Originally Posted by TonyC

Are you really that dense, or are you just pretending in order to stir up trouble?


The issue is not Yes or No, fly or not, complain or gush compliments -- the issue is the rationale behind the action.

Aaron complained that he witnessed guys flying draft, and blamed them for our inability to get negotiate a better TA ... he accused them of negotiating against us. Starclipper pointed out those draft flyers may have been using the same logic to fly those draft trips as Aaron used to endorse the TA. Aaron posted at length to explain that voting FOR the TA was the best choice for HIM and HIS family. The draft flyer most likely felt that flying that trip was the best choice for HIM and HIS family. Of course, without asking him and allowing him to answer, we won't know. We can throw stones, but then that would sound like the criticism in the first post that Aaron chose to ... criticize.


We can choose to act like 4,500 individuals, or we can choose to act like one family. Here's the difference.

An individual votes YES or NO based on what is good for 1 person, that person. I don't fly the X airplane, I don't care about rules that only affect the X airplane. I only fly intra-Asia, I don't care about how "lie-flat" seats may affect ocean-crossers. I don't plan to use International Hotel-in-lieu-of, I don't care how it affects guys chasing girls around Asia. If the work rule doesn't apply to ME, I don't care how it affects anyone else.

A team player votes YES or NO based on what is good for 4,500 family members. I don't fly the X airplane, but I have 500 brothers and sisters who do, and I care about rules that will harm them. I only fly intra-Asia, but I have 4,300 brothers and sisters that don't, and I care about rules that affect them, too. I don't plan to use International Hotel-in-lieu of, but I'm not willing to concede that benefit if even one of my brothers will be harmed by the concession. Not every work rule applies to ME, but they all apply to US, and that's what family does -- we guard each others' backs.


The glaring irony that I think Starclipper picked up on is that Aaron began his post with "I really wonder why this pilot group is so quick to shoot at the guys on the same team." and in the very next sentence took a shot at the "*(&% 767 schoolhouse LCAs out here in Asia on draft." Last I checked, they're on the same team, too. And if they're looking out for themselves, how does that make them any different from the majority of their ... brothers?






.

Originally Posted by Rock

... we participate in a democratic process. In a democratic process, decisions are made by individuals who collectively produce a majority vote. If every single member of our FedEx pilot team voted on the TA based on whether or not the TA met their personal approval, than the process worked exactly as it is supposed to. Every voter had an equal opportunity to study all the issues, and every voter had an equal opportunity to cast a vote on their own behalf. When the votes are counted, the collective decision of the majority wins. And that means a majority of the team wins. You, of all people, know that sometimes votes go your way, and sometimes they don't. If you really, truly, cared about your "brothers", you would honor their decision and stop building ivory towers to pontificate from.

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

And the family voted yes so suck it up and quit whining.

Originally Posted by TonyC

You have a good grasp on the democratic process, and zero appreciation for what it means to be in a union.


.

Originally Posted by Rock

... the supreme arrogance of someone who thinks they do know what is best for people they've never even met before is a key disqualifier for that person to vote on anyone's behalf.

Originally Posted by TonyC

Refresh my memory -- who posted in this thread about YES and NO votes first? Was that me, or you?


.

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

It was probably star clipper equating anti union activity with union activity.

Originally Posted by TonyC

Typical -- given the choice between A and B, you select Orange.


StarClipper compared a right to choose to a right to choose.

Are you suggesting the "*(&% 767 schoolhouse LCA" had less of a right to fly draft than you had to vote Yes? Maybe he just figured out the TA was a lost cause before you did.


.

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

Typical Tony defending draft flying, what's next DPs? Lots of people turned down draft during negotiations and chose to take a hit for their families. And then saw others picking it and making out like bandits. What are you running for Wolfpack block rep? You are seriously equating flying draft during negotiations with voting in a union election. In fact a big part of my decision to vote yes was all of the draft flying I was witnessing. I dont deny their right to fly draft, but I sure as hell wasn't going to spend the next two years turning it down and achieving no effective pressure on the company.

Originally Posted by TonyC

Are you really that dense, or are you just pretending in order to stir up trouble?


The issue is not Yes or No, fly or not, complain or gush compliments -- the issue is the rationale behind the action.

Aaron complained that he witnessed guys flying draft, and blamed them for our inability to get negotiate a better TA ... he accused them of negotiating against us. Starclipper pointed out those draft flyers may have been using the same logic to fly those draft trips as Aaron used to endorse the TA. Aaron posted at length to explain that voting FOR the TA was the best choice for HIM and HIS family. The draft flyer most likely felt that flying that trip was the best choice for HIM and HIS family. Of course, without asking him and allowing him to answer, we won't know. We can throw stones, but then that would sound like the criticism in the first post that Aaron chose to ... criticize.


We can choose to act like 4,500 individuals, or we can choose to act like one family. Here's the difference.

An individual votes YES or NO based on what is good for 1 person, that person. I don't fly the X airplane, I don't care about rules that only affect the X airplane. I only fly intra-Asia, I don't care about how "lie-flat" seats may affect ocean-crossers. I don't plan to use International Hotel-in-lieu-of, I don't care how it affects guys chasing girls around Asia. If the work rule doesn't apply to ME, I don't care how it affects anyone else.

A team player votes YES or NO based on what is good for 4,500 family members. I don't fly the X airplane, but I have 500 brothers and sisters who do, and I care about rules that will harm them. I only fly intra-Asia, but I have 4,300 brothers and sisters that don't, and I care about rules that affect them, too. I don't plan to use International Hotel-in-lieu of, but I'm not willing to concede that benefit if even one of my brothers will be harmed by the concession. Not every work rule applies to ME, but they all apply to US, and that's what family does -- we guard each others' backs.


The glaring irony that I think Starclipper picked up on is that Aaron began his post with "I really wonder why this pilot group is so quick to shoot at the guys on the same team." and in the very next sentence took a shot at the "*(&% 767 schoolhouse LCAs out here in Asia on draft." Last I checked, they're on the same team, too. And if they're looking out for themselves, how does that make them any different from the majority of their ... brothers?






.