It seems the union believes the partnership shouldn’t move forward because we aren't growing isn’t growing.
What came first, chicken or the egg type scenario here.

 

Where the heck did you get that from? Thats not what the MEC email eluded to at all. They mentioned we havent grown in a year, yes. But didn't say anything about not wanting the agreement to move forward.

Either way, even if it's not CBA compliant, which I imagine it is, the company will fly now, grieve later. Nothing to see here....

 

Out of curiosity...If someone does that and doesn't agree with the response they get, then what? Remain silent? Don't try to build a consensus to affect change? What forum is then appropriate?

 

You don't remain silent. You tell them you don't agree then when voting comes use your vote if you're that displeased. The voter turnout for any election throughout the bases is horrendous. Not saying you don't vote and this remark is not meant towards you but many pilots here complain about the union but don't actively participate in elections etc.

 

I want to second that. I understand both sides of the VIL argument, but to those who are the most vocal; have you reached out to your union reps? Did you even vote in the elections? No disrespect to our reps, but some were elected with shockingly low turnout.

Calling for a recall on an open forum shows a complete lack of understanding of how our union system actually works. I’m not opposing or defending the system, it is what it is. We elect LEC members, and they form the MEC. It’s unrealistic to expect the MEC to function if every decision has to be put to a vote or a poll. Do our elected government leaders poll the public on every single decision?

 

First for clarity, I'm not calling for a recall or anything. But I do want to understand this decision fully. As an example...not to be an alarmist at all...but let's say a judge finds we are being unreasonable for withholding the VIL. Could he then rule the MOA is invalid so our pay rates go down and everything else that was negotiated in the MOA? Might be a slim chance but if it's non 0% than there is a risk there. Is everyone convinced that that risk has been articulated properly and voted accordingly?

I understand the larger point of voting for reps (and representative governments). However the odds anyone's rep for anything is 100% aligned with their interests is 0%. Secondly, that would assume I knew my reps position on all known and unknown/future issues while in the election cycle. Also unrealistic. I could make a case about politicians listening to polling, etc, but I'll skip going down that rabbit hole.

I suppose what I'm musing about is with a pilot group that is relatively small (ours), and the technological ability, I don't see any reason we couldn't have a snap poll (behind the ALPA firewall) that lays out our union's case and then asks for a vote on this one specific issue. Do you? What's the downside?

It seems that this would be the best way to gauge everyone's true feelings on this particular issue, without the noise of the most vocal, influential, dilution of other issues, etc. This, to me, would be the best way to stay in alignment with the majority of the membership's interests. Otherwise, you get perceived "unity fractures" and spillage (if that's what you want to call this) when people feel their interests are not being represented. Food for thought.

 

Alright Lum thanks for the input .

 

Can you elaborate? I believe what you’re saying, but it’s the internet, so I gotta ask.

Is it something to do with labor under the RLA specifically, or more so that companies in general can’t just tear up their contracts with labor?

 

A non-public one that the company can’t read, preferably?

 

Nothing to do with RLA which hasn't changed. This is because Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code changed in the mid 2000s that required companies to negotiate in good faith and prove that their modifications to union agreements are necessary to keep the company operating. Unions also can't just reject any proposals. Process must now be "fair and equitable". Also a judge has to agree to the final outcome.