Quote:
Originally Posted by trashhauler
Tony, you are playing loosely with the facts. Your block reps job is to look at all proposals, good and bad. But you already know that Tony, because you were a block rep. If your block rep endorses a proposal screwing with retirement, then you can breakout the pitch forks. MD11hog is not correct and is just going off the misinformation spread on here, which only furthers the company's agenda, which of course is, divide and conquer.
I know it's hard to not be emotional about a subject like this, but we need to take a step back and look at the facts before we accuse people of things they did not do. This only serves to divide us further. If you are not sure about something on social media, call your block rep or anybody in the union to get the facts. Just my opinion of course.
I'm not playing loosely with the facts at all. I'm not unsure, and it has nothing to do with social media. Council 7 published a communication that stated emphatically they would not consider an "A"-plan freeze. Block 1 Rep and Block 7 Rep signed it. My rep, Block 4, did not. I immediately e-mailed him, to ask why. His e-mail response was to call him. I did. I spent well over 5 minutes listening to him explain why he couldn't be in unity with the other two Local Council officers because he could never say never. He was willing to consider the possibility that there might be some sort of plan that involved some sort of freeze that might be advantageous to some of us.
I don't need a lecture about conquer and divide and unity from a Block Rep who can't bring himself to say "Hell no" to an "A" plan freeze of ANY hardness.
MD11hog can read his Block Rep's solo communication piece (which he published after I talked to him on the phone) and draw his own conclusions -- no need to assume where he got his information. You can read it, too. Visit
Local Council 7
Back to your premise, "Your block reps (sic) job is to look at all proposals, good and bad." I disagree. If the proposal is to cut pay by 50%, it's a waste of time to consider it. If the proposal is to scrap the vacation system, please do not waste valuable time and union resources to consider it. If the proposal is to work an additional 5 days per month at straight pay, do not consider it. Some "proposals" are on their face concessionary, insulting, and unratifiable -- don't waste time considering them. They were not offered in good faith -- they do not deserve the consumption of our resources to consider.
Until a month ago, many pilots might have been interested in a "B"-fund with a big number, because most of us are not retirement experts. <GASP> I know, I know, we're pilots, we're experts in every field, right? Carpentry. Auto mechanics. Brain surgery. You name it.
Since then, a number of educational articles have been published showing the folly of freezing the "A"-plan. I don't blame most pilots for not knowing that, but I do hold our elected representatives to a higher standard. I hold our R&I Committee to a higher standard. I hold our Negotiating Committee to a higher standard. I hold our former R&I Committee Chairman, a man who holds the highest national professional credentials, who once served as the ALPA National R&I Committee Chairman, the man who now serves as a de facto member of the Negotiating Committee because he is the MEC Chairman, to a higher standard. ANY and ALL of them should have recognized the folly of an "A"-plan freeze and should not have wasted valuable MEC Meeting time discussing it. The Negotiating Committee should have informed the MEC that The Company had offered such a plan, and that the Negotiating Committee had read it, thought about it, and rejected it in their counterproposal.
If the Block Rep is put in the position of considering every proposal, good or bad, we will NEVER get a TA.
.