Originally Posted by
hamfisted
Sleepy...appreciate your feedback and standing by your decision. Since ALPA has for years been opposed to the Age 60 increase for "safety reasons", how can they oppose more stringent physical testing for those over 65 if this legislation comes to be allowing Age 65 becoming the standard? That makes no sense at all. Also; how and why can ALPA FDX justify not only going against what would probably be an overwhelming majority of their own pilots but ALPA National as well?
It is not practical to cite previous agreements that use the possibly soon outdated age of 60 to justify retroactivity. Age 60 was the Law of the Land when pilots understood it was their time to either retire or go to the back seat; with no expectation of possibly moving back to the front seat. As such our bylaws reflected the lack of difference between Age 60, seniority and moving to the back seat. They moved to the back seat, lost their "front seat seniority" and began using an FE seniority number. It is disingenuine for FDX ALPA to fight this fight for those in the back seat who are over 60 and not for those who retired upon reaching 60 who now may want to come back to the front seat.
The only way to get the membership to not feel completely left out of this process is to put the whole retroactivity question to a polling of the entire membership. If that doesn't happen, our union leaders will have permanently lost not just the support of a large numbers of their members but; many careers will be damaged without pilots having been given the opportunity to address the issue which caused the damage.
The generated sense of panic that ALPA may have lost control of this issue is not valid. The NPRM vs Congressional Law process has always and always will take longer than ALPA FDX is perpetuating right now. What makes them think this one issue will move to the front of the line that includes funding the war in Iraq et al that continues to drag on?
Retroactivity should be put to a vote..period.
The medical issue boils down to this I believe. Just as in grievances and punishment by management, we want medical testing to be based upon reasonable and valid thought. We definitely don't want such stringent medicals that become too invasive or are too far-reaching in their scope. One of the main concerns is not so much the testing for those over 60, as it is that we are concerned that if these "executive" level physicals are instituted, that they will be in effect for those under 60 as well. So, while we may have pilots that are under 60 that pass the current physical just fine, we worry that if the more indepth physicals were to be made the norm, many more of our members would lose their medicals either for physical or mental/cognitive reasons. So one day, they're perfectly safe, the next day they're not. Clear as mud??
The issue of leadership is a contentious one, I agree. I personally feel that the age should remain in place. But, I also have heard all of the input as to why/how/when it is going to change. Leaders are elected to lead by the membership, not to follow necessarily. While it always nice if the leaders are following happily along in the wake of a trail blazed by the membership, there are times where leaders have to make hard, unpopular, decisions. They only do this if they have the input that some other way is the best way by far. If this issue was still relatively undecided in Congress, there would not even be a discussion on this because we would still be fighting it tooth and nail. But the issue seems to be all but decided in Congress, with only the timeframe when it becomes enacted up in the air. We have been the little kid on Capitol Hill, screaming for, demanding that our way be the way. But Congress has decided otherwise it seems and they have told us to keep holding our breath all we want, that until we decide to breath and relax, that they want nothing to do with us and aren't going to listen to our issues. So that is why our MEC has chosen the position that they have.
As I posted earlier, the only time that you give up your seniority number as a member is when you elect to retire (or are fired, but that isn't your choice). The over 60 S/Os still have seniority numbers, not just FE seniority numbers. There are a few with FE seniority numbers but that relates to the Seaboard/Tigers merger I believe. Bottom line is that if the age changes, and if prospectivity isn't the decision, then those S/Os seniority number is just as valid as yours and mine. How they choose to exercise it is up to them. Any other way, and we have moved from a seniority based system to one where a new hire can be given superseniority over you, me, foxhunter, anyone. I know that no one wants that kind of system. And just so this is clear. There is no push to allow these over 60 S/Os to exercise their seniority outside of a standing bid situation. So until there is a bid, after and when and if the law changes, then they will keep exercising thier seniority rights in their current seat.
So unless people want a system not based upon seniority, one that supports age discrimination, one that violates our Duty of Fair Representation responsibilities under the RLA, then keep on trucking.
The panic from our Legislative Affairs guys seems real. If you don't think that they are accurate, then I suggest that you offer your services as one of our legislative affairs members. We have committees that cover certain areas of our lives because we need experts in those areas. We trust those members and their opinions unless we have been given past information that shows them to be untrustworty. Unless you are willing to suggest that our Legislative Affairs members are untrustworthy, then we have to believe them and accept their input in their area of expertise.
Last sentence, finally. You and everyone on here doesn't have to agree with the MEC or myself, and you can be emotional on this issue as much as you want to be, that is your right as a member. But how would you address the issue of a vote on Retroactivity? How would you propose the question be phrased to our membership? By ignoring legal liabilities and seniority rights responsibilities of the class and craft? Or by protecting all of your fellow members, and following discrimination laws?