Leader or Pollster?
What should your MEC Chairman be?
The passion and emotion on the topic of Age 60 runs high, so it's no surprise that such should be the tenor of this thread. Given the high stakes, I'm impressed that this lenghty thread hasn't become a downright mud-slinging, name-calling, slugfest. If you want to make a comment on unity, consider how divisive this could be, and observe how we're still on speaking terms with each other. All in all, I think the participants could be commended.
Let's be honest -- we all want what's best for us. To be more specific, I want what's best for me, and you want what's best for you. We're all selfish. If we want someone to look out for Number One, it has to be ourselves. Anybody that claims to own an opinion that places the welfare of some other person or group of people above the interest of their own wallet, their own future, their own happiness, is a candidate for a psychological evaluation. Nobody gets a trump card because they're not being selfish. In that regard, each and every opinion rests on equal moral grounds. Senior, junior, young, old -- it doesn't matter. We all count.
Two issues boil to the top here. First, if the change to the regulated age is immenent (and I believe it is), should ALPA change it's policy to support the change in order to gain a voice in how the regulation is implemented?
Second, if the change occurs, should currently-employed pilots be allowed to exercise the rights of seniority to bid on vacancies?
As MEC Chairman, Captain Webb must decide which stance on the above questions would best promote the interests of ALL the pilots he represents. Clearly, the decisions are not easy ones. I heard Captain Webb speak at the April 18 Joint Council meeting, where he stated that he felt the ALPA policy needed to change, but he did not support the strategy of having the Executive Board (of which he is a member) vote to change the policy. He favored the Board of Directors (of which our LEC (Block) Reps are members) changing the policy, as they are more directly linked to the membership. That was then. Things are happening quickly, and there may not be time to wait for the Board of Directors to act.
Why did he favor changing ALPA policy? Because he feels the change is inevitable, and because it's more important to participate in the process than to to be left lying on the ground, bleeding to death by the sword with which we pierced ourselves.
Is that the right thing? Debatable.
Is that the popular thing? That's also debatable, but there is data to support a majority in favor of that course of action. While opposition to the rule change is strong, there is data that indicates we want to participate in the process
if the rule changes.
But the question I want to raise is this: Do we want an MEC Chairman that leads, or one that follows polls?
How many of you voted on who would be hired as office staff in the MEC Offices? How many of you were polled to offer your opinion on what office space should be leased? Who was asked their opinion about the best place to open an SPC office? Did they ask you how many computers should be installed, or what flight tracking software should be used? After all, this is a democratic organization, right? Shouldn't we all have a voice in these matters?
As ridiculous as that sounds, some of you seem to think that's the way it works, or the way it ought to work. There's a difference between a pure democracy where each step, each breath, each motion is ruled by a popular vote, and a representative democracy where matters are considered by representatives. The former process would be extremely expensive, and incredibly crippling. I'm sorry Mr. Office Machine Representative, I can't make a decision about which office copier package to purchase or lease from you until I consult the entire membership and conduct a vote. Do you have 4500 copies of your proposal so I can mail them to everyone?
I think we elect representatives that share our mindsets and values, and ask them to take the time to study the issues and make informed decisions that will best support our goals and aspirations. Many times, they involve decisions on matters that I know nothing about, and care little about, but that directly affect my lifestyle and career expectations. Given the breadth and depth of misinformation I've seen posted in this thread alone, I'm grateful that we don't put everything to a popular vote, where even the most ignorant voice counts. Wally recalled? Stickers on Dave's bag? Even the quotes posted from the ALPA Constitution concerning recall come from the wrong part of the document. Our MEC Chairman is elected by the MEC, and he can be recalled by the MEC. (And the MEC Chairman wouldn't have a vote, so the post that correctly identified that process fouled up the math on voting members.) It's for our own good that we have representatives that are dedicated to becoming informed and making sound decisions based on the values that we share and the information they have taken the time to collect and study.
An MEC Chairman that based his actions solely on the popular vote of the constituents would be nothing more than a pollster. Anybody could do that, and he wouldn't deserve the salary he's paid. It would be in our best interest to apppoint the most junior pilot in the company to fill that position, because it would require no expertise, no judgment, no loyalty, no knowledge, and certainly no leadership. (He could even come from your block, Albie.
)
I think we need an MEC Chairman that is a leader. Certainly he should be sensitive to the opinions of the members, but he should be more concerned about their needs and their best interests. Just like my kids aren't always thrilled when I make decisions that aren't popular with them, they come to recognize they were decisions that had their best interests in mind. A father who let his toddler play in the middle of a freeway because she "wanted to" would not be considered a good and loving father.
Leadership means sometimes doing what is not popular, but doing what is right. Even on this contentious issue of Age 60, I think we can all make the intellectual journey to agree that if it's in our best interest, we need to do it, regardless of how little we like it.
When we take that principle a step further, the bitter pill becomes almost nauseating. What about the pilots that have reached age 60, but have not retired? To read Administrator Blakey's material, one would think it's not possible to reach age 60 and still be employed. She uses "retirement Age" when she should be using "Regulated Age" because she doesn't appreciate the difference. Or does she? What about the language in the proposed bills? What does it mean? Does anybody involved in the rule-making even understand the difference? Does it make a difference?
Well, we know the difference, but nobody will listen to us at the moment, because we are so deeply entrenched in our position of opposing any change. We're the experts, but we're locked out.
If the rule change permits our over-60 Second Officers to exercise their seniority rights on any subsequent vacancy postings, it would be a windfall for a few, and a bitter pill for many. Even as one that would be swallowing the bitter pill, I have to admit it's the right thing to do. Seniority rights is a cornerstone of our very existance in this profession, and it's a principle that was fought for at no small expense. To abandon a couple hundred or so folks at our airline (I don't know how many at others) on this issue would be abandoning a principle that we all value dearly. So, on the issue of retroactivity, I ask the same questions:
Is that the right thing? Debatable.
Is that the popular thing? Clearly not.
My opinion is that it
is the right thing to do, and I commend Capt Webb for taking the right position, even when it is so unpopular.
I fly with a lot of Over-60 Second Officers, and I've given the issue a great deal of thought. Even though I haven't posted much lately, I've been reading along and trying to hear the different points of view. I might have missed an important aspect of the debate, but I don't think so. I've tried to consider what the worst case scenario could be for me, and every other pilot that hasn't reached Age 60 yet. Here's what I've come up with.
First, make some assumptions. None are true, but using them will simplify the scenario. After considering the scenario, a discussion of how the exceptions to the assumptions will affect the overall picture can give a more accurate picture. I think the assumptions all favor the worst-case scenario, so each exception will only make the picture more favorable.
1) Age 60 Rule changes tonight -- the rule becomes effective tomorrow morning that the "Regulated Age" is 65.
2) Everyone currently on the seniority list will work until they reach Age 65. Nobody will retire early. Nobody will die early. Nobody will leave on medical disability,
3) Every Over-60 Second Officer will bid to the left seat of a widebody at the first vacancy posting, and will keep that seat until they reach Age 65.
4) Zero-growth at FedEx. No new airplanes. No hull losses. The few remaining DC-10s will still be converted to MD-10s.
Under the above conditions, the music will stop (in the proverbial game of musical chairs) for 5 years for everyone under 60 now. Nobody will move up until the guys start reaching 65. For those under 15 years of service, pay raises will continue annually until reaching the top tier in their current seat, and then pay raises will halt.
Five years -- that's the worst it can get, and that's if everybody works until 65.
So, what if some of the over-60's decide to retire before they reach 65, or if they become medically disabled, or maybe they die? At some point, FedEx would need to have a Post a Vacancy, and everyone, over-60 Second Officers included, would get to bid on the vacancies. For the junior folks, there would still be no movement. How long the existence of over-60 Second Officers would stall the movement of junior pilots would depend on how often vacancies occur, and how many over-60 Second Officers are still under 65. (Many are over 65 now.)
So, what if some people decide to retire before 65? My impression is that most of us don't want to work past 60. For every pilot that decides to retire before 65, the Five Year stagnation gets shorter.
What if the Over-60 Second Officers don't bid on the wide-body left seats? If they don't they don't contribute to the stagnation. Most that I fly with have no desire to go back to the left seat -- they're only there to work on their A-Plan multiplier.
There are other assumptions that could be discussed, but the important one for the retroactivity issue is the one that deals with Over-60 Second Officers bidding back to the front seat. They cannot make the "stagnation" any longer than five years, no matter how you slice it. Using the same assumptions at an airline that has no second officers, the stagnation is five years. Plowbacks can't make it any worse.
In one manner of speaking, the issue only affects a small number of Over-60 Second Officers. In another manner of speaking, it affects every one of us, and every pilot that follows us, as seniority is a cornerstone of our profession. The downside just doesn't justify abandoning such an important principle.
Like I said, it's a bitter pill to swallow, and the smug look on FoxHunter's face as he reads this doesn't warm my insides. As much as it pains me to please him, I believe in his seniority rights. That's not how I would have voted in a poll a month ago, but I'm glad that Dave Webb showed the leadership to do the right thing.
.