Originally Posted by
FXLAX
Just connect the dots for me. Here is what you said that I'm trying to understand, "Serving ALPA is about ALPA's best interest. Pay rates are duesable. Your QOL is not. I am going to bet we will again give up QOL for money, Just like '15. Anyone here like working harder for the same credit hours?"
Do the MEC reps serve ALPA or the pilots' best interest? If it's ALPA, how does duesable income benefit our mec reps, as you insinuate? The reps are all insured by ALPA, so why would they worry about a handful of line pilots suing ALPA? Being sued is a foregone conclusion anyway. So why would a rep care if they are simply following their duty of fair representation, which a TA with membership ratification does in its most simplistic way.
To be honest, to me it sounds like you are taking this personal or are too close to it to see that you may just be a hammer that sees everything this MEC says or does as a nail.
Fair enough question.
Our reps are not trying for best value. They are going for good enough. Look at the process they have chosen. Simple language for our openers. No statements like Industry leading pay rates for the duration of our contract (until amendable date or beyond). Or our pension should finally be brought back up to the 1999 standard (IRS limits) (Yes these would be hard to achieve, but at least we would know what they are fighting for. Just improvements). Certain QOL improvements.
When this all started, read what the MEC said, they approved the NC's openers. Not they told the NC what to go get what we deserved and on and on. Then after may 22, they were disappointed, so we scheduled more meetings and one IP event. After aug 22 still disappointed , so more meetings.
We did not Join ALPA's Labor day event, My rep said it was that was only for properties in Section Six. We still are. Then when resolutions asking for leadership come up, they argue against them and vote them down. Now finally the MEC says they need your number and email address, in an email, because it is time to think about a strike vote. I got a postcard about zoo lights, but I have not seen a postcard about wanting us to update our information because we are getting close to a strike vote.
I believe the statement is "Welcome to the party pal." The MEC has not led they have played it safe and that has cost a lot of pilots an improvement in their retirement before they retired. Not to mention any other improvements.
Now the Delta pilots have a TA to vote on with higher pay rates than our MEC was comfortable asking for earlier this year. I know this because I was told to be reasonable when I gave them my thoughts on pay rates. And what is the MEC saying now, look at Alaska's TA not Delta's. Fair enough, but we only have pay rates and duration to deal with now. And of course our signing bonus. Oh and now Hawaiian has a TA to look at as well.
So with all that, I want them to fight for best value, not good enough. We can't be trusted with the position because we might be disappointed. Saying they have statistically relevant data is not the same as saying they have valid data. The first only required numbers. The latter requires education and numbers.
All that said, the NC chair is carrying the MEC on his back, but it should not be that way. And now the Vice-chair is going to training as we are about to call for a strike vote, someone has the wrong focus, but at least he was voted in by acclamation by the very MEC I am concerned about.
About everything being a nail, I don't think so. I have offered all kinds of options and possible actions. Some like them others do not, but none have been implemented. But more importantly, they are doing the same old thing time and time again. they are not coming up with new ways to engage us.
Also why does the Chair need to email us about possibly asking the MEC for authorization for a strike vote, shouldn't the MEC have a plan in place that tells the Officer exactly when that should happen?
Final thoughts, look who the MEC members have endorsed during the last several election cycles. That should tell you enough. They always back the candidate they think they can easily sway. Why is that? Is their argument that weak?
I would love to hear your thoughts on their leadership, maybe I could learn from your perspective.