Thread: Alpa Fdx
View Single Post
Old 05-24-2007, 07:18 AM
  #762  
fub141
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
OK, seriously . . . the question I asked in Post #727 wasn't intended to be rhetorical. I want some real feedback.

What if all the Over-60 guys were junior? Would that make a difference in how you feel about letting them bid the right seat (or left seat)? What if we let them go back to the end of the seniority list when they turn 60, and then bid what they can hold? The only people that would be affected are the ones that haven't been hired yet. That way it wouldn't slow you down, right? Would that make it easier to swallow?
.
OK I'll answer that. Yes it would matter. I dont care if every single one was junior to me for several reasons:

1. The manner which this decision was reached by the MEC. I still do not swallow this attitude that it was the right thing to do. The right thing to do is represent the majority view, not what DW thinks is good for us. If DW goes to the Exec meeting and is on the losing side of a majority vote to change the ALPA policy, then so be it. Then he comes back and tells us, sorry but this is the way it is and we follow the lead of ALPA national. But DW for some reason needs to be with the winning side. Why? It makes no sense. I'm tired of the MEC telling me they are doing things for my own good. They stole scope money from me without asking to fund VEBA (which we will no longer need), they extended the increase dues we voted in during negotiations without asking (which we no longer need).

2. Future negotiations. How in the world are the negotiators going to justify the b-fund and continued retirement at 60? I'll tell you the companies position 5 years from now, "well since you guys were for age 65 retirement here is a contract with no b-fund and age 65 replacing 60. B-fund was to bridge you to 65 which you no longer need and we'll keep everything else the same except for changing the age." How is the union going to justify supporting age 65 now but age 60 retirements during contract negotiations?

3. I dont want to work til I'm 65. I came into this job with the expectation of retiring at 60. I dont want to die in some hotel in HRL waiting for 5pm so we can go to the taco place for a bite to eat together.

I'll take the minority point of view of those who believe age 65 is a bad idea and say, if the person is on the seniority list, they should hold what they bid. My anger is not directed at anyone over age 60 but those who are failing to see the long term problems with that position. And that is my MEC.

We just negotiated a contract that got us basically nothing but retirement benefits. Oh yeah, A-380 rates (gone), VEBA (not needed), 7% b-fund(which is the bridge we needed to get from 60-65, now not needed). We just gave away everything we got in the new contract, except of course our cost of living raise. For that alone we should replace every block rep that did not support his people (see especially blocks 7 and 8) when elections come up. These are the guys who sold us out.
fub141 is offline