Originally Posted by
baseball
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.
One thing we can agree on is that we're clearly not on the same page.
The point you're side-stepping in this thread is that in ALPA we have the ability to address gross negligence and deficiently in our communications structure and we collectively we choose not to.
As an employee of UCH, you don't have a voice at the table. You're simply an employee, like it or not, you have no influence.