Originally Posted by
Daniel Larusso
What exactly is your point here? You say that like you're exposing some evil conspiracy. I want the same thing as everyone else, a successful negotiation and a great new contract, so yeah I'm going to squawk when I see people doing things, even well-intentioned, that could be contrary to that goal. That doesn't make my comments any sort of official ALPA policy, although to be fair there is some written (Block email) evidence that our leadership would prefer to keep our most important wishes out of print for the company ahead of openers. However my comments aren't ALPA specific. You'll find similar views from the NC/MEC's at carriers with unions other than ALPA as well. I don't think the advice in this respect would be drastically different if we had professional negotiators instead of volunteers.
We have a lot of smart people here, but sometimes you have to be smart enough to know when to ****. You may feel that's 'old school', and yes I learned it from people you'd probably consider 'old school' supported by my experiences in the industry. None of what is said here will be taken as official direction by our leadership, nor should it be, but it does have the potential to be used against us. I don't think ALPA or me are telling you not to have discussions about this stuff, just to be smart about how it's done.
I would think my point is obvious. I don't think this thread will change our negotiating strength one way or the other. You think it will, and back up your position with "support" from unnamed industry wide sources. Free and open discussion is not only a right it is also the best way to encourage participation and spot weakness in your representatives position. How about hub turn meetings? We know management monitors them. Should we stifle discussions there too?
On the whole I would rather accept some weakening of negotiating strength with a good document that the majority is still supporting at signing plus 2 years, than a strong negotiating position and a flawed document. The latter, by the way, is exactly what we had with the FDA LOA.
Originally Posted by
Bitme
DL I see your arguments and at some level I agree with them, but I feel the free exchange of ideas concerning the next CBA overrides the downside. As long as people don't start drawing lines in the sand on this forum, or stating what they will or won't accept, then many of the previous ideas are very thought provoking and may not have been thought of by many. We each have our pet peeves with the CBA.
My own personal desires are that the next CBA must have a COLA (cost of living adjustment). Whether we see the hyper inflation that many economists predict, very likely during the time frame of our next CBA, or not, this is like an insurance policy for QOL degradation due to earnings erosion. It really doesn't matter how much improvement in work rules or pay we get (or don't get) if it is eroded by high inflation; if the high inflation doesn't materialize then we at least keep pace with what does occur. COLA is a no brainer in my book, but that doesn't mean it's a no vote. That is up to each member and his conscience.
Many of the ideas expressed here are excellent and if it provokes members to contact their reps with their prioritized list then this forum has provided a valuable service. On the other hand if this thread just lets members vent and not contact their reps with their desires it has weakened us. The key here is involvement and one's willingness to draw a line in the sand when the proper time comes, otherwise we're all just wasting our time here.
And we know there are no MEC lurkers here.
My own thoughts on Cap and Bank: It would work if you had a reasonable cap (BLG +18?) and applied any hours worked over the Cap into the pilot’s vacation bank. You would be able to use any hours added to your vacation bank anytime during the year (except peak) to plus your BLG up to min guarantee in any month you were able to drop trips. The max vacation buy back would remain the same.
Personally, I think we would be better off by simply discouraging overflying BLG instead of banning it. This would be counter to our current policy of encouraging overflying BLG. One simple solution; on Close/Conflict input day all BLGs would be reduced to Min BLG + 20 (where possible). Any “extra” hours removed will be put into the pilots general make up bank. This will result in a lot more hours in open time.
Either of these proposals will not prevent anyone from working hard for three months in order to take three months off
. Both would make working more hours harder, which IMHO it should be.