|
|
slow,
Are any of the most recent changes to the ALPA Constitution & By Laws available? The latest FastRead mentioned some changes were made. I sure hope needing MEMRAT for an assessment wasn't one of the changes....... |
Originally Posted by nwaf16dude
(Post 1260883)
AA just imposed work rules on the APA. Anyone have any details?
Management's Overreach We now know the extent of management's overreaching as they have rejected our contract and imposed the most onerous 1113 terms. Going forward, here is what you can expect (not a complete list):
If you're looking for motivation to be involved, we suggest you review the list above. Add up the reduction in total take home compensation, the extra days away from home and family, the captain and first officer job losses due to scope and work rule changes ― then reconsider your involvement level. As we move forward, there will be APA events scheduled requiring your participation and commitment. It's time to be involved. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1261103)
Just how do you get "a complicit MEC?" That is the crux of the issue. FtB's argument presupposes that a majority of LEC reps can't think independently and don't understand the structure with which the pilots have entrusted them.
This is what our current EVP, running for the LEC 20 Capt Rep says on that topic: “Leadership” or “Representation”? The ALPA representational structure currently in place has the membership electing the LEC reps, who in turn, as MEC members elect the MEC Officers. This is the point where the cultural and philosophical differences emerge, with the conflict centered on the flow of the direction and initiative.In simplistic terms, the existing philosophy is that the elections are where the primary democratic / representational duties end; from here the belief appears to be that DALPA should operate similar to a corporate or military structure where the elected MEC Officers develop initiatives (“lead”) with a strong expectation that the direction will be followed and endorsed by the MEC members / LEC reps and that those reps will subsequently “lead” the membership to make the “correct” decision. Failure to comply with this philosophy usually results in being labeled as “not a team player”, “shooting inside the circle”, or “clearly a supporter of ‘alternative representation’”. Certainly there are efforts to ask the membership and the reps for “input” and “direction”, but ultimately when that input is marginalized while obtaining the final result, it is usually done so with a justification something like “we have more information than you do”, or “we know what’s best and decided to ‘lead’”. I believe that the structure should operate more like it was designed to operate, with the membership providing direction and input to the reps, the reps giving direction to the MEC Leadership (“representation”), and the Leadership developing initiatives and taking action as directed. When unable to meet the direction, the Leadership should return to the MEC for re-direction (and similarly the reps to the membership when necessary). This is, of course, is how the current system is advertised, and does work with small issues (providing specific direction is given), but not the way it works in actuality with larger, more significant issues. I believe that it is a rep’s job to “lead” at the MEC level by taking the initiative in concert with the other reps / members of the MEC in an effort to “represent” the interests and direction of the membership. The obvious example about where the current system may not have best served the membership was with the recent contract TA. Despite all of the justifications that I’ve heard, it is still unconscionable to me that the MEC Leadership / Negotiating Committee agreed to a Tentative Agreement (TA) with management, which neither met the MEC’s nor the membership’s parameters, the day before a regularly scheduled MEC meeting where the MEC could have been updated and had the opportunity to re-direct the Negotiating Committee / MEC Leadership prior to them actually reaching the TA. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1261099)
Now I'm the one with the short time to reply.
So we're going to quibble on the definition of "is", Mr. Clinton? Fine. You don't understand the governance structure on which ALPA works. The MEC (collected local council reps) are the governing body. We have 19 of those reps at Delta. There are various policy methodologies (some senatorial, some roll call based) by which they exercise that power. They elect the MEC Chair - he works to execute their collective will. You elect the Reps, they elect their Chair. To recall the Chair, you must get a 2/3 majority of reps or a majority of reps and a roll call majority.
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1261099)
So you use an example of a Rep whose point of view was in the minority. The TA ratified 14-5 on the MEC. 94% of the pilots voted and ratified the TA by 62%-38%. Every single base voted in favor of the agreement.
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1261099)
What I'm reading is that you have a problem with majority rule.
Go back to the APA situation you mentioned as a reason not to have direct MEC Chairman elections. Say a candidate panders in the worst way possible to the members and wins, is that wrong? No, it's not wrong, it just sucks. But I would have to accept the results even though I don't agree with it. Same with the TA, we passed it, I don't agree with it, but it is the contract we operate under and there is no undoing that. So I am in favor of majority rules. The problem is, what if the majority is ethically wrong on a subject? That's where I believe in mechanisms that protect the rights of the minority to force compromises and be heard. Hence the balance.
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1261099)
But if you're serious, you'd find pilots in local bases who would recall reps that you believe "are the problem." You only need 10 reps and a majority of the roll call votes to make that happen. I have provided examples of it being done at least twice on our property.
You also have the option of starting a change to the policy manual and ALPA C&BL. If you're serious about change, start the process. We'll get a lot more debate (good) and you'll see if your opinion is in the majority. btw, do you still support DPA? That to me is the dangers of a one vote for your local rep system. If you want to make a change, it's a slow process. I prefer the opportunity to make decisive changes at the top if so inclined, or keeping status quo, if so inclined. But think about this, would you only want one vote for your House Rep or do you like having the ability to vote for the President and Senator? fwiw, I'm indifferent to the DPA. I joined when the RAH debacle happened. It'd take another hard look to send another card in. and fwiw part deux, if I came across as a ahole in earlier posts, I apologize. Didn't mean to. Thanks for continuing the discussion. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1261103)
Just how do you get "a complicit MEC?" That is the crux of the issue. FtB's argument presupposes that a majority of LEC reps can't think independently and don't understand the structure with which the pilots have entrusted them.
Frankly, I find it weird you don't hatap your imagination to find a scenario that fits my statement, so I'll make it easier than "complicit". If the MEC is willing to accept influence by the Chairman, the Chairman can have influence. Add in NDA's, where the membership actually doesn't have the pertinent facts, and often isn't given a vote, and it's entirely possible for a given policy to be set without specific guidance from the pilots. At that point, exactly who has the power depends on the politics and the interraction between the MEC and the Chairman. I was told by the duty officer, upon calling to discuss the reason for JM's firing, that the MEC had determined he was no longer responsive to the MEC, and was given a long list of things he was alleged to have done, most of which took months. Proves your point the MEC actually can fire the Chairman, and it proves my point that much can happen before the MEC ultimately exerts their authority to fire. I'm not in the circle, but this all seems obvious. |
Originally Posted by DAL73n
(Post 1261080)
This is where simple math shows how ineffective this will be. The US Economy is 14 Trillion, the US Government Budget is 4 Trillion and the Fed is going to "stimulate" (read inflate and dilute the dollar) by $40 Billion a month - not much and the reason it hasn't worked in the past and won't work this time. |
|
Originally Posted by Jesse
(Post 1261163)
BB is smart enough to realize this. But it does offer some hope of a short term pump that may keep some economic numbers looking better than what they might look like without it over the next couple of months. A hail mary of sorts. He knows he's out of a job if Romney is elected.
Most of the stock jump the past couple days has basically been an inflationary jump... Bernanke's logic: "Sir, would you like your pizza cut into 6 slices or 8?" "I'm really hungry today, cut it into 8." |
Oh, and 5 bucks to slowplay. Nice back and forth between ftb and him today.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1261167)
What???????
Maybe he means BB will be out of a job when his 4 year term ends in 2014 and even then he might still have a job as a "governor" of the federal reserve. They are appointed for 14 years and cannot be removed from office for their policy opinons. (According to wiki) So I don't know...... Denny |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:04 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands