Originally Posted by
Blockoutblockin
It is hilarious that anytime a L-CAL pilot does not agree with what some L-UAL pilot has to say they are branded as a scab. It's as if L-UAL has eradicated any scab element from their pilot list and hold all others in contempt. What is even more hilarious is how you guys tout such unionistic attributes but seem to be on the losing side of every issue for how long??? It's all very confusing. That is why I pay my dues, attend LC meetings, vote, wear my ALPA pin, and be as professional as I can be. I don't think that makes me a scab now does it. I trust that my LC officers and MEC are doing the right thing and I am thankful for that. I don't look for a conspiracy behind every stone.
Lastly, I have never been junior manned as long as I've been here at L-CAL. The fact that you don't answer the phone is obviously important to you - but I don't care, lol.
The reason we are on the losing side of some battles (as you couch it) is because of exactly the kind of scab-like behavior you condemn us for calling out. Which is it? Are you advocating for the scab-like behavior, or are you condemning it? From your post it almost reads like you're advocating it.
Losing battles that are fought righteously are not losses. Being able to hold one's head high, knowing that you are on the right side, the moral side, is a whole lot better than slinking into bed with your enemy (management) and sucking them off for a few pieces of silver, even if it means that you can run around and brag to your friends with your shiny new money. Truth be told, we know what you did in that bed.
The United pilots do not lambast the CAL pilots. THe United pilots are disgusted with Pierce because of his behavior. Read that again. Because of HIS behavior. He has acted scab-like in abandoning his commitments to the UALMEC, pilots, and the future for ALL of us.
Not sure how long you've been in this game, but if it's been a while, nice pretty statements like paying dues, going to meetings, and trusting your reps, may be motherhood and apple pie, but it demonstrates that one is either naive or intentionally propagandistic. We have seen far too many snake oil salesmen, individuals like Pierce who say, "Trust me," who have sold us out and screwed us over. Ronald Ragan said it best, "Trust but verify." It seems that you would vilify those who subscribe to such a tact which raises the question exactly of "why?" an individual would do that, especially once someone like Pierce outs himself:
1. The defender is a blind Pierce loyalist
2. The defender is naive and living in a pollyana wonderland
3. The defender has an agenda more aligned with management and believes that those reading his drivel will buy it ... infiltration, if you will.
4. The defender is a contrarian and looking for attention
So which is it?