thing. If the MEC Chairman or Vice Chairman decides to do something that is different than the direction the MEC has established, because of their belief that he/she has a mandate from the pilot group since “they elected me didn’t theyâ€￾, chaos is sure to reign.

As I understand it, USAPA will have direct election of the officers - meaning in theory they represent the whole pilot group while any rep only represents a fractrion. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might think that method was chosen to make sure that East pilots would hold the officer positions - but that certainly can't be the case. Anyway, hopefully chaos won't reign because of the direct election.

But I appreciate your point - the MEC officers should be doing the MEC's bidding, not the other way around. Of course, it hopefully goes without saying that the MEC should be doing the pilot's bidding - although once you get over 2 or 3 pilots there'll be disagreement on what their bidding should be.

In my comments I've tried to make a clear distinction between the MEC members and the officers, mainly because the officers don't have a vote unless they happen to be a rep also. So in theory their view doesn't count for much anyway, other than through the power of the pulpit, unless theres's a tie vote of the MEC when the MEC chairman breaks the tie.

One problem (maybe the primary one) has been, at least from my observation of the East MEC, that the officers and some reps develop a too cozy relationship - they start to do each other's bidding and seem to forget about the pilots. When those "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" relationships develop, it all to easy for those involved to start to believe that looking out for each other is all that matters.

Jim