But it's OK to discard 3% to favor a majority?

Is it unity we want, or just majority rule?

Is there another 3% segment that we can cut out in order to improve the lot of 94%? Why don't we furlough the bottom 10% and make it better for 84%?

Why not cut the pay of 45% so the 55% can get a pay raise? All we need is a simple majority, right?

What segment of our seniority is your preferred target to leave behind?


Have fun in the cockpit when you go down that path.





Let's see,Yepp, I think I qualify.;)






.

Good point Deuce.. Look I don't fly DPs or any of that nonsense, but these guys just don't have my trust. If my wife slept with a ND, I'd kick her out of bed. And besides, the smell of prune juice and the remains from the leaky depends are just too much..... Cheers

Tony,

Sorry about the paycut. I understand seniority very well.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not advocating throwing these guys to the wolves. They had every career expectation met. They have a great retirement plan. They could still work as FEs.

Shaping legislation so 150 guys can come back to the front seat isn't seniority. It is taking care of a very vocal special interest. For our next contract, should we support a 30% raise for pilots aged 60-65 and nothing for the rest of us? Let's take care of a special group at the expense of the rest. Isn't that seniority?

Supporting retroactivity wasn't honoring the seniority system, it was just plain stupid....

End of rant, and again sorry about the pay cut.....

TONYC --

It shouldn't be about majority rule in all instances. But that is a strawman (make someone's argument for them weaker than they would make it so that you can knock it down) anyway. This was using DW's FDX ALPA chairman ship to influence the shaping of federal legislation for 150 people. This was using the money and voice of all FDXers for 150 people. This wasn't protecting the rights of anyone. There was no legal right. That is what DW went and got. NOW they do have the right. Congratulations. 150 people are better off than they otherwise would have been.
The argument IMO is whether that was an appropriate use of our resources in the stewardship of the union. On that, we obviously differ.

http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=33434

2006 Expert. You have good taste 'Boy. Look me up if you guys ever make it CO way.

Thread summary: DW's approval at all time low, we must look past this to focus on unity in future negotiations, many of us are taking pay cuts, we ride cool bikes.

[QUOTE=TonyC;409831]But it's OK to discard 3% to favor a majority?

Is it unity we want, or just majority rule?

Is there another 3% segment that we can cut out in order to improve the lot of 94%? Why don't we furlough the bottom 10% and make it better for 84%?

Why not cut the pay of 45% so the 55% can get a pay raise? All we need is a simple majority, right?

What segment of our seniority is your preferred target to leave behind?


Have fun in the cockpit when you go down that path."

- TonyC




Tony - come on. I usually enjoy your commentary but you're way off base here. This is a zero sum game. You didn't just fight for these guys with no effect - they had ZERO rights of front seat after age 60 -that was the law. The fact that the FAA's initial proposal was to not grandfather in over age 60 guys was in fact proposed LAW (as was the Congressional proposal). Just like a guy who turns 66 has no right to the front seat anymore. It's a law. Nothing to do with fair or anything else. Now the MEC consciously fought to change that proposed law. There is absolutely zero difference between the MEC fighting to give retro to 61 year olds or if the MEC had fought to change the regulated age to 70 - no difference. 65 was merely arbitrary (please don't tell us about ICAO and Europe again - since when does the US follow European regulations?) just as the grandfathering was.

So this zero sum game ended up with changing the rules in the 9th inning for about 150 guys here at the very negative detriment of about another 1000 here. You can't hide behind empty notions of fairness or minority rights to defend this. It was a wrong decision - I suspect most in the MEC feel this way but it is certainly impossible for any MEC member to EVER admit any error - you are after all, by definition, infallible. Humility is not a quality one looks for in the MEC.

Tony isn't that what happened with the instructors in the last contract?

Why don't we furlough the bottom 10% and make it better for 84%?

Tony

Not even close!!! Not apples to apples. Not the same fruit category! You are talking about putting a guy on the street vs a guy who is employed and getting a windfall. And a hokey excess bid to go where ever the He11 he wants. I have liked your previous post and was glad to see you back, but I disagree.

Recently someone stood up at a hub turn meeting and suggested that 90% of the crew force is suffering reduced BLG for the benefit of only 10% of the most junior people and suggested a furlough was best for the majority of our pilots. He was of course entirely correct (except for the furlough part). That is what a union is about and that is why you’re a member, so that you don’t have to stand alone when you are one of the 10%. As one of our founding fathers said, “ We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately”

Weather you are over 60, a nugget, a new hire or somewhere in between we must all remember we are all in this together. The majority must stand up for the minority or we’re all screwed.

Careful out there. I want to move up in seniority, but you guys with Rice Rockets can end up helping us out those junior to you if you aren't careful.