Originally Posted by
SaltyDog
Tuck,
I believe this is amusing of DW. You state he says that the IPA is taking the easy way out (with two EEOC complaints <ng>). Then, there is contradictory statements "Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation" and "FDX ALPA could vote against the Age 60 change but it would do no good as this is sure to pass - made this point over and over."
So if it is sure to pass, and an external event, then why stir up literal hatred in the IPA with an "official" stance that is extraordinarily devisive? We do have a committee that is tasked to deal with it's passage, when done. That is fair to all IPA members. If ALPA "doesn't "get on board" (Legislature's words) then ALPA would lose seat at table at very slight chance of shaping this rule" the IPA with 2800 members would stand a zero chance regardless of our position. So, it is not an easy way out. (again, we are getting EEOC complaints filed against the IPA) but definitely a smart one. DW's own words "Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation" suggests little impact we can muster, UPS can, but they have lots of influence and resources relative to us hourly employees.
Lets first define things:
ALPA can't vote "for "or "Against" the Age change. They do not have any voting authority in the House or Senate. They can Offically oppose or support pending legislation on the Hill. I beleive it has already been explained why ALPA is considering no longer opposing any change to Age 60.
ALPA's Official stance as of today is Still "Opposed" (That might change this week during the Executive Board meeting, but the Stance today is still Opposed)
IPA's position on AGE 60 is "Nuetral" In other words they aren't taking any stance. I believe that is what DW was referring to as the "Easy way" out. BTW Isn't Bob Miller your Union President over age 60? What is his position? AHH I see he is nuetral on what he knows is a done deal.
ALPA could certainly continue to Oppose any change.
I believe that anyone who thinks anyone is going to stop this from happening is Smoking.cr**K, well lets hope the aren't drug tested too soon.
I believe ALPA leaders are merely trying to relay the inevtiable to the memebership. It is very clear that the majority of ALPA members would prefer the rule not change.
It is also clear that most of the ALPA members who prefer the rule not change, realize that it is going to change and they further realize that maybe, just maybe, ALPA might at least be able to steer some of the legislation to soften the blow of what we all know is negative for most of us.
So yes, ALPA leaders could have taken the easy way out and continued to oppose a rule that they know the can't stop. They made a tough call when they announced the effort to explore a change in stategy. Don't you think they knew many members would be angry? They knew it but they are hanging their necks out anyway. I am sure it was a tough call and Time will soon tell if they made the right call. If this rule get legislated this summer...................I can hear the calls now..........Where the Hell is ALPA and what are they doing about this.................Meanwhile the IPA leadership will still be nuetral, how convienent.
BTW what is CAPA (of which IPA is a part) doing with respect to this legislation? What Senators and Congressman do you have working on behalf of CAPA? and other Pilot specific issues? How much in PAC money have you guys raised again? I guess I'd take the easy way out too.
Let's see
SWA is for it
APA is opposed
IPA is Nuetral