Kalitta Air (K4) Information
11-13-2019, 05:13 AM
#2391
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Riverside
I thought the union said they were going to post something. But the communication director or whoever was in a meeting.
11-13-2019, 05:38 AM
#2393
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by jhugz
Educational series will begin in the near future. As stated above, exact survey information published could harm the negotiation efforts so I wouldn't expect it.
But it also implies a certain level of trust in the MEC by the rank and file. That trust has been stressed by the lack of transparency with other ad-hoc surveys, and the lesson has hopefully been learned.
By all means, use surveys, but unless they rise to the level of requiring lack of transparency (akin to executive privilege), then they should be fully published. Someone among the union is probably smart in statistical analysis, but at the very least, after the data crunching is over, openly publish to the membership:
- State the need for the survey
- Method of selecting the appropriate questions
- Demographic (statistical relevance)
- Results/data
- MEC conclusion/way forward
If an ad-hoc survey is too important to open the kimono afterward, then maybe other ways of measuring the data should be explored. Otherwise you're cashing in the trust capital that will be needed for the big show.
11-13-2019, 05:44 AM
#2395
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by Aeirum
What do you guys make of Connies letter this morning?
It makes me even more skeptical of the “Connie can’t wait to throw money at us” theories.
It makes me even more skeptical of the “Connie can’t wait to throw money at us” theories.
I think Connie's letter comports with the reality on the ramp. Although for once I wish someone would just let the dictation machine run so we could get it in his own eloquent tapestry of words.
11-13-2019, 06:16 AM
#2396
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by BFMthisA10
That is absolutely sound reasoning, and has been clearly communicated by the MEC and Chair.
But it also implies a certain level of trust in the MEC by the rank and file. That trust has been stressed by the lack of transparency with other ad-hoc surveys, and the lesson has hopefully been learned.
By all means, use surveys, but unless they rise to the level of requiring lack of transparency (akin to executive privilege), then they should be fully published. Someone among the union is probably smart in statistical analysis, but at the very least, after the data crunching is over, openly publish to the membership:
- State the need for the survey
- Method of selecting the appropriate questions
- Demographic (statistical relevance)
- Results/data
- MEC conclusion/way forward
If an ad-hoc survey is too important to open the kimono afterward, then maybe other ways of measuring the data should be explored. Otherwise you're cashing in the trust capital that will be needed for the big show.
But it also implies a certain level of trust in the MEC by the rank and file. That trust has been stressed by the lack of transparency with other ad-hoc surveys, and the lesson has hopefully been learned.
By all means, use surveys, but unless they rise to the level of requiring lack of transparency (akin to executive privilege), then they should be fully published. Someone among the union is probably smart in statistical analysis, but at the very least, after the data crunching is over, openly publish to the membership:
- State the need for the survey
- Method of selecting the appropriate questions
- Demographic (statistical relevance)
- Results/data
- MEC conclusion/way forward
If an ad-hoc survey is too important to open the kimono afterward, then maybe other ways of measuring the data should be explored. Otherwise you're cashing in the trust capital that will be needed for the big show.
11-13-2019, 06:23 AM
#2397
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by jhugz
Anytime you publish results of a survey, you're handing those results over to management indirectly. Ask yourself, do you want this information in their hands? Published results of these surveys can impact things as important as grievances, future CBA language, and negotiations. It's just not worth doing. I'm all for transparency, but there is a lot of information that doesn't need to get blasted to the masses. I know that can be frustrating but some trust is required. Trust that leadership is taking this data and making informed decisions, which they are.
Noted.
11-13-2019, 09:25 AM
#2398
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by Aeirum
What do you guys make of Connies letter this morning?
It makes me even more skeptical of the “Connie can’t wait to throw money at us” theories.
It makes me even more skeptical of the “Connie can’t wait to throw money at us” theories.
11-13-2019, 10:35 AM
#2399
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Gear Slinger
Posts: 708
Originally Posted by Puck Hawg
Posturing for negotiations? All we ever hear is that we make money hand over fist. I just feel like we wouldn’t have hired all summer if the cargo industry is slowing down...
I agree. They probably wouldn't have hired all year if things were getting worse. This is aviation though so crazier things have happened...
11-13-2019, 11:19 AM
#2400
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: B777 CA
Posts: 585
Originally Posted by BFMthisA10
That is absolutely sound reasoning, and has been clearly communicated by the MEC and Chair.
But it also implies a certain level of trust in the MEC by the rank and file. That trust has been stressed by the lack of transparency with other ad-hoc surveys, and the lesson has hopefully been learned.
By all means, use surveys, but unless they rise to the level of requiring lack of transparency (akin to executive privilege), then they should be fully published. Someone among the union is probably smart in statistical analysis, but at the very least, after the data crunching is over, openly publish to the membership:
- State the need for the survey
- Method of selecting the appropriate questions
- Demographic (statistical relevance)
- Results/data
- MEC conclusion/way forward
If an ad-hoc survey is too important to open the kimono afterward, then maybe other ways of measuring the data should be explored. Otherwise you're cashing in the trust capital that will be needed for the big show.
But it also implies a certain level of trust in the MEC by the rank and file. That trust has been stressed by the lack of transparency with other ad-hoc surveys, and the lesson has hopefully been learned.
By all means, use surveys, but unless they rise to the level of requiring lack of transparency (akin to executive privilege), then they should be fully published. Someone among the union is probably smart in statistical analysis, but at the very least, after the data crunching is over, openly publish to the membership:
- State the need for the survey
- Method of selecting the appropriate questions
- Demographic (statistical relevance)
- Results/data
- MEC conclusion/way forward
If an ad-hoc survey is too important to open the kimono afterward, then maybe other ways of measuring the data should be explored. Otherwise you're cashing in the trust capital that will be needed for the big show.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
