Why is PHX Fleet Service run different than the other Hubs

[necigrad]

There are some leads who if they knew had agents that would pull the load and start loading on their own wouldn't bother to come out to the gate until the flight was ready to push.

And those are the lead that need to be disciplined. Along with the rampers in other cities that sit in the break room while the lead sets up the gate.

When PHX switched over to Sabre they felt it was only necessary to train leads on how to use it; it didn't make sense to make Sabre training mandatory for 800 agents because few would have been interested in learning it and it would have been a huge pain in the back for everybody. Since only leads knew Sabre, it didn't make any sense to train new hires on it, and there was no reason to unless any of them later wanted to become leads.

I'll give you another reason it won't work. I was a lead with HP. I took the two SABRE classes that were offered before the FOS/DECS switch. I haven't done one of those entries since. The last flight I planned was in MAPPER. I don't remember any of the SABRE entries due to lack of use, but I can still probably plan a flight in MAPPER in under a minute, two if it's got weight issues.

Well said. Didn't it used to be that at AWA you needed at least the recommendation of a manager and certain number of years worked before going lead?

Depended on the time and station. In LAS, pre union yes, post union it was simply seniority. Realistically in LAS they were so hard up for the bodies if you could breathe and pass the class you were a lead. If you were a good lead (even with the union) you were expected to show up for your shift; a poor lead and sicks, lates, and no shows were fine. It was always situational.

 

[necigrad]

ND needs to get votes and they know it! They know there will be accountability for 4 years of cowering and blatant neglectful representation. So now they want to give PHX it's due attention? Please... I hope the members in PHX see through this political move and refuse to be fooled again.

Here's a thought. How about everyone ignore the slates. They are simply recommendations from people who have self anointed themselves as smarter then the masses telling you who to vote for. If you like RD vote for him, if not vote for TN or someone else. Like PR as an AGC? Vote for him, if not, vote for someone else. We don't vote tickets here, we vote individuals.

 

[Jester]

Here's a thought. How about everyone ignore the slates. They are simply recommendations from people who have self anointed themselves as smarter then the masses telling you who to vote for. If you like RD vote for him, if not vote for TN or someone else. Like PR as an AGC? Vote for him, if not, vote for someone else. We don't vote tickets here, we vote individuals.

I agree... I feel as if we are choosing too much like a Parliamentarian system of voting for the party, instead of the competency of the individual, and I believe it allows us as voters to become lazy in our choices. Hard to believe that in this nation once had voting ballots for elected officials would have a picture of a donkey or elephant on the top, and to circle one allowed for a straight ticket of voting for only the candidates in that party, as it was a way for the lazy or the illiterate to vote. Are the candidates on the various slates that radically different in their views from each other in providing services to the people they represent, unlike a political party where the policies may vary to a large extent?

If someone has demonstrated a strong experience and support to the Membership in the past, then vote for that person regardless if it was from Canale's team, New Direction, Occupy or any other person on a slate or independent. Someone posted about how if one picks 20 people to a slate, there are bound to be a couple "bad apples"... frankly, let's avoid all the "bad apples" by getting to know the candidates, and whoever is elected will need to work with each other for the betterment of the Membership.

So Suggests Jester.

 

[ograc]

I agree... I feel as if we are choosing too much like a Parliamentarian system of voting for the party, instead of the competency of the individual, and I believe it allows us as voters to become lazy in our choices. Hard to believe that in this nation once had voting ballots for elected officials would have a picture of a donkey or elephant on the top, and to circle one allowed for a straight ticket of voting for only the candidates in that party, as it was a way for the lazy or the illiterate to vote. Are the candidates on the various slates that radically different in their views from each other in providing services to the people they represent, unlike a political party where the policies may vary to a large extent?

If someone has demonstrated a strong experience and support to the Membership in the past, then vote for that person regardless if it was from Canale's team, New Direction, Occupy or any other person on a slate or independent. Someone posted about how if one picks 20 people to a slate, there are bound to be a couple "bad apples"... frankly, let's avoid all the "bad apples" by getting to know the candidates, and whoever is elected will need to work with each other for the betterment of the Membership.

So Suggests Jester.

Jester,
Going forward I agree completely. The membership needs to review each candidate's years of experience and dedication, as it pertains to the position their running for, before deciding who gets their vote. This, in fact may mean crossing teams, slates or whatever else you want to call them. The questions are will the membership, as a whole, be willing to take the due diligence necessary to make an educated decision or choose to nominate and vote for whomever they are told? Will they shed the apathy, realize their vote has a direct impact on the level of representation they get, become engaged and show up to vote?

 

[PHX Devil]

The problem with the voting process is the district by laws. During the last election cycle PHX had about 70 votes that didn't count because the voter failed to vote for all 10 agc spots. This is why slates exist.

Change will not happen until we fix the by laws to allow the voter to vote for whoever they want and they shouldn't have their vote tossed if they choose to only vote for 2 agc's
We should also change the by laws so us air only votes for the us air agc's. I don't want united to decide who is my agc and i'm sure they don't want us deciding theirs.

 

[necigrad]

frankly, let's avoid all the "bad apples" by getting to know the candidates

The membership needs to review each candidate's years of experience and dedication, as it pertains to the position their running for, before deciding who gets their vote. This, in fact may mean crossing teams, slates or whatever else you want to call them. The questions are will the membership, as a whole, be willing to take the due diligence necessary to make an educated decision or choose to nominate and vote for whomever they are told? Will they shed the apathy, realize their vote has a direct impact on the level of representation they get, become engaged and show up to vote?

Actually, the question is "Will the candidates make themselves and/or their qualifications and beliefs available to the membership." The membership can't be responsible unless the candidates show why they are the best candidates. Seeing a brief summary of each person is nice, but useless. Each candidate should be able to provide at least 150-250 words on why they are right for the job. Also, note that I'm only saying why they're right, not why an opponent is wrong. Those childish games should be left to the Federally elected politicians, who (I hope like hell) are less mature then those who may be running for DL positions.

 

[ograc]

The problem with the voting process is the district by laws. During the last election cycle PHX had about 70 votes that didn't count because the voter failed to vote for all 10 agc spots. This is why slates exist.

Change will not happen until we fix the by laws to allow the voter to vote for whoever they want and they shouldn't have their vote tossed if they choose to only vote for 2 agc's
We should also change the by laws so us air only votes for the us air agc's. I don't want united to decide who is my agc and i'm sure they don't want us deciding theirs.

PHX Devil,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any language in the DL 141 bylaws that states, if you don't vote for the number of AGC Candidates up for election, your ballot is considered void. Your second point is very intriguing and has a lot of merit. This suggestion should be considered carefully going forward. Unfortunately, in this upcoming election, the ground rules have already been established.
ograc

 

[PHX Devil]

PHX Devil,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any language in the DL 141 bylaws that states, if you don't vote for the number of AGC Candidates up for election, your ballot is considered void. Your second point is very intriguing and has a lot of merit. This suggestion should be considered carefully going forward. Unfortunately, in this upcoming election, the ground rules have already been established.
ograc

During the 2010 vote we were told to vote for all 10 AGC spots or the ballot won't count. Afterwards, I found out that around 70 ballots were thrown out for that reason. I never looked into why, I assumed it was a district rule but it may be an Grand Lodge rule, if it is true it needs to be changed. As far as voting for our own AGC for each airline I believe that should be pushed hard by all tickets. That rule would be similar to asking AZ voters to vote for senate candidates for NY. I don't know what issues they have or even how the UA AGC's are doing. As far as I know they could all be MC's. Doing this could also guarantee that usair has representation. If we win the pce vote, who knows, someone from UA might form a ticket with all UA people and what could we do about it? Nothing because we would be out numbered.

The main problem with the voting rules in this district is that they are set up to keep the incumbents in office. It is really hard to even get nominated with forming a slate.

 

[necigrad]

I was asked by someone to post this. If you don't like the way voting works (i.e. must vote for all slots) you need to get four local lodges to endorse a change to be considered.

 

[700UW]

Not voting for all the slots on a ballot is called bullet voting, its against the IAM Constitution, so a district or local lodge bylaw supporting bullet voting would not be approved by the Grand Lodge.

 

[ograc]

I was asked by someone to post this. If you don't like the way voting works (i.e. must vote for all slots) you need to get four local lodges to endorse a change to be considered.

necigrad,
whomever asked you to post this needs to slow down. we have not yet established where this requirement comes from. It is certainly not in the DL 141 bylaws. i believe a premature remedy, as offered by your "someone" is misleading. The statement could turn out to be false, or at the very least, unobtainable. What is certain is the request could be self promoting. Be careful.

 

[necigrad]

I was asked to pass it on, so I did. I fail to see how any "self promoting" could be suggested; you don't know who it was, and proposing a change affects everyone, setting aside that nothing will happen this year about this anyway. I'm rather positive no one has decided yet about running after 2012. Personally, whoever decided one must vote for all positions was a total moron. You don't establish a voting system where you force people to vote for someone they might not want. It actually disenfranchises anyone that's not in those little ticket circles that actually know their own slate. If it's wrong, it's wrong, but I disagree that it's "unobtainable". Every Constitution I've seen for many organizations has a mechanism to revise the Constitution and Bylaws. There's a way, I guarantee it.

700UW, I've got no idea where it is, just passing it along. If the info is wrong, it's wrong. Being that I have yet to be provided with a set of Local, District, or International Bylaws or Constitution I couldn't possibly know the correct answer. At least the TWU still sends me their magazine (which I promptly recycle).

 

[niblet]

I was asked to pass it on, so I did. I fail to see how any "self promoting" could be suggested; you don't know who it was, and proposing a change affects everyone, setting aside that nothing will happen this year about this anyway. I'm rather positive no one has decided yet about running after 2012. Personally, whoever decided one must vote for all positions was a total moron. You don't establish a voting system where you force people to vote for someone they might not want. It actually disenfranchises anyone that's not in those little ticket circles that actually know their own slate. If it's wrong, it's wrong, but I disagree that it's "unobtainable". Every Constitution I've seen for many organizations has a mechanism to revise the Constitution and Bylaws. There's a way, I guarantee it.

700UW, I've got no idea where it is, just passing it along. If the info is wrong, it's wrong. Being that I have yet to be provided with a set of Local, District, or International Bylaws or Constitution I couldn't possibly know the correct answer. At least the TWU still sends me their magazine (which I promptly recycle).

I agree with your statement. I also looked in the constitution and I can't find that rule. Article III states that failure to vote for the required number of candidates shall invalidate the vote for that office, committee or delegation.

 

[ograc]

I agree with your statement. I also looked in the constitution and I can't find that rule. Article III states that failure to vote for the required number of candidates shall invalidate the vote for that office, committee or delegation.

niblet,
You are in fact correct. The requirement does indeed come from the International's Constitution. Article III states .. "a failure to vote for the the required number of candidates shall invalidate the vote for that office, committee or delegation." Therefore, it is not a District 141 bylaw, but in fact, governed by the IAM Constitution. Changing language in the IAM constitution is a whole different arena. It involves a majority of the Delegates at the International's convention to approve such a change. Keep in mind, the IAM's Convention includes all members of the IAM not just the airline industry. I should not have stated it was "unobtainable". In reality it is a long reach. For the record, this is not a DL 141 bylaw requirement, but a requirement set forth by the IAM Constitution.

 

[niblet]

niblet,
You are in fact correct. The requirement does indeed come from the International's Constitution. Article III states .. "a failure to vote for the the required number of candidates shall invalidate the vote for that office, committee or delegation." Therefore, it is not a District 141 bylaw, but in fact, governed by the IAM Constitution. Changing language in the IAM constitution is a whole different arena. It involves a majority of the Delegates at the International's convention to approve such a change. Keep in mind, the IAM's Convention includes all members of the IAM not just the airline industry. I should not have stated it was "unobtainable". In reality it is a long reach. For the record, this is not a DL 141 bylaw requirement, but a requirement set forth by the IAM Constitution.

True but it reads only that the office voted for becomes in valid. Not the whole vote. I heard the DOL has pulled out of the election? My nominations are,nt until The 14th. So I can't verify that until then. The International is a whole other ball game. I've tried to get them to rethink the dues structure, to no avail. We tried as L.L.1852 and as L.L.368. So going after the Internantional takes a lot of politics from the Local and District levels. If you go to the Convention let me knw and I might join you there.I'm not afraid of making a statement.