Originally Posted by
cargowannabe
Someone here mentioned the harsh word, in union speak, leak.
I have been pondering the definition and I need help with the please.
Would a leak be considered:
A) A committee chair sitting in a cockpit running issues by the pilot he/she is flying with and then that person spouting off in public that they know XYZ.....
B) An elected Union official bouncing an idea off of a friend, then that friend speaking it as gospel, then it goes public that they know XYZ....
C) A low level union worker, lets say not in the room during any discussions, that happens to fly with the elected union officials good friend that he bounced the idea off of and within a week or so had a committee chair ask him questions on the same subject, then made it public while all the while not being in any trusted position........
D) The pilot group as a whole for spouting off information that the they here from.......that knows somebody......... that......
I hope that you all get my point. I am not sure if the retirement and gateway things are true, I certainly hope they are not, but if they are and I found out through any of the above situations then I would go public and probably be MORE vocal than the individual that alerted the pilot group to the potential of NEGOTIATIONS without pilot group input or any type of communication.
Cargowannabe
OK...so what you are saying is you are willing to be nothing more than a rumor monger. In each of the scenarios you cite, you can't speak with specificity to ANYTHING but the fact a conversation was held. You...and the person who tells you...are both operating under the ASSUMPTION that what was said was factual.
It could have been a "what if" to see what the response would be. It could have been something said designed to leak back to the company and start a brush fire. It COULD have been something to find out who the rumor mongers are.
It COULD have been a LOT of things. And all you intend to do, by your own words...it to perpetuate and spread it. Without really knowing anything but what you heard from someone who claimed they heard it.
Unity? Getting facts before you spread what you heard? Not a chance from you. Your promised actions are the very reason committees keep close counsel. 800 pilots with 1600 different opinions on how to do something as simple as tying their shoes. And if the rumor begins that the committee is discussing shoes, 800 guys will DEMAND that their idea alone should be implicated because everyone else ideas are full of buffalo pucks...and if the committee doesn't; they are traitors, and should be shot.
And after all that...with the leadership having to deal with the bs and stomping out brush fires and rumors...it turns out they weren't talking about it anyway. But there's no Roseanna Roseannadana here saying..."sorry."
And no one here with the guts to stand up and admit being a rumor monger.
There is an upside. For the company. They LOVE rumor mongers. They split the group, cause dissension and make it easier for them to look at the leadership with a stack of emails, blog posts and the like and say, "see...we know what your pilots will do and we know how to divide your group."
Ask the previous (ALPA era) negotiators or MEC how many times the company dropped a stack on the table that way.
Confused? Go back and look at WWII era posters about loose lips...about what you see here...what you say...what you hear.
NO difference between then and now. Except who the real fight is with.