This, For The If-you-don't-like-it, Leave Guys

[cavalier]

I find it reprehensible that there are people on this board suggesting that they'd put other people out of work just to "stick it to the man." It's selfish, hypocritical behavior.

I would say you and the captain believe anyone who is voting NO is not using reason or sound judgment. I would also say you believe this way because of the way you were raised and educated; it’s your perception of the way things are. Obviously you see the world differently than the majority of U employees voting NO. It’s sort of like our political leaders who believe being politically correct is sound judgment, that treating terrorists that are in prison as though that are at a retreat and treating them as kings and “suggestingâ€￾ to the terrorist to spill their guts about further attacks will actually bring forth secret and helpful information to stop terrorism.

All these boards do is clarify that people think differently, on completely different levels for a variety of reasons and will never think exactly the same. They show why there are wars, conflict, strife, injustice, why we have the rich and the poor, the generous and the greedy, the leaders and the followers.

Your comment about a NO voter being selfish is enough to stop all this nonsense debating because never shall the twain meet, never will all minds come together on this issue of YES/NO and the reasoning behind it. “Sticking it to the manâ€￾ is just your perception of another man’s reasoning that seems perfectly logically to him yet insanity to you.

I have had a dog now for over ten years, he is a very intelligent breed, listens to most commands and has his own personality, but I will never really truly understand his inner most thoughts and he will always twist his head in confusion when I ask him a logical question. This is what I see on these boards of back and forth debates trying to convince the other guy why his logic is flawed and never really understanding the other guys’ perspective.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

Even when certain groups at US were non-union the layoffs were always last hired-first fired.

Of course this is a perspective issue.

I was in my department (non-union) (MX related) at U for 3 years and learned through experience how to get the job done in the most efficent manner possible.

We had another person come into the department with 10 years with the company and no experience for this specific job at hand. With cut in the other departments this person was placed there. In 91' the company changed the policy from departmental seniority to company seniority. Resulting in my 1st lay-off with the company. In my opinion this was one of the major blunders of upper management. Experience at the job NOT company seniorty should have been the driving force for non-contract employees. Now if you had company time over the person getting the axe your perspective is different than mine but time and money lost in the learning curve you can't get back.

U trained me and gave me the skills to do the job I do in MX support. Now I am over here at WN skills in hand and I am saving WN revenue instead of U.

 

[cavalier]

Of course this is a perspective issue.

I was in my department (non-union) (MX related) at U for 3 years and learned through experience how to get the job done in the most efficent manner possible.

We had another person come into the department with 10 years with the company and no experience for this specific job at hand. With cut in the other departments this person was placed there. In 91' the company changed the policy from departmental seniority to company seniority. Resulting in my 1st lay-off with the company. In my opinion this was one of the major blunders of upper management. Experience at the job NOT company seniorty should have been the driving force for non-contract employees. Now if you had company time over the person getting the axe your perspective is different than mine but time and money lost in the learning curve you can't get back.

U trained me and gave me the skills to do the job I do in MX support. Now I am over here at WN skills in hand and I am saving WN revenue instead of U.

Looks like you benefited big time by your perception of flaws at U because without those flaws you too would be afraid to buy the new car or refrigerator, now you can buy a boat if you choose.

 

[mweiss]

I would say my comment has more truth in it then yours that it was all Mr Lakefields idea.

Now, hang on there. I said he's doing the right stuff, and he is. I never said they were his ideas, and frankly I don't care if they are his or not. What matters is that they're being done at all. To then get uppity and complain that they're not his ideas smacks of looking for excuses.

So you propose a world, country, Usairways with no imperfections?

I guess, in a sense. Whether the current system is OK shouldn't preclude me or anyone else pointing out some of the nastier flaws, should it?

The primary reason popular vote wasn't wasn't used was out of concern that voters would only select candidates from their state without adequate information about candidates outside of their own state.

That's a reason, but not necessarily the primary one. There was also a desire to balance the House member concept with the Senate member concept.

Actually the members of the electoral college for each state are selected by the party that wins the majority vote of that state.

True for 49 states and DC, but not universally true and certainly not by any national legal mandate. Each state is given the power to determine how the electors are determined. New Hampshire, I believe, is the one that allocates the electors proportionally, while the others are winner-take-all.

You are the selfish one to limit people right to vote because you think one way or another.

I don't recall saying I wish to limit people's rights to vote, whether in national elections or in unions. What I wish is that people vote with a conscience, looking at more than their microscopic viewpoint when placing that vote. Otherwise, elections can boil down to larger groups of people banding together to stick it to smaller groups of people...much as it appears our national system is devolving into.

If you don't like what Congress does then change it.

Because they work for you. You elect them, and you have the power to remove them from office.

It seems your idea of standing up and fighting for something is to tell people that you don't agree with to either change their vote or pick up and quit.

As I said before, US Airways is not a democracy, nor is it a republic. When one lives in a dictatorship, one's choices are to accept the rules of the dictatorship or leave (and in East Germany it proved to be increasingly difficult to do even that).

That my friend is a sad thing but its your choice and go ahead and fight to change it but remember you will have to live with it and sometime you will be on the other side.

Hah. I've been on that other side. You do what you can. You tell the people in charge that the ship will sink if they don't fix it. Then, ultimately, if they ignore you, you have no recourse but to accept it or leave. You cannot force them to change their minds or behaviors. I wasted valuable time and energy trying to force the changes to happen. It is impossible. They either get it or they don't, and there's nothing you can do short of a hostile takeover to change that.

 

[mweiss]

I would say you and the captain believe anyone who is voting NO is not using reason or sound judgment.

I would say you're confusing me with an Airbus pilot. There are plenty of reasons why someone might use reason and/or sound judgement to come to the conclusion that it is best to vote no. However, I don't think that the suggestion that I've heard here a few times, that the reason to do it is to shut the company down and "stick it to the man," is using reason or sound judgement. It's a very different statement than saying that everyone who votes no is irrational.

 

[cavalier]

I would say you're confusing me with an Airbus pilot. There are plenty of reasons why someone might use reason and/or sound judgement to come to the conclusion that it is best to vote no. However, I don't think that the suggestion that I've heard here a few times, that the reason to do it is to shut the company down and "stick it to the man," is using reason or sound judgement. It's a very different statement than saying that everyone who votes no is irrational.

I apologize for lumping you with the captain; I can see why that would irritate you.

Dio presented all the reasons in the world for the NO vote yet we see this thread continue onward with people trying to explain that is not sound thinking.

When does one say enough before he makes a stand to risk it all? Right now is that time and what the NO voters are doing.

God Bless Them All.

 

[PITbull]

I just put myself in the shoes of an employee who would be willing to take the concessions rather than look elsewhere. If that employee were to be denied an opportunity because of people who voted no so that they'd have a last chance to "stick it to the man," that'd be a real tragedy.

Now, if there are almost no "yes" votes, that's one thing. But if the vote is really close, then it's a travesty of justice. It'd be the equivalent of letting non-US-citizens vote in an election, since the people who are "no-and-out-the-door" are effectively nonemployees at the time of the balloting.

Mweiss,

And what country have you been living in that the minority who vote YES should rule the bloody day vs. majority?


In the United States....majority who elect to vote is the fairest system...obviously, you don't understand that YET!!!!!!

 

[PITbull]

And, as a final note, I am not naive enough to believe that the concessions alone would save the airline. But it appears that Lakefield is doing the right stuff so far.

mweiss,

Lakefield is doing what he is told! The PLAN is Dave S. And his hinchmen are all still on the property controling all outcomes.

Lakefield is a "figure head" and his presence makes the "ALPA" feel good about giving again...LOL......

The whole thing is out of a "script" for the movies. Everyone plays their part very-well and their characters are believable...they even have you fooled again!

Lakefield worked for Leehman Brothers for over 25 years. He has never dealt with unions on any working level, and doesn't know how to respond or interact with organized labor groups. When AFA met with him and management for the NEW PLAN "slide presentation"....he stayed a whole 10 minutes and left the scene. I think he was worried about anyone asking him serious questions about our airline and didn't want to be caught with his pants down.

 

[mweiss]

And what country have you been living in that the minority who vote YES should rule the bloody day vs. majority?

Perhaps you should read what I wrote this time...

In the United States....majority who elect to vote is the fairest system...obviously, you don't understand that YET!!!!!!

Funny, because in many cases in this country, yes, the United States, majority vote does not rule the day, including in our government...obviously, you don't understand that.

Here's a good document for you to read. It tells a great deal about how it works in this country. And, no, I'm not saying this to be patronizing...it's something everyone in this country should read periodically.

 

[local 12 proud]

as they say pitbull "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" lakefield knew he would be grilled, so a fast exit screen left was only fitting.

 

[PITbull]

mweiss,

What are you...looney tunes today??????

Whether the vote is on a "roll call" in Congress or goes to the Senate for a senatorial vote....there are processes in place where ULTIMATELY, ULTIMATELY, ULTIMATELY....THE representatives for every state vote on behalf of their constituients...IF THEY DON'T THEY GET THROWN OUT OF OFFICE WHEN ELECTION COMES AROUND WHERE THE MAJORITY IN THE RESPECTIVE STATES "RULE THE BLOODY DAY"!

PS: Watch come November what happens to Rick Santorum who voted DOWN extending unemployment benefits....it lost by one vote and his azzet is grass in November in PA. Can't wait to cast my vote!

I guess, I could leave the state instead...according to your thinking...

 

[mweiss]

What are you...looney tunes today??????

Since obviously you can't be bothered to read, I'll respond for the benefit of the others here who can.

Majority rule is an oft-misunderstood concept in the US government. First of all, while everyone gets to vote for their representatives, the power of one's vote in the House differs significantly from the power of one's vote in the Senate. In the Senate, sparsely-populated states have disproportionately powerful votes on a per-capita basis, while in the House, densely-populated states have disproportionately powerful votes on a per-state basis (though this assumes that states tend to behave more homogeneously than they really do).

But that's not all. Many bills require supermajorities to pass. In California, for instance, a tax increase requires a supermajority of 2/3. In the US House and Senate, 2/3 supermajorities are required for constitutional amendments. Similarly, a 2/3 supermajority is required for impeachment conviction in the Senate. Breaking a filibuster requires a 3/5 supermajority.

And, of course, as we have been reminded in 2000, majority doesn't carry the day with the presidential election, except by a very narrow definition that is a far cry from the generally-accepted definition of majority rule.

Anyway, I didn't mean to get us into the weeds here. Fundamentally, my point was, and remains, that US Airways is in no way, shape, or form a democracy. Never has been, and never will be. And, therefore, basing one's decisions on an assumption that US Airways is a democracy is misguided at best. There are plenty of fine reasons to vote either way on concessions, but that isn't one of them.

 

[PITbull]

Mweiss,

You think I can't read; like I think YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE CONCEPTS AND LOGIC.

In government....MAJORITY DOES RULE....there are different measurements of majority, but nonetheless, its still has to be the majority (Bigger majority or 50% plus 1.

Here's a concept that slipped your mind....

In organized labor, it makes no difference whether companys act democratically, or not, unions DO! Unions apply the democratic principles into their structure and RHAT IS HOW THEY RUN THEIR BUSINESS.

Companies who deal with unions on the property have to wait for THE VOTE They can like it or lump it! B)

PS: I don't know about you, but in our state, and locality we have at many times taken votes by referendum. You should at least understand this process since you come from Californeea.

 

[PITbull]

Mweiss,

BTW, Companies DO apply democratic priniciples as well. he BOD of companies along with their stock holders do vote as well. BOD members prsent agenda items, business plans that MUST be voted on by the BOD and also sent out to the stockholders for their vote.

 

[mweiss]

You think I can't read;

Nope. I think you choose not to read. Big difference.

In government....MAJORITY DOES RULE....there are different measurements of majority, but nonetheless, its still has to be the majority (Bigger majority or 50% plus 1.

Well, you probably won't read this either, but for those who care to see if her statement is factual, check out Merriam-Webster's definition of majority.

Here's a concept that slipped your mind....
In organized labor, it makes no difference whether companys act democratically, or not, unions DO! Unions apply the democratic principles into their structure and RHAT IS HOW THEY RUN THEIR BUSINESS.

Here's a concept that slipped your mind, but really, really shouldn't, all things considered. None of the unions run US Airways, despite their greatest desires to do so. They have the power to bully those who do into doing things, but that no more means that a FA has a vote in how the business is run than it means that you have a vote in when Iraq holds elections.

PS: I don't know about you, but in our state, and locality we have at many times taken votes by referendum. You should at least understand this process since you come from Californeea.

And, in California, even an initiative to raise taxes requires a 2/3 majority. That amendment to the California State Constitution was passed in 1978 as part of the Jarvis-Gann initiative (often referred to as Proposition 13).