NoSidNoStar

NineG, thank you for the lengthy answer. I do appreciate the time and effort, and the polite and eloquent tone.
However I am failing to understand why, you think, a union is detrimental to the pilots in the long run. I still believe that it benefits the individual.
You talked about the regionals. Isn't the "scope clause" a possible defense of a pilot group from the outsourcing to regionals? And isn't this outsourcing to regionals a product of the free market lowest bidder? How can an individual protect himself better than an union?
Investors get together, form a corporation which becomes a legal entity (the employer) with a lot of power versus the individual employee. Getting together as employees and forming a union to enhance the negotiation power is only a natural result. Assuming an honest union, that looks after the entire group, how is that so negative for the individual?

Sorry that I am slightly off the main scab topic. Just trying to understand others point of view.
I am sure Airhoss, TonyC, and the others have plenty reasons to feel so passionate about the scabs issue, and have directly being broken by it.
I know I would be really belligerent if I had been effected. And then again, may be we are all effected by it, directly or not.

BrandiNett

Hi Tony,

Thank you for being so thorough with your critique of the APC Terms and Conditions and Forum Rules. I thought I would help clarify a few things though.

First, the Terms and Conditions for APC are at the bottom of every page, and even though they are not "Airline Pilot Central" specific they do apply.

Second, the Forum Rules announcement should be at the top of every forum, and in addition there is an actual Rules thread in the Announcement forum: http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ru...rum-rules.html

Third, while there might not be a clearly outlined policy about specifically calling someone out as a scab, this kind of behavior actually falls under several other rules and Terms we have in place.

Finally, it has been my understanding that APC has always operated under a policy that calling someone out as a scab is simply not allowed. It is not written down specifically as you seem to want it to be, but since the site opened the forums have operated under the understanding that posts calling out someone as a scab were not allowed. This is where this phrase in the rules applies:

Discussion OF scabbing is fine. Calling someone out as a scab is not.

In the future please PM myself or Vagabond to resolve these rule issues rather than hijack/derail a thread. A failure to do so will result in more than just this friendly warning.

NineGturn

Again, to be clear, I'm not specifically against unions or the many positive accomplishments and contributions unions have made to this industry.

The detriment stems from the manipulation of union priorities to cause a long term and consistent reduction in average airline pilot salary over time. This is not arguable, it is a fact that average airline pilot salaries have consistently fallen over a long period of time. One can of course argue that salaries may be even lower had unions not protected us but I don't see that as a valid argument if the goal is to maintain salaries or improve salaries and considering the fact that some airline pilots are stuck at poverty level salaries for a significant portion of their career due to no fault of their own. I see it as an overall failure of the system that is in place.

Without reiterating my previous posts, there are many factors that have come into play but the fact is the end result has been a failure and the general response of the union system is to keep trying the same things over and over looking for a different "long term" result.

Unions are self sustaining entities that have an instinct for survival just like a corporation and will do what is necessary to survive.

I see the scope clause as the enabler of outsourcing. Either stand by the union principle or don't but this in between whittling away is the worst thing to do. Scope as I see it is the failure of the union to protect the collective as it is supposed to. If the union fails to protect the pilots it has failed. The fact that the union survives demonstrates the self preservation aspect.

The union should either work on the industry wide scale or company wide but not both. It is a conflict of interest to have a national level union that is designed to create barriers for it's members preventing the transition to a different union job at a different company within the same union organization.

A union is not designed to protect an individual rather than a collective. The individual interests are secondary to the collective. In a union environment, as an individual, you won't have a choice....only a vote....maybe. In a free market, you are an individual who markets himself as in individual. If the employer doesn't work out for whatever reason, you are free to market yourself elsewhere. Supply and demand determine compensation.

This is a description of a union in it's purest form. Unions have historically been very effective at allowing workers to protect themselves and their jobs from overzealous management.

The problem is when the union becomes more interested in self preservation than the workers.

In the case of airline pilots, the career has changed significantly since deregulation but the union structure has not. The typical airline pilot today can not reasonably expect to stay at one company his or her entire career and is likely to work at several airlines or many airlines. The current union structure is not friendly to this career path.

The main problem is seniority. Seniority is a unique animal in the airline business and not duplicated anywhere else, not even the military. Seniority creates an inefficient distribution of experience and locks senior or experienced pilots out of the job market. That's not protection and it effectively eliminates free market forces from affecting pilot salaries at the high end. What it does is force the free market to only work at the entry level and make experience a non issue for airlines looking to hire new pilots.

I understand it was an emotional time and I witnessed it first hand. We haven't really seen anything like it in recent years but the animosity remains and in my opinion is unhealthy and exploited to the overall detriment of the piloting profession.

Even beyond the issue of scabs, I fail to understand the intense emotional disrespect pilots can have for each other across company lines, types, history etc. I find it intensely ironic that the pilot of a mainline carrier can be disrespectful of the pilot of a regional carrier (who may even have been flying longer) when the mainline scope agreement created that regional airline in the first place.

Regardless of the impact it had, I believe the big airline unions have done more damage by selling out the bottom half of their career than any individual who may have decided to cross a picket line. That's just my opinion but I believe I've validated my point.

TonyC

Hi, Brandi, I trust you enjoyed your 3-day weekend. I think you have misunderstood my posts. They were not meant as a critique of the APC Terms and Conditions (that's the name on the link, but the page actually says Terms of Use) or the Forum Rules. My posts were a response to one of your "helpful" Moderator's smug claim that "APC policy on scab naming is clear. Point, set, game, match."

The truth is, it's not.

Now, like I said, I did not intend for my posts to sound like a critique of the APC rules. I'm quite familiar with them, and I have no complaints about them. If the helpful Moderator would have directed awax and me and other readers to a place where we could read this clear APC policy on scab naming, I would have gladly reached across the net, shaken his hand, and thanked him for his assistance. Apparently he has retreated to the locker room.



Well, OK, the link at the bottom of the page says "Terms and Conditions", but it directs to a page titled "Terms of Use." Let's not quibble about what it's called. I'm aware of where it is, and what it says, and I even posted a link to the page in my post. It does not contain the clear APC policy on scab naming that the helpful moderator claimed exists.

Yepp, I'm aware of that, too, and where it is, and what it says, and I posted a link to the page in my post, too. (By the way, what ever happened to ole CleeIB? ) It also does not contain the clear APC policy on scab naming that the helpful Moderator claimed exists.


Awww, see there, we agree! There is no clear policy. That's all I was saying, but our helpful Moderator apparently didn't want to back down. I'm glad we've resolved the matter.


Hmm, I'm not quite sure how those apply. Let me use an example. What if I were to say that Clay Lacy crossed the United Airlines ALPA picket line in 1985 and worked for United while the pilots were on strike? That fits even the most stringent definition of scab, but let's say I haven't called him a scab yet, I just posted the fact that he crossed the picket line. Maybe I could post a link to the Clay Lacy article in Wikipedia or even paste a citation from the article:

Using the excerpts you provided above, have I posted anything offensive? It's not a "court ordered defamatory statement", and it's not threatening, hateful or pornographic. It does not disclose personal, confidential or proprietary information. Heck, it's from a Wikipedia page entirely dedicated to the man. Nothing of what I have posted is false or fraudulent. I didn't post anything that was obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

Which rule have I broken?


Now, I get it that the Owners and Administrators and Moderators have the discretion to edit or delete any posts or threads you want, and you have the final say and all that, and if you want to delete that, I'm not supposed to complain. No problem. But we're back to the same place where the helpful Moderator began, claiming there's a clear policy where there isn't one. Unfortunately, the passages you've quoted don't really make it any more clear than when we began.



But wait, again, I think you misunderstand. It's not a matter of me wanting it to be written down specifically. I don't care if it's written down at all. What I care about is a Moderator chastising Members and claiming there is a clear policy where no clear policy exists, in any form.

I think you are also perhaps misinformed about how APC has always operated with regards to calling someone out as a scab. See below.


Actually, it has been allowed, and it has been done, even by a Co-Founder.

He was first to post in this May, 2007 thread about ... wait for it ... Clay Lacy. He didn't shut the thread down. On the contrary, he confirmed the label:

In 2009, he posted the Jack London account of the scab:


In a 2011 thread titled "Why do airlines keep going bankrupt?" a member begins by posting an article by Caitlin Kenney that mentions AirlineForecasts analyst Vaughn Cordle. Our Co-Founder engaged in the conversation:
Looks a lot like scab naming to me, though it was rather off-hand, and not much of a deal was made about it. gipple was more blunt, but nobody said anything about it:

Anyway, that is a more accurate reflection of how " the forums have operated" ... "since the site opened." I realize that predated Internet Brands' involvement, so I'm not criticizing you for not knowing it. I'm just presenting these as examples of the culture that has existed here for a long, long time ... even before our helpful Moderator arrived on the scene.





Well, now see that is a clear statement of policy. I'll bookmark this thread for future reference.


Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to address the matter for the benefit of all of us discussing the topic in this thread -- scabs. I hope you'll enjoy your week.

Oh, wait ... was that intended as a threat? I wish I could post a frown face here, but I've already used my allotment of 3 images per post. <FROWN>






.

BrandiNett

Hi Tony,

There is no need to go after the mods by calling them smug or other derogatory terms. They are volunteers doing their job as best they can - including handing over situations that involve members being rude to them for doing their jobs. Personal attacks on any member - including mods - is not tolerable and in the future such behavior will result in red cards. Not a threat, just the rules being enforced.

As for the "policy is clear" versus "policy is clearly outlined" these are two different things. The policy on naming scabs may not be written down but from my understanding it has always been clear how discussions of scabs go down.

The references you make to the past use of calling out scabs by HSLD and others only seems to be calling out public figures. Anyone who is public like that does not count towards what the mod intended. We have never allowed registered members to be called out here on the forums. That would be disclosing personal information.

The rules will be getting a facelift to make certain things more clear.

NineGturn

It seems to me also that Clay Lacey could care very little about what any airline pilot may think of him at this point.

As far as the future. I don't see strikes as likely going forward. I don't think it's a consideration anymore. After all, there's not a lot of harm left to do to the profession and the top union members have publicly proclaimed an amicable relationship with upper airline management. So the sellout is over. The issue of scabs is not even relevant anymore.

Of course I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so.

TonyC

Hi Brandi,

As careful as I have been to be polite and respectful, it sort of hurts my feelings for you to accuse me of being rude or calling anybody smug or other derogatory terms. I have not attacked anybody.

I did refer to a remark that a moderator made as being smug, not the moderator himself. He ended his post with the phrase, "... set, game, match." I assume he simply confused the order, or precedence of the divisions of a tennis match, and meant to say, "Game, set, match", which is the last call an umpire makes in a tennis match. When the umpire makes the call, the match is over, and a winner is declared. The players politely reach across the net and shake each others' hands, they shake the hand of the umpire, they collect their rackets and other belongings, and they retreat to the locker room. Well, that is unless one of them remains on the court to receive a trophy or participate in some sort of ceremony.

Outside of tennis, the phrase is an idiom which declares a decisive victory and a cessation to the conversation or contest. Now, there are some pretty ugly explanations of the phrase in the Urban Dictionary, but I'll assume the intention was a more main-stream meaning of the idiom as described in the Idioms Wiki. According to that site, it means "game over" and its main use is gloating.

I don't think it's a stretch to call the use of that phrase, that idiom, smug. That doesn't make the speaker smug, it just means that his reply was smug.

I haven't been rude, and I have used no derogatory terms. But I have now been accused, and that seems both unfortunate and ironic.



Red cards? Is this another sports allusion, or a new rule? I don't recall reading anything about red cards in the Terms of Use or the "Forum Rules."



Since I already explained how I believe your understanding of "how it has always been" does not comport with the history of the site, I won't belabor the point. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.


I have no idea what the Moderator intended because he made no attempt to explain himself, but Vaughn Cordle is not a public figure. He is a scab, though, and our Co-founder had no problem emphatically declaring such. That's not personal information any more than it's personal information that he was born. It happened. It's just a fact.

Is it just that we can't call registered members scabs? Would that change if Clay Lacy became a registered member of APC?


I guess we've got that going for us. Have a pleasant evening.






.

HIFLYR

Tony be careful or the hall monitors will get you

SkyHigh

Is that still a thing?

NineGturn

Don't bother...the astroturfers will just drown you out.