PineyBob said:
I'm wondering WHY?
Why the need to defend your position in such a condescending and arrogant way?
Not saying the position is wrong but to stand on every letter of ALPA by-laws when the clock is ticking is an interesting manuever.
WHY, if what has been reported here is true, does everyone sit idly by when it appears that 2 members of the so called R/C 4 have pending litigation against ALPA and possibly the company are there no crys of Conflict of Interest?
If the 2 members of the R/C 4 do indeed have pending litigation against ANY of the parties to the negotiations they should as a matter of professional ethics recuse themselves from the negotiations.
Seems to this observer that IF (I don't know who or what to believe) the above is true then ALPA's N/C is populated with members who have the same lack of ethics that all unions claim US Airways has.
Once again no moral high ground for ALPA
[post="177279"][/post]
You might examine the consistency of dealings of both parties when evaluating integrity.
One group of representatives are perhaps being made to answer before the courts for certain actions which depart from existing rules and which contravened the specifically expressed and written wishes of the Pilot group as a whole. As a result, the Pilots were not permitted to determine the fate of their Pension Plan.
Other representative objected to violating the expressed wishes of the Pilot Membership and was overruled. As a result the spirit and intent of the rules, which were designed to protect the membership was placed aside so as to satisfy the special intent of certain MEC representatives. The Pilots lost their Pension because a few Representatives took it upon themselves to enter into an agreement on behalf of the Pilots, ignoring the Membership Mandate for Pilot Ratification.
What’s left of the current, substitute Pension Plan, is now under attack by Airline Executives along with compensation and benefit packages far inferior to LCCs and nearly comparable to the Regional Commuters. These Executives refuse to speak to their own economic sacrifice to the new business plan. Gong so far as to even refuse to present their business plan.
One group of representatives, with consistency of integrity, want to again bypass the established rules for representation and negotiation. Rules designed to bring security, strength and order to the Negotiation Process.
There are obvious reasons why any member of any association in any organization would not want to encourage or reward Management for negotiating directly with employees. By doing so, these Managers inappropriately bypass both the Negotiating Committee and the MEC. If there is no Agreement reached by the Company and the Negotiating Committee, then there is no Agreement which can be presented to the membership for vote. However, if Management recognizes an advantage or benefit by avoiding exposure to the negotiation convention by simply halting the usual Negotiation Process and inserting a mid-course proposal directly to the Membership for an opportunistic probability of strategic gain, then the MEC is doing a great disservice to the Membership for disobeying rules designed to thwart such tactics.
Simply stated, the rules require that only Tentative Agreements be presented to the membership for a vote. This rule demands that Management conduct themselves properly in the Negotiation Process. No one can blame Management for using all the tools and strategies available to them. The employees, however must be resolute in overwhelmingly supporting those Representatives who most consistently represent the wishes of the Membership.
To date, the Pilots of USAirways have had two final offers by Management. Each time, Management has tried to insert these mid-course proposal to the employees. Consistently, the PHL and PIT representatives have instructed the Company that Negotiations will be conducted with the Negotiating Committee. Consistently, Other Representatives have tried to assist the Company in bypassing ALPA Rules. Lately, it seems, in written statements from Airline Executives, we are most likely to once again, get another final offer from Management. That’s fine. At least they are Negotiating with the Negotiating Committee.
Of course, as a matter of Integrity and consistency, there are other Representatives who would assist Management in interrupting the Process of Negotiations –Two final offers ago. Not only do they wish to depart from the rules, they additionally engage in painful, derisive, Public Political Campaigns which undermine the ability of the Negotiating Committee to obtain the best agreement for the Membership within the framework of ALPA laws.
Certain ALPA Representatives, consistently breaching specific rules and policies of the Association by Political Maneuvering. Representatives who hold office for a minority of Pilots. Representatives who are on record for violating the mandate of the Membership and are now defendants in a law suite.
Other ALPA Representatives, operating within the guidelines and spirit of Association rules and policies. These Representatives, who hold office for a vastly greater majority of Pilots. Representatives who were elected by a Majority of Pilots strictly for the purpose for upholding the Mandate of that Majority and following those rules and policies which will protect and defend their desire for fair treatment and good faith Negotiations.
As was stated in the top of this thread. The Mandate of the Majority of the Membership is to vote on a Tentative Agreement. We have none. The PHL and PIT Representatives have suffered unprecedented, viciously staged, public attacks, --A forum of Rage and Insult thrust upon men of reason and integrity. And at the head of the table, is the ALPA Chairman watching the slaughter –Hoping that these Men, representing the Majority of Pilots, will also agree to violate the Mandate of the Pilots. Hoping to send mere proposals to the Membership for ratification. Hoping to abrogate their responsibility to Negotiate an Agreement with the Company in good faith. Hoping to Violate the established Rules of conduct and procedure.
No... There has been no inconsistency in either side. It remains that both sets of Representatives have a consistent definition of Integrity, --Or lack thereof.
