Originally Posted by
awax
So let me get this straight, you work for UAL where it's not OK for the company to determine how they communicate to you or to other internal/external groups. However, ALPA works for you, and it's OK to tell the union "...what it needs to be doing..."?
You realize how that comes across, right?
I am not sure we are on the same page. I think we, as members in good standing clearly have the right, and if you are assertive, an expectation to communicate with ALPA and tell them the good, bad, and the ugly. I would assume that since ALPA has an inverted pyramid whereby the MIGS are on "TOP" and not on the bottom that is exactly what the membership should be doing. However, I don't recall addressing ALPA communications in a company only chief story-telling thread.
As it relates to corporate communications, if our company was accurate, brief, and clear that would be just fine with me. At every dog and pony show I seem to see our big chiefs coming out with "handlers" and "interpreters." I sincerely hope I don't see the Greg Hart and Tom Stivala again. It was like watching a rerun of the Andy Griffith show. Poor Sheriff Taylor and his side-kick Deputy Fife.