While you're at it, why don't you castrate them as well. You'll only have to look in the mirror to find the reason the company says "screw you guys, you'll take what we give you and nothing more" since you will be of no threat to them.

 

[QUOTE=FDXFLYR;376250]Maybe I'm out of touch and if so I'd appreciate somebody educating me. I think agency shop is a GREAT thing and I don't understand why anyone would want to go back to open shop. Under agency shop everyone pays for the administrative costs of executing our contract which means, no freeloaders like we had under open shop.

QUOTE]

But not everyone pays. As was mentioned earlier, the junior guys are all members, it's not until they hit CA or very senior FO that those who wish to stop paying do so. Virtually all newhires join the union, so Agency Shop was really pointless, especially since those already freeloading are able to continue doing so. Agency shop was simply a feather in ALPAs (DW) cap and we probably gave up a boatload in negotiating power to get it.

 

My understanding is that the company gave us agency shop without asking for anything in exchange...sort of a "pot sweetener" added at the last minute as incentive to accept the current deal...

The obvious benefit of agency shop is more dues money for ALPA.

Anyone got the real scoop?

 

Well I think some need to be castrated....

Did I ever say I was going to leave the union? No, I could have been a non member but I choose to pay my dues so I could vote to have a voice. However that voice is pointless when DW and crew already say "screw you guys, you'll take what we give you and nothing more." Funny how they said we had no leverage with the FDA but low and behold more money, less time for STV, and the union and company are still in trying to figure out how to get HGK filled.. No leverage. Right.

I wasn't here for Fred's Red Letter, but I did get the same type of email from OUR UNION!! Have you ever actually been to a hub turn meeting and tried to get a point across or watched people try to express concerns about the direction things are going? I remember a certain NC member (BC) saying he was ready to go outside to fight.... How often do you write letters to your LEC rep and hear nothing back... Why aren't all the LEC reps doing lunches the way Albie is doing?

Bottom line - our MEC doesn't respect our opinion (see the Wilson poll data). If they felt it was a threat that a good percentage of people may walk away, I think they'd be a little more willing to listen to the crewforce. As it's been mentioned before, we were at 97% membership before agency shop. We're still at 97% as the 3% were grandfathered in.

Unfortunately we now have two types of kool aid drinkers - the grape flavor and the flavor that makes you grow a mustache.

Oh I also realized that your a IPA guy.. Come join FDX-ALPA and then you can have an opinion.

 

All that I'm saying is that after 28 years of continous employment as an airline pilot, there is one absolute truth I have learned; When the "overwhelming majority of the membership" elects, supports and stands behind their union leadership, the union has a tremendous amount of power. When the membership is too busy fighting amongst themselves, they fail to notice the company dismantling their contract and unity piece by piece.
I'm not picking on ALPA, I have witnessed the same juvenile dysfunction at the IPA. Until both groups are able to stand behind their duly elected leadership, our profession and future is trouble.

 

My personal opinion is we are better with ALPA than without. I know that is open to debate and I recognize some points about having an inhouse union. But an inhouse union has to have more stars in alignment for it to work.

But one thing I definitely think is wrong is the assumption that ALPA can be bullied into being more responsive. Just not going to happen.

Look at the America West vs. US East boondoggle. ALPA knew they were about to lose USAirways. Did they do anything really substantive to keep them? Did ALPA change their tune and try to work out a better deal for the East guys so they would stay? I saw no change in ALPA's position. I think that is an important lesson for anyone wanting to "leave the union" to show ALPA a thing or two.

We are stronger for having ALPA, but it is not perfect. Never will be either. Being fortunate enough to get good union positions and hard work are the only way to make things better.

 

I completely agree with you. Unfortunately many of our members are uninformed (their own fault) and really could care less unless it affects them - see our FDA-LOA.
70% (overwhelming majority) didn't want to raise the age yet our MEC chairman (along with ALPA national) took it upon himself to twist the results and then push for retro.
As a dues paying member I do expect the MEC to at least listen to the membership. Likewise I believe the MEC should truly take the best interest of the entire membership - not just the top senior guys. Our contract has lowered the QOL for much of the crewforce. Rumors of preferential bidding don't help things.

 

I'm not sure I understand the "logic" here. So we are better off with ALPA because, just like in the USAir case, they don't listen to their membership and there is nothing we can do to pursuade ALPA leadership to listen?

Sounds to me like this is exactly why we need to deep-six ALPA. An in-house union without agency shop would be required to listen more attentivley to its membership. Would it be weaker than ALPA? Well, explain to me just what strength ALPA has here at FedEx? ALPA is an expensive ruse. The company, I'm sure is much happier with ALPA than an in-house union. ALPA is predictable, just like the arcing fighter thinking he's untouchable in his expensive mach 2 airplane. Expensive, and predictable.

 

While 70% of the membership may not have wanted to change the retirement age, I do believe it was a done deal with or without the blessing of ALPA. The change of heart by ALPA National and your MEC may have been the result of them realizing how much liability exposure their position created. I am 51 years old and personal viewpoints aside, by maintaining a position that supported age discrimination against their own members, ALPA National could have been a huge target of a very expensive lawsuit. Remember, prior to the age change it was legal for an
over 60 year old foreign pilot to fly in the USA carrying US citizens while pilots employed by US carriers were prevented from doing the same, hence the discrimination. Don't shoot the messenger or your MEC, their hands were tied on this one, regardless of what the membership wanted.

 

That is not my logic. ALPA is good for us, but not perfect. ALPA simply can't solve all our problems. Unity will greatly help our cause, but we don't have perfect unity either. That is our problem and why ALPA works for us.

If we had perfect unity an inhouse union would not have failed and would still have FPA. I've seen a good inhouse union at work and that is what it requires. It also requires a warmer relationship between management and the pilots.