Originally Posted by Elevation

I don't think people want us to cave. Far from it. As Kodiak said, this is a rare opportunity. We do have to make sure we're fighting smarter and harder than our opponents, though.

Ultimately I'm here to support you. That doesn't mean you need to like me. It does mean that we're going to fight as a team. About the worst thing any of us can do is blow sunshine up your chimney. So here is a review of the points I made earlier along with some suggestions.

1.) Do we see each other as cariacatures? Yes.
Jeff C talks about keeping Indians on the reservation. It's clear he and his cohort think we're simple-minded and easily fooled with. There's no chance of serious negotiations until we change that perception. Avenues to drive that change can be discussed privately.

How much consideration of the crews went on when some folks just dinked with our internal communications? Did they think of us as people or some cartoon versions of ourselves?

There are more examples.

2.) Are both sides invested in their current courses of action? Yes.

It's pretty clear that they are. The company is losing business rather than adjust to realities. They're in too deep to change course. Most all of us in the union know we're in too deep to change course at this point too. While that means there's support for our course of action, it also means we aren't able to adapt to change or surprise. Like a nudist in a football helmet, we better be ready to guard against hits in other places.

3.) Are the practices that both parties use for promotion and selection divorcing us from facts? Yes.

Let's consider how many instructors and line check airmen are consistently worried about the same threats. What real results are we seeing though? Look at one of our instructors that got fired after testifying. That was a clear effort to tie career progression across the training department to towing a given, party line. If they're doing it, we have to assume we're doing it to some extent.


Incentives and Structures:
First, don't fire or replace personnel. The same issues will arise with new people in place. Instead adjust incentives and structures. Simply acknowledging our failures redirects people back into productive courses of action.

We've already done this. For example, some of the very same people that were pushing BOOT and SHOP are now vociferously pushing compliance with orders. This is a great success. We can use that model to mold the parts in place into a better, fighting organization. We have the ability. We just have to do it. Decide what results we want and where we can apply pressure, then set the incentives and communications to drive those results and produce that pressure.

Second, you may also want to consider building taller fences between union and training center positions. People are human. Conflicting interests are going to get the better of anybody.

Third, actively solicit criticism with a caveat. Criticism must come with proposed solutions. Criticism is good. People that solicit solutions are buying into a union effort. This will do more to build solidarity than anything.

Finally, collect more and better data. Data is a weapon. If we're no longer getting data automatically, we might need to drop trousers and let folks know to communicate with us directly. New and verifiable data sources help too.

We're ready to work. Let's do something.

Originally Posted by FR8Dog7

Maybe if you ever get the balls to leave the Teamsters and go back to ALPA where we should have never left. How's that new local you finally got working out for you? I see B.K. got himself another 3 years of pay now that he's retired. Did they remember to let you know when you left 1224 all the money that we all paid in stays at 1224 according to the bylaws?

Originally Posted by JonnyKnoxville

Hahahaha, in order for you to stir the pot, you at least need to have some basis in fact.

1) Doesn't matter if we are ALPA, Teamsters, or independent. The difference is in the pilot group. Anyone who thinks otherwise is waiting for a superhero who doesn't exist and will never come to their rescue.

2) B.K. didn't get himself anything. There will not be one day of extension of his term from what the pilot group voted him in for.

3) All of our money is coming with us to the new local.

4) Get a hobby. Being retired and trying to jump into old union politics (that you are obviously out of touch with) does not suit you well.

Originally Posted by Elevation

I don't think people want us to cave. Far from it. As Kodiak said, this is a rare opportunity. We do have to make sure we're fighting smarter and harder than our opponents, though.

Ultimately I'm here to support you. That doesn't mean you need to like me. It does mean that we're going to fight as a team. About the worst thing any of us can do is blow sunshine up your chimney. So here is a review of the points I made earlier along with some suggestions.

1.) Do we see each other as cariacatures? Yes.
Jeff C talks about keeping Indians on the reservation. It's clear he and his cohort think we're simple-minded and easily fooled with. There's no chance of serious negotiations until we change that perception. Avenues to drive that change can be discussed privately.

How much consideration of the crews went on when some folks just dinked with our internal communications? Did they think of us as people or some cartoon versions of ourselves?

There are more examples.

2.) Are both sides invested in their current courses of action? Yes.

It's pretty clear that they are. The company is losing business rather than adjust to realities. They're in too deep to change course. Most all of us in the union know we're in too deep to change course at this point too. While that means there's support for our course of action, it also means we aren't able to adapt to change or surprise. Like a nudist in a football helmet, we better be ready to guard against hits in other places.

3.) Are the practices that both parties use for promotion and selection divorcing us from facts? Yes.

Let's consider how many instructors and line check airmen are consistently worried about the same threats. What real results are we seeing though? Look at one of our instructors that got fired after testifying. That was a clear effort to tie career progression across the training department to towing a given, party line. If they're doing it, we have to assume we're doing it to some extent.


Incentives and Structures:
First, don't fire or replace personnel. The same issues will arise with new people in place. Instead adjust incentives and structures. Simply acknowledging our failures redirects people back into productive courses of action.

We've already done this. For example, some of the very same people that were pushing BOOT and SHOP are now vociferously pushing compliance with orders. This is a great success. We can use that model to mold the parts in place into a better, fighting organization. We have the ability. We just have to do it. Decide what results we want and where we can apply pressure, then set the incentives and communications to drive those results and produce that pressure.

Second, you may also want to consider building taller fences between union and training center positions. People are human. Conflicting interests are going to get the better of anybody.

Third, actively solicit criticism with a caveat. Criticism must come with proposed solutions. Criticism is good. People that solicit solutions are buying into a union effort. This will do more to build solidarity than anything.

Finally, collect more and better data. Data is a weapon. If we're no longer getting data automatically, we might need to drop trousers and let folks know to communicate with us directly. New and verifiable data sources help too.

We're ready to work. Let's do something.

Originally Posted by CardboardCutout

I still haven't heard anyone explain exactly why the Atlas guys bailed on 1224. I know it was extremely sudden (or so the 1224 MEC represents it). What's the advantage in staying Teamster but with your own Local? Serious question, not intended as flame bait.

Originally Posted by zerozero

You make some good points, but a lot of this is very abstract and philosophical. That works well on individual levels, or maybe even small committee level. But when you're addressing, say, an entire pilot group, or two, a couple thousand people, you really need to keep it specific, concrete and down to earth. Otherwise, people's eyes just glaze over.

Originally Posted by zerozero

You make some good points, but a lot of this is very abstract and philosophical. That works well on individual levels, or maybe even small committee level. But when you're addressing, say, an entire pilot group, or two, a couple thousand people, you really need to keep it specific, concrete and down to earth. Otherwise, people's eyes just glaze over.