Originally Posted by dracir1

Ok...whew. Let's look at some of this shall we...

First off, I'm not in any union leadership position - nor do I wanna be. I complain about some of the rumors I hear every now and then but then I remember that they are rumors AND i sure as hell don't want to do their job. If you do, start with a voluntary position, work your way up and go from there. Maybe in a few years you can run and get elected. If you're like me and don't want to, then you might want to pipe down a little bit.

Why? Because the FPL is not being abused by every union leadership person every month. Do I think there are a couple who do abuse it, they abuse it regularly and are simply skating by - yes. I do think that. I think that's happening in EVERY UNION in the world (not just the airlines and not just in America). The cross-section of people pretty much guarantees that's the case. But, I don't think it's gross in ours. I think we have the same amount of fraudulent union activity as expected and that amount is essentially unstoppable. If it's one month here for one guy and another month there for another gal, then so be it. Frankly, i'm sure that MM puts up w/ so much BS and answers calls on his day off that 82.5 plus OT (picked up on days off) shouldn't even be mentioned. I would imagine that if YOU were the MEC Chairman, at times, you would probably say to yourself "they don't pay me enough to do this."

Now, as far as any union member picking up OT, that's COMPLETELY FAIR to me. OT is for everyone as it's on days off. However, if there is a case of a union worker "double dipping" - ie. they are using FPL and picking up OT on days they're supposed to be working, then yes you are correct, that should be identified and punished (ie. lose their position).

But to the original point of most of this discussion, we need to get our house in order. There seems to be 2 issues:

1). the original dissention amongst the union leadership, and
2). the fact that there are few (less than a majority) reps that are able to hold up the entire process simply because of the # of members they represent.

We need to solve that - I'm surprised there isn't something coming out of ALPA that addresses this particular situation.