SFS Rep email
 

Great post.

"No pliots left behind." Vote NO on the LOA

Should have been "Pilots"

It's a nice change to read something honest, well written, and actually in touch with the rank and file.

Thanks again, Edgar.

Union? What Union?
 

Why is it that our "union" leadership is divided on this LOA? It is either good or bad, period! The fact that I read different opinions on how to vote, from essentially THE SAME ENTITY makes me roll my eyes and say WTF is going on?!! It's either yes or no!!

Does ANYBODY else see the irony is this? We all wear the same lanyards...we're not Pilot Union vs Company Union, were supposed to be one! THEREFORE, what's coming down the pike from our elected officals SHOULD be the same. They should be on the same page.

We're not a union, if we were, our MEC would all be on the same page!!

AND to make matters worse, first the vote was 11-1, now it's 7-4 AFTER they made change 1 to the LOA?!! WTF?!! It was good then, but now it just got worse?!

What a *********g joke!!

I was wondering the same thing myself. The vote got closer AFTER an "improvement" was made? Something's rotten in Denmark, I mean Paris. :confused:

Yes, it's a no.

Personally, I don't want everyone on the MEC to be a bunch of "yes" men. They are all intelligent individuals who are capable of independent analysis and thought (not that they all exercised this on the LOA, IMO). I'm thankful that Edgar stood up to the prevailing opinion, and stated his reasons for disagreeing with the masses. It's just a shame that more of the MEC members didn't listen to his advice and experience.

The 7-4 vote was on letting them add the 1 month limit on SVT if inversed. Which in my book constitutes negotiating.

The 11-1 was on the complete LOA.

The package was "take it or leave it" until the company saw over 50% of the pilot group with frowns on their faces. Well, hang on guys we will only send you for one month if you are inversed, OK now that we have made that one change we will not make any more, period. If you don't take it now we will do it without you.

My vote is no and I am not changing it (that was for the MEC folks reading the board).

Anyone else here think that our union totally failed to do its job, from Day One?

A Union's (for airline pilots) "job" is essentially this:

Ask the pilots what they want, and then take that information to the company and "sell" it to them as best they can.

Our Union did the exact opposite. They went to the company, asked them what THEY wanted, and then did the best they could to sell it to the pilots.

The have failed miserably to do what they were elected to do, with one exception. Edgar.

The results of our leadership's decision making should be the SAME! We're looking up to them for guidance/representation!

Maybe it's the military in me, but if the CO said one thing, the XO said another, then OPS sided with the XO, but the TRNGO went with CO...SAFETY's head is spinning....what the ****** is an E-4 supposed to think? I mean, c'mon here!!

Right now the anti-union-ites are laughing their arses off at us...

AND we have the gall to point fingers, badmouth the non-members, publish their names...no wonder they don't want to belong! We look like a bunch of idiots!! "I support", "I don't support", "You can change your vote you know!" "FOR", "AGAINST"...BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! :mad:

What kind of politics are going on up top? It's either FOR or AGAINST!!

I can't believe I'm paying money for this?!!!

Union my a$$...:mad:

Wait a minute....not long ago a lot of people on APC were complaining that MEC votes were a shame 'cause nobody disagreed. We questioned the validity of 13-0 votes. We asked how could a group of 13 individuals representing such a diverse group always vote 13-0 on tough issues (ie Age 60/65). I challenge you to review many of the threads during the Age 60 debate and count the number of times people questioned a vote with a 13-0 score. I know I did. But, thats just my opinion.

If you want 13-0 votes, again my opinion, might as well make it 1-0. You could do away with the other 12 positions and save the $$$.

I agree with Gooch.

We need input and discussion.

Nah, we just need 11 new reps.

MY MEC SPEAKS FOR ME, no wait it doesn't...I gotta decipher all the spinning going on here and make my own decision...wait I did that already (I can do that without paying dues also).

Soooo, where's the unity in our "union"? We are no way acting/upholding the definition of unity?

With respect to us vs management, I want 13-0, I want all of us on the same ballot!! Anything else is BS. I want to hear this is either BS vote against OR it's great vote for!

What kind of message are we sending to management when we waffle around on a topic? If I were them, my job just got easier, I see they're devided!! I can pick out a person, go after them to change their vote. Whereas, if I saw my oppostion had a steadfast 13-0....I'd think, we're screwed on this one, they're pretty solid on this topic.

I welcome opinions, sure, but, when we speak, we should speak as ONE...clearly we ar NOT. Same goes for the Age 65 topic...we were DIVIDED.

Or if everyone just fell in line with a singular vote then mgt could say...

'just convince one and the rest will follow'

Nothing wrong with less than an unanimous vote.

Maybe he is saying that the LOA should have been better so that it would have gotten a unionanamous recommendation?

Me, I don't care if the vote is 11-0 or 6-5. Just provide honest accountable answers to questions. It would also be nice if everyone got to hear the answers.

magic rat, I respectively disagree.

If I understand your position, using the current LOA as an example, when the MEC published their original vote on the agreement and the tally was 11-1 in favor (granted it's not 13-0, but pretty darn close) the issue would have closed. No opportunity for membership discussion and the LOA in it's original form would have become part of our CBA. If this is your position, sorry I gotta' disagree.

That's exactly my point...if we were a UNION, we'd be UNITED on a given topic. A 13-0 vote 12-0 vote 1-0 vote is UNITY. If the elected officials vote X-0, then WE decipher what is being passed our way and say, no way jose, then we're NOT A UNION! What kind of UNION are we...what happened to "MY MEC SPEAKS FOR ME" if I gotta chop whats coming in my INBOX without blindly signing off because now I don't trust my elected officials to do the right thing for the pilot group. IF it was the right thing, we would all be on board.

IS THIS LOA GOOD FOR US OR NOT? PERIOD!!! Why are we divided on this. I'm a pilot, you're a pilot, we're all pilots working for the same company. Is this good or bad.

Clearly, from what I get from this on this board, it's a sh!t sandwich...why am I getting rhetoric stating otherwise from persons working for us at the top? My elected officials.

A

Sorry MR

I want healthy discussion and debate. I don't mind everyone not being aboard. What I really want is my union to do its job. Think things thru, cost them out and come to US with a package that all 4800+ of us can be proud of.

Not all things need to be 12-0. I can read and think...and a dissenting opinion is a good basis in which to have a discussion of the merits, or lack there of, of a LOA, CBA or anything else.

Too Bad we got rid of Saddam, his plans were always endorsed 378-0. The good news is Fidal is still kicking if you want unanimity.:)

"My Negotiating Committee Speaks for Me" does NOT mean that we rubberstamp everything the NC brings forth. It means that the company doesn't get to direct deal. It means "Don't send me, as an individual pilot, FCIFs, emails, or Red Letters. Instead, talk to my Negotiating Committee."
I don't deal with Fred, and he doesn't deal with me. Our respective negotiators deal with each other.

Now, the NC goes to the table with some expectation from all parties that they're in tune with what the rank and file will accept, and what they won't accept. The company's negotiators come to the table with the expectation from all concerned that they have some idea of what Fred will accept. When the NC comes back with an agreement that indicates they AREN'T in touch, then that creates a credibility issue. But the solution isn't to blindly agree with the NC so that they have credibility next time, the solution is to get the NC more in tune with the rank and file. If that means that a rejected LOA or TA constitutes a vote of no confidence, and the NC gets replaced, then so be it. If the disconnect is sufficiently minor, then the same NC might be able to return to the table (maybe on this issue, maybe the next issue) after some further education.

This disconnect might be sufficiently large to require a new NC/MEC. Maybe not... Time and LEC meetings will tell. But you DON'T pretend the disconnect isn't there just to show an image to the company.

Now, Saddam HAD a Union!

I am not sure I get your point.

Using your Logic since it was an 11-1 vote then the only desenter was the SFS Rep and according to your logic is obviously not a team player.

I personally don't take that view. Different opinions and stances on issues are a good thing. Would it have made you feel better if The SFS guy would also have voted to Endorse the LOA.? You would of had your 12-0. Would it really have made much diffeence if it was 7-5 in favor? It still would have been endorsed by the MEC by Majority.Have you ever attended an MEC meeting and watched?

When an issue is brought before the MEC, each member gets to speak and voice his her viewpoints. The discussion usally goes round and around allowing each member to speak twice (sometimes thrice) before they vote.

These are Pilots we are talking about! They are all strong TYPE A's with even stronger opinions! They argue and raise their voices at each other. At other properties I have even seen fists fly.
But they vote and when it is over the correct thing to do is live by the democratc process. In other words they stand united behind the MEC's final decsion, even if they were in the minority.

Lets take the SFS REP. He voted against endorsing the LOA. That is certainly his right. He wrote his minority opinion. That is a good thing.

I have never met or spoken with him. Yes he voted against endorsing the LOA. Yes it is his opinion that we will get more. Unfortuately he was in the minority.But I am also willing to bet he supports the process. In other words, even though nobody else on the MEC sided with him, he can live with the process. Thats democracy.

Now whether you agree with it or not, The LOA was endorsed by the MEC and we all get to vote on it. Thats democracy. Pass or fail we will live with the outcome.

Amen!

I don't see how the "Yes" voters can see "scope" that isn't there, but not see the "upside" of standing up and saying "No" --- especially when they admit the LOA is substandard and we know the company is so profitable.

Under what conditions would they ever vote "No"?

It looks like divide and conquer from with, created by a POS offered from the outside.