ALPA/USAPA topic of the week

[AAA73Pilot]

Perhaps the point of disagreement is that we are not defining "neutral" the same way. To me a person who is "neutral" has looked at both (or all) sides of an argument and has reached an opinion objectively, as opposed to going in with a predisposition that one side is going to be found right or wrong no matter what. Under this definition, a person can both form an objective opinion that one side is wrong and one side is right on a particular issue, yet still be neutral in that there is no personal benefit to the person one way or the other whatever the final outcome may be.

OK. No problem so far. You looked at things objectively. Maybe you did when USAPA began the card campaign. I joined this board in July. Since I came here you have always been anti east. As for your objectivity prior to July, I don't know.

On the other hand, you seem to be defining "neutral" as "supports the East."

Nope, not at all.

Under your definition of "neutral" it would appear that judges, referees, arbitrators, etc. (or anyone else who may form an opinion about something) can never truly be neutral because as soon as they make a decision you don't agree with their neutrality is, by your definition, irredeemably lost.

You made your decision and continue to stick to it. Good for you. But then don't continue to try to be a neutral in the east vs. west vs. ALPA debate. In your eyes, USAPA is wrong on everything then. So yes, my opinion is you are anti east and will remain so. OK, I can live with that.

 

[b737fo]

Are you serious? "nothing in Mac's message indicated that he was "campaigning".??...and "and nobody has disputed his description."?? :blink:

b737fo: "BTW I hope USAPA's policy is not like you referenced "UNION FIRST, the pilots SECOND". It isn't. The poster's reference was pretty clearly directed towards the obvious priorities so clearly demonstrated by Alpa's recent "Loyalty Oaths" and subsequent Holy Inquisition. Their "priorities" are clearly seen by anyone.

Ah yes the buzz words like "US Airways pilots taking control of their future" and "USAPA will be here for all pilots, East and West"

With USAPA batting a perfect three for three on roadshows in east domiciles it seems apparent where the priorities of representation are. Campaigning or not (it is a mater of one's opinion) at least we see someone trying to think outside of the box in solving our problems.

Oh yeah and I forgot, those poor Council 41 reps were just a victim of an oppressive regime that has absolute and total control over the pilots of AAA.

 

[EastUS]

Ah yes the buzz words like "US Airways pilots taking control of their future" and "USAPA will be here for all pilots, East and West"

With USAPA batting a perfect three for three on roadshows in east domiciles it seems apparent where the priorities of representation are. Campaigning or not (it is a mater of one's opinion) at least we see someone trying to think outside of the box in solving our problems.

Oh yeah and I forgot, those poor Council 41 reps were just a victim of an oppressive regime that has absolute and total control over the pilots of AAA.

How is anyone thinking "outside the box" when all that's offered is essentially: "We can't/wont massage Nic enough for the east, and just hope that supposed money's the answer"? That seems like an old theme that has not played out at all well.

"...were just a victim of an oppressive regime that has absolute and total control over the pilots of AAA"..Not for much longer, thankfully. They've not been able to exercise "total control" just yet..which explains the demanded "Loyalty Oaths", the extraction of elected reps..the subsequent "appointments", and naturally; the refusal to act at all on the recall demands for those in CLT. It'd certainly seem that they're trying like heck to gain total control though..wouldn't it? 😉

 

[AAA73Pilot]

........... the refusal to act at all on the recall demands for those in CLT. It'd certainly seem that they're trying like heck to gain total control though..wouldn't it? 😉

I find it odd that anything that happens on the east property can never seem to satisfy the west. First they claim our elected reps are the problem. OK fine. We try to recall those reps and you hear nothing out of the west in support. "We are in control" is such a joke. ALPA has made it clear that we are in control, so long as it supports Herndon first. Hence support for those reps that are trying their level best to sell out the east pilots under the auspices of National. Not this time!!!

The ALPA C&BL's only apply to those who have sworn allegiance to Prater and National. All else are left to fend for themselves. Why does this not surprise me?

 

[b737fo]

How is anyone thinking "outside the box" when all that's offered is essentially: "We can't/wont massage Nic enough for the east, and just hope that supposed money's the answer"? That seems like an old theme that has not played out at all well.

"...were just a victim of an oppressive regime that has absolute and total control over the pilots of AAA"..Not for much longer, thankfully. They've not been able to exercise "total control"..which explains the extraction of elected reps..the subsequent "appointments", and naturally; the refusal to act at all on the recall demads for those in CLT. It'd certainly seem that they're trying like heck to gain total control though..wouldn't it? 😉

Hmmm. Old themes abound on both sides of the equation and I think your quote should be more like "there is nothing the West could do with seniority that doesn't include complete capitulation".

Oh that is right the extraction of reps with no cause which is why the vote at the EC meeting was so close and then there is the pesky denial of recall attempt in CLT. All signs point to an organized worldwide conspiracy. :huh:

Let's not forget that the AAA MEC has a track record of not honoring signed agreements. While some will use that as a rallying cry around voting ALPA out and USAPA in, I find it more an indictment on the character of those who condone such behavior while believing they hold the higher ground in integrity.

AAA73: Actually the ALPA C&BL apply to all members and the elected reps should lead the way in upholding them. As for the CLT recall attempt, I don't have the resolution in front of me so why would you think you would hear anything out of the West unless if they knew the charges. I don't blindly recall reps just because I may disagree with them.

 

[KTM300]

Bear96 and Boeingboy

As I said earlier, I sat down and spoke to John Mc in the CLT crewroom. If he wasn't there in any official capacity, he wouldn't have been there in the first place. My first observation was that he was politicking. He stood out not because I may have seen his mug, but because he had this huge ALPA AWA nametag, an official ALPA executive lapel pin, an official ALPA badge attached to his offical ALPA lanyard. There was no mistaking what he was there for. His reference to USAPA having anything to do with having him removed bothered me, at least in the context which he used, so I just called the Chief Pilots office in CLT and talked to BB. As I thought, he was asked to leave because what he was doing was against company policy, end of story! Stop trying to twist this to imply USAPA had anything do with his removal

 

[EastUS]

Hmmm. Old themes abound on both sides of the equation and I think your quote should be more like "there is nothing the West could do with seniority that doesn't include complete capitulation".

Oh that is right the extraction of reps with no cause which is why the vote at the EC meeting was so close and then there is the pesky denial of recall attempt in CLT. All signs point to an organized worldwide conspiracy. :huh:

Let's not forget that the AAA MEC has a track record of not honoring signed agreements. While some will use that as a rallying cry around voting ALPA out and USAPA in, I find it more an indictment on the character of those who condone such behavior while believing they hold the higher ground in integrity.

Regardless of the patronizing: "All signs point to an organized worldwide conspiracy.", I'm all ears for hearing your proposed defense of Alpa's recent little fun games. What is it that you imagine that they're doing?

"Let's not forget that the AAA MEC has a track record of not honoring signed agreements." Great...If you say so. Let's throw 'em out...and while we're at it...

"...while believing they hold the higher ground in integrity" Understood. No possible action during all of human history's been more noble than the ready embrace of Nic and Alpa. What conceivably higher degree of "integrity" could ever be found anywhere, than the desire to toss aside and utterly disrespect the experience and work years of others, purely for one's own personal gain? :blink:

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Bear96 and Boeingboy

......... so I just called the Chief Pilots office in CLT and talked to BB. As I thought, he was asked to leave because what he was doing was against company policy, end of story! Stop trying to twist this to imply USAPA had anything do with his removal

As I suspected. Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

AAA73: Actually the ALPA C&BL apply to all members and the elected reps should lead the way in upholding them. As for the CLT recall attempt, I don't have the resolution in front of me so why would you think you would hear anything out of the West unless if they knew the charges. I don't blindly recall reps just because I may disagree with them.

Except in this case. The requested agenda items to recall the CLT reps were ignored by the Chairman. Claiming proper notification. At the Mar. 25th meeting a resolution was to be introduced to recall them. It may still be done. I don't know what will happen. But to duck receiving certified mail is, IMO, a violation of the C&BL's.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

FYI:

March 4, 2008
Interim Communications Chairman Richard Obermeyer

Richard,

After much deliberation, and with mixed emotions, I have decided that it is time for me to step
down as the Pilot-to-Pilot Chairman. Also, effective immediately, I will relinquish my
responsibilities as a member of the Communication Committee which involved duties associated
with website postings, as well as my work as an ALPA Media Spokesman. I feel it would be
appropriate to do so this week as the MEC will be staffing various committees during the 1st
Quarter Meeting.

The decision was a difficult one for me. I have served on various ALPA Committees for more
than 23 years. I believe this MEC has done a great job, considering the cards they have been
dealt. I am proud to have been associated with such a fine group. However, I feel our best
opportunity for success moving forward is to separate ourselves from ALPA National and chart a
new course as a stand-alone Union.

It has been my pleasure working with you!

Respectfully,

James R.

Excellent James!!!

 

[Bear96]

Bear96 and Boeingboy

As I said earlier, I sat down and spoke to John Mc in the CLT crewroom. If he wasn't there in any official capacity, he wouldn't have been there in the first place. My first observation was that he was politicking. He stood out not because I may have seen his mug, but because he had this huge ALPA AWA nametag, an official ALPA executive lapel pin, an official ALPA badge attached to his offical ALPA lanyard. There was no mistaking what he was there for. His reference to USAPA having anything to do with having him removed bothered me, at least in the context which he used, so I just called the Chief Pilots office in CLT and talked to BB. As I thought, he was asked to leave because what he was doing was against company policy, end of story! Stop trying to twist this to imply USAPA had anything do with his removal

I'm not sure if you meant to address that to me or not, since I made no comment about this incident.

(However, now that you have brought me into it, I do think BB's point is valid. It is interesting that some here are supportive of the idea that the company should remove a union official doing union business from company property.)

 

[88 B.T.D.]

Let's not forget that the AAA MEC has a track record of not honoring signed agreements. While some will use that as a rallying cry around voting ALPA out and USAPA in, I find it more an indictment on the character of those who condone such behavior while believing they hold the higher ground in integrity.

There is no signed agreement that has been broken at this time. Voting in the agreement by both sides was allowed in the TA. Pulling out of negotiations was also allowed by the TA after a specified date. The negotiations were a waste of time anyway according to Kirby. (poor mouth)

The lawsuit was a red herring of ALPA MEC to appear tough when the threat of another union was beginning, but again as most of us saw, a waste of time.

With ALPA at an impass USAPA became more of an option to many. Is there something I am missing where an agreement was actually broken?

 

[AAA73Pilot]

With ALPA at an impass USAPA became more of an option to many. Is there something I am missing where an agreement was actually broken?

You're missing nothing. Good points. I have posted before that ALPA is powerless to break the impasse. Hence the trusteeship as the first step.

Heard today that Lance and Marshall are running wild already replacing long standing ALPA volunteers on key committees. It will be a thing to watch as we have absolutely no say in what they do. April 17th can't come soon enough.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

However, now that you have brought me into it, I do think BB's point is valid. It is interesting that some here are supportive of the idea that the company should remove a union official doing union business from company property.

Union west? or Union east? There is a difference. I think you should reread the entire post as to motive. Do you or do you not support equal access for campaigning?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Perhaps the point of disagreement is that we are not defining "neutral" the same way. To me a person who is "neutral" has looked at both (or all) sides of an argument and has reached an opinion objectively, as opposed to going in with a predisposition that one side is going to be found right or wrong no matter what. Under this definition, a person can both form an objective opinion that one side is wrong and one side is right on a particular issue, yet still be neutral in that there is no personal benefit to the person one way or the other whatever the final outcome may be.

On the other hand, you seem to be defining "neutral" as "supports the East."

Under your definition of "neutral" it would appear that judges, referees, arbitrators, etc. (or anyone else who may form an opinion about something) can never truly be neutral because as soon as they make a decision you don't agree with their neutrality is, by your definition, irredeemably lost.

Spoken like a true "liberal". The difference between arbitrators, referees and Judges is that one's decision is appealable and one isn't. All persons are partial to something.

An arbitrator that doesn't use "stare decisis" is why we should NEVER use an arbitrator.

I don't use arbitrators in my contracts.