Please read before you vote
09-06-2023 | 06:52 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
priming the membership that he’s voting NO again… he and 3 others will vote NO… same ones for everything.
09-06-2023 | 06:54 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
just like The Gardener emails… same BS. At least he has the gonads to sign it… but bad form, IMO, to send out a letter to membership before the AIP and now the TA vote before it is completed.
09-06-2023 | 06:57 PM
#13
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 532
Likes: 10
I urge everyone to read and consider Council 33 FO Rep Mario Martins’ position on this TA before voting. The link is below. You can also log into www.alpa.org, go to the Council 33 link and click on “ Vice Chair TA Perspective : A Product of Expediency”.
https://www.alpa.org/ual/-/media/UAL...2023-09-06.pdf
https://www.alpa.org/ual/-/media/UAL...2023-09-06.pdf
09-06-2023 | 07:01 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
The den captain rep was already hemming and hawing while we were still negotiating. Next we will be surprised when AW from IAD votes no so she can politic on voting no. These people are playing politician with your livelihood. They never intended to vote yes. I see at least 4 hard no votes on the mec before the TA was even released so they can look "tough."
09-07-2023 | 02:43 AM
#16
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 716
Likes: 8
From: Left
Just like in national politics, it’s common to tender the tactical ‘no’ vote. Often when a bill is going to pass, even when the outliers support it, they’ll vote no.
They’ll tout the reasoning, maybe a few will listen.
I wanted something that American got, we didn’t, partial sick bank buyback.
Yeah, we could go back to grousing about compensation for another 9-12 months.
They’ll tout the reasoning, maybe a few will listen.
I wanted something that American got, we didn’t, partial sick bank buyback.
Yeah, we could go back to grousing about compensation for another 9-12 months.
09-07-2023 | 06:03 AM
#17
Thread Starter
New Hire
Joined: Oct 2022
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Frankly, I was unaware of the history that is discrediting him. And, the letter I posted didn’t inform my current position on this TA. His position on Section 8 (among other aspects of that section) happened to illustrate how I feel about that section and partly why I’m voting “no” over it. 8-F-12 was a hard line for the Company for a reason. As bad as I’d like to secure a good contract as soon as possible, I’m not willing to sell out the integrity of our profession over it.
09-07-2023 | 06:36 AM
#19
Thread Starter
New Hire
Joined: Oct 2022
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Most of the replies to this thread sound very much like what people say when they are hearing what they don’t want to hear, regardless of it’s validity. How about some actual thoughts on why Section 8 is not an erosion of what this profession is founded on?
09-07-2023 | 06:48 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
Not to forget that he’s not even based in DEN… he sits at 20% on the g-line for EWR FO. 🤔
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
