DAL Recall / New York
11-08-2013, 01:58 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
DAL Recall / New York
There is an additional letter to give perspective on the recall by the C66 Secretary Treasurer. He was out during the actual hearing, but I was looking forward to his views. I'm a little confused as to why the letter is sent via the FO Rep. I have an e-mail out to both to get more info, no reply yet.
November 8, 2013
Members of Council 66,
This message is being forwarded to the members of the council on behalf of Secretary-Treasurer, Patrick Gribbin. As I believe it is important to hear the perspective of all council officers, I am sending this in accordance with the Delta MEC Policy Manual Section 1.H.3.b.3 (page 3)
Respectfully,
Brian J. Shinnick
Council 66 Interim First Officer Representative
Message from Patrick Gribbin
DAL 066 Secretary-Treasurer
November 8, 2013
Fellow Pilots of Council 66:
I have been asked by many of you over the past couple of weeks for my thoughts and perspective on the recall of the MEC Chairman and the state of the MEC in general. I have been hesitant to write anything thus far because I regrettably was not able to attend the recall meeting due to an earlier planned (and paid for!) vacation.
Because I was not in attendance, I am not going to get into too many specifics, nor will I engage in hearsay. I have very close friends on both sides of the debate, and they deserve better than my public speculation or innuendo. I will, however, discuss in general terms some issues that I see facing our MEC.
First and foremost, I have no doubt that both Tom and Brian cast their votes based solely on what they believed was best for the Delta pilots. They cast them without thought of political ramifications, nor were their votes a result of any backroom deals.
I have heard many accusations that those who voted to recall Captain Roberts did so with less-than-honorable intent. I have read updates from other councils accusing the recall supporters of any number of sleazy actions and motivations. I have both worked and socialized with many on both sides of the debate for years. They are friends, and I respect them greatly. Despite what many are alleging, I don’t believe for a second that the recall was initiated for any reason other than that many felt the pilots’ work was suffering.
For some time now, I have been concerned about our direction and with the tone around the horseshoe, the interaction between the administration and committees, and the relationship of the MEC administration. And I have been concerned that those issues were keeping us from what should be our only goal: improving the pay, benefits, working conditions, and job security of Delta pilots.
Again, since I wasn’t able to attend and listen to the testimony, I hesitate to say for certain how I would have cast a vote had I had one, but a change was definitely needed. Whether we should have replaced the captain or the crew is debatable, and I will leave that debate to those who voted.
Captain Kingsley Roberts is a gentleman and a friend. He has been a tireless and effective advocate for the Delta pilots for many years. I am truly sad about what transpired. That said, once it was clear that Captain Roberts had lost the support of the majority of the MEC, I am of the opinion that he would have been unable to lead the group effectively. At that point, I believe that he should have stepped down and spared the pilot group the effects of a recall. And I believe that his supporters should have advised him to do so.
Regardless of who becomes the next chairman, I want to shift our focus from politics and infighting to a common and effective strategy moving forward. I am far more concerned about how we are going to get our money back than I am about any petty union bickering.
To have an effective organization, you need an effective leader. I am hopeful and optimistic that our next chairman will solve the rifts from the recall, put an end to political infighting, and offer the leadership and plan to recapture the pay and prestige that we Delta pilots deserve.
Thank you, as always, for allowing me to serve you. Feel free to call or e-mail me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Patrick Gribbin
Council 66 Secretary-Treasurer
November 8, 2013
Members of Council 66,
This message is being forwarded to the members of the council on behalf of Secretary-Treasurer, Patrick Gribbin. As I believe it is important to hear the perspective of all council officers, I am sending this in accordance with the Delta MEC Policy Manual Section 1.H.3.b.3 (page 3)
Respectfully,
Brian J. Shinnick
Council 66 Interim First Officer Representative
************************************************** **
Message from Patrick Gribbin
DAL 066 Secretary-Treasurer
November 8, 2013
Fellow Pilots of Council 66:
I have been asked by many of you over the past couple of weeks for my thoughts and perspective on the recall of the MEC Chairman and the state of the MEC in general. I have been hesitant to write anything thus far because I regrettably was not able to attend the recall meeting due to an earlier planned (and paid for!) vacation.
Because I was not in attendance, I am not going to get into too many specifics, nor will I engage in hearsay. I have very close friends on both sides of the debate, and they deserve better than my public speculation or innuendo. I will, however, discuss in general terms some issues that I see facing our MEC.
First and foremost, I have no doubt that both Tom and Brian cast their votes based solely on what they believed was best for the Delta pilots. They cast them without thought of political ramifications, nor were their votes a result of any backroom deals.
I have heard many accusations that those who voted to recall Captain Roberts did so with less-than-honorable intent. I have read updates from other councils accusing the recall supporters of any number of sleazy actions and motivations. I have both worked and socialized with many on both sides of the debate for years. They are friends, and I respect them greatly. Despite what many are alleging, I don’t believe for a second that the recall was initiated for any reason other than that many felt the pilots’ work was suffering.
For some time now, I have been concerned about our direction and with the tone around the horseshoe, the interaction between the administration and committees, and the relationship of the MEC administration. And I have been concerned that those issues were keeping us from what should be our only goal: improving the pay, benefits, working conditions, and job security of Delta pilots.
Again, since I wasn’t able to attend and listen to the testimony, I hesitate to say for certain how I would have cast a vote had I had one, but a change was definitely needed. Whether we should have replaced the captain or the crew is debatable, and I will leave that debate to those who voted.
Captain Kingsley Roberts is a gentleman and a friend. He has been a tireless and effective advocate for the Delta pilots for many years. I am truly sad about what transpired. That said, once it was clear that Captain Roberts had lost the support of the majority of the MEC, I am of the opinion that he would have been unable to lead the group effectively. At that point, I believe that he should have stepped down and spared the pilot group the effects of a recall. And I believe that his supporters should have advised him to do so.
Regardless of who becomes the next chairman, I want to shift our focus from politics and infighting to a common and effective strategy moving forward. I am far more concerned about how we are going to get our money back than I am about any petty union bickering.
To have an effective organization, you need an effective leader. I am hopeful and optimistic that our next chairman will solve the rifts from the recall, put an end to political infighting, and offer the leadership and plan to recapture the pay and prestige that we Delta pilots deserve.
Thank you, as always, for allowing me to serve you. Feel free to call or e-mail me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Patrick Gribbin
Council 66 Secretary-Treasurer
11-08-2013, 02:51 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
OK, I got a call and e-mail back. This is going to be one for the record books.
Please talk to them yourself, if you're in C66.
The really big picture seems to be that the Secretary Treasurer was working on his perspective on the recall, along the lines of the letter the other two reps had produced. He submitted a draft to the Chairman for distribution on Monday, and the Chairman evidently was not comfortable with the draft. Several edits were made over the week, per his requests, but he still evidently felt the letter was (I'm paraphrasing) too political. An MEC voting rep can't be stopped from writing to membership, but otherwise communications to the group are channeled through the Chairman (I didn't know this). The FO rep doesn't think it's in the best interest of the council to suppress communications from another elected rep, so he used his authority. He didn't take any position on the letter itself, other than to say he didn't see anything detrimental to the Council in it.
Please talk to them yourself, if you're in C66.
The really big picture seems to be that the Secretary Treasurer was working on his perspective on the recall, along the lines of the letter the other two reps had produced. He submitted a draft to the Chairman for distribution on Monday, and the Chairman evidently was not comfortable with the draft. Several edits were made over the week, per his requests, but he still evidently felt the letter was (I'm paraphrasing) too political. An MEC voting rep can't be stopped from writing to membership, but otherwise communications to the group are channeled through the Chairman (I didn't know this). The FO rep doesn't think it's in the best interest of the council to suppress communications from another elected rep, so he used his authority. He didn't take any position on the letter itself, other than to say he didn't see anything detrimental to the Council in it.
11-08-2013, 03:03 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
To paraphrase the Secretary-Treasurer's e-mail, he saw that the recall had become used as a campaign issue, and he felt he had a duty and obligation to the council to put out his perspective.
He didn't attempt to explain why the Chairman elected to withhold the letter, or discuss his motives.
He didn't attempt to explain why the Chairman elected to withhold the letter, or discuss his motives.
11-08-2013, 05:26 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,142
Not a 66 pilot, but if what sink is saying is true (not suggesting sink altered anything himself) then I'm glad the FO rep put this out. Let the pilots hear it all and decide what they think - no need for multiple edits, deletes, whatever...
I think we're at a critical juncture here, and the more info coming out from the reps the better. Especially given the foodfight in cvg, I found Patrick's letter refreshing in that he left the personalities out of it.
When is the 66 election anyways?
I think we're at a critical juncture here, and the more info coming out from the reps the better. Especially given the foodfight in cvg, I found Patrick's letter refreshing in that he left the personalities out of it.
When is the 66 election anyways?
11-08-2013, 06:09 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Monday. The pilots aren't going to hear, I'm not even sure they'll notice, if their inbox is like mine.
I would have liked the Chairman to quit pushing for endorsements about his communications skills, and his most excellent control of C66 communications, and let all of the C66 elected reps communicate for themselves. I've voted for Patrick twice, and I thought I was entitled to his view. Is that weird?
I read that blood is in the streets in CVG, but they've got nothing on us. We're just more civilized in our attempts to suppress free speech. I have never seen an election so f'd up, and people so desperate to retain power.
I've read the letter several times, and I can't see what's so important that it needed to be suppressed. Can you?
I would have liked the Chairman to quit pushing for endorsements about his communications skills, and his most excellent control of C66 communications, and let all of the C66 elected reps communicate for themselves. I've voted for Patrick twice, and I thought I was entitled to his view. Is that weird?
I read that blood is in the streets in CVG, but they've got nothing on us. We're just more civilized in our attempts to suppress free speech. I have never seen an election so f'd up, and people so desperate to retain power.
I've read the letter several times, and I can't see what's so important that it needed to be suppressed. Can you?
Last edited by Sink r8; 11-08-2013 at 06:23 PM.
11-08-2013, 07:51 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
I just don't understand why anything in that update was objectionable to the C66 Chairman. It seemed to show both reps in a pretty positive light, while refraining from making a judgement on the event. I've always appreciated the honest, open communication from C66 and it seems unlike him to try and deny that communication. I hope that isn't a trend for the future.....
11-08-2013, 09:25 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
Thank you guys for bringing this to light. I'm shocked the DPA guys aren't all over this one, but it's obviously in their favor to ignore it. The questions that need answering are:
Why wasn't PG allowed to distribute his own version of the recall?
Who benefits from restricting that information?
Are certain individuals using BS's vote to throw him under the bus?
Is it a more politically expedient vote to not recall when facing re-election or to go ahead and make a controversial vote if the evidence is there?
Why wasn't PG allowed to distribute his own version of the recall?
Who benefits from restricting that information?
Are certain individuals using BS's vote to throw him under the bus?
Is it a more politically expedient vote to not recall when facing re-election or to go ahead and make a controversial vote if the evidence is there?
11-09-2013, 04:56 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Good questions, RBF.
I took the time to read the campaign literature from all sides.
As one of the candidates said, endorsements are approved and reviewed by candidates > the Chairman had a friend late in week write a glowing review of his performance at the recall, which implies his Vice-Chairman is wanting to turn NYC into ATL North > another friend of the Chairman, that endorsed him earlier, endorses the FO challenger in a spectacular smear job, and makes the FO challenger and current Chairman the dream ticket > the Chairman then puts out a letter reminding us that free speech by union officers and their supporter is protected, even to the point of misrepresentations and true lies (CYA for me, CYA for my friends) > he continues to prevent the message of a twice elected rep, which would provide a balanced viewpoint of the recall than his own sponsored version of the recall, while waxing poetic about free speech.
The problems here are many, but one of the worst parts about it is that the Chairman is actually having to current FO rep butchered, because he is facing hard questions about the recall. Rather than doing the honorable thing, and answering his own challenger, he lets a good guy that works with him get slaughtered. That's the kind of thing that happens to you when you vote with your buddies, and not for the group. You come back from the MEC meeting, and your account of your own performance reads like you didn't want to do your homework, and the new kid in the class turns in a good account of the facts.
This Chairman simply decided to have the other kid in the class smothered, and suppressed any opinions that even remotely acknowledged something was indeed wrong at the MEC.
Say what you will about coups, but that, NYC pilots is clear, obvious abuse of power. I have NEVER heard of one elected rep blocking communications from another. What you have going on in C108, by comparison is a fairly obvious political move that may backfire, but it's not an abuse of power by a sitting rep.
But you're right about asking: why no outrage?
I took the time to read the campaign literature from all sides.
As one of the candidates said, endorsements are approved and reviewed by candidates > the Chairman had a friend late in week write a glowing review of his performance at the recall, which implies his Vice-Chairman is wanting to turn NYC into ATL North > another friend of the Chairman, that endorsed him earlier, endorses the FO challenger in a spectacular smear job, and makes the FO challenger and current Chairman the dream ticket > the Chairman then puts out a letter reminding us that free speech by union officers and their supporter is protected, even to the point of misrepresentations and true lies (CYA for me, CYA for my friends) > he continues to prevent the message of a twice elected rep, which would provide a balanced viewpoint of the recall than his own sponsored version of the recall, while waxing poetic about free speech.
The problems here are many, but one of the worst parts about it is that the Chairman is actually having to current FO rep butchered, because he is facing hard questions about the recall. Rather than doing the honorable thing, and answering his own challenger, he lets a good guy that works with him get slaughtered. That's the kind of thing that happens to you when you vote with your buddies, and not for the group. You come back from the MEC meeting, and your account of your own performance reads like you didn't want to do your homework, and the new kid in the class turns in a good account of the facts.
This Chairman simply decided to have the other kid in the class smothered, and suppressed any opinions that even remotely acknowledged something was indeed wrong at the MEC.
Say what you will about coups, but that, NYC pilots is clear, obvious abuse of power. I have NEVER heard of one elected rep blocking communications from another. What you have going on in C108, by comparison is a fairly obvious political move that may backfire, but it's not an abuse of power by a sitting rep.
But you're right about asking: why no outrage?
Last edited by Sink r8; 11-09-2013 at 05:06 AM.
11-09-2013, 05:13 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by shiznit
I just don't understand why anything in that update was objectionable to the C66 Chairman. It seemed to show both reps in a pretty positive light, while refraining from making a judgement on the event. I've always appreciated the honest, open communication from C66 and it seems unlike him to try and deny that communication. I hope that isn't a trend for the future.....
The Secretary Treasurer is a respected guy. He's been elected twice. His opinions are usually reasoned. His account is very balanced, but it acknowledges MEC dysfunction. Even that little is unbearable to the Chairman, so he screws BOTH of the guys he works with, for the sake of re-election.
Everyone on here knows there was a problem with King, but it's just that some people were prematurely trying to oust him without making the case first, and another group was trying to delay the inevitable.
11-09-2013, 05:14 AM
#10
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Rather B Fishin
Thank you guys for bringing this to light. I'm shocked the DPA guys aren't all over this one, but it's obviously in their favor to ignore it. The questions that need answering are:
Why wasn't PG allowed to distribute his own version of the recall?
Who benefits from restricting that information?
Are certain individuals using BS's vote to throw him under the bus?
Is it a more politically expedient vote to not recall when facing re-election or to go ahead and make a controversial vote if the evidence is there?
Why wasn't PG allowed to distribute his own version of the recall?
Who benefits from restricting that information?
Are certain individuals using BS's vote to throw him under the bus?
Is it a more politically expedient vote to not recall when facing re-election or to go ahead and make a controversial vote if the evidence is there?
I knew the entrenched old guard within DALPA would torch the place before ever voluntarily accepting the will of the pilot group. I've urged DPA leaders to stay out of trying to fix DALPA from within so that we could prevent the entrenched dinosaurs from using us to deflect from their naked power grab.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
