ASA Furlough Fund

[sayrejm]

He is easy to figure out due to his SN. I voted FOR the furlough COBRA money, I just cannot believe that someone would vote after being told not to, then try and justify it. I know if I were being furloughed, I could not in good conscience vote for money to be disbursed to me. If it passed, then great, but I would feel weird voting for money to be disbursed to me. Most people I have talked to feel the exact same way. It has nothing to do with the single vote, I'm glad it passed. It has everything to do with the complete lack of conscience that I believe the person in question has. All he has tried to do is justify his vote. Never once has he said, "you know what, there was a complete conflict of interest and I should not have voted".

Once again, I am glad this passed. I think it is very important to pay for the health insurance for the unfortunate furloughed people. These days the insurance is almost as important as the paycheck. I am just amazed by the lack of integrity.

Again, I was never told not to vote. I asked "can a furloughed pilot vote" I was told "a furloughed pilot cannot vote" when the vote started earlier than I was thinking it would when I had asked that question I thought that since I had not yet been furloughed that I was still eligible to vote. Until Feb 9 came to pass, it was concievable that ASA could have reduced the furlough by 10 people and then I would be one of the ones contributing to the fund. Of course the furlough issue is a mute point because, like it has been shown to me, I was still on probation and didnt realize it.

 

[N1VIBS]

Never really thought about it before, but anyone have any idea why probation was changed to completion of IOE plus 1 year? As for as I know, its been industry standard for probation to end at DOH plus 1 year. Being honest, since it didn't apply to me, I never noticed the change in the contract either.

 

[Texx]

It's done and over.

Lets back out the pilots that should have not been able to vote, per the contract, and do a recount. If it passed so be it, let's move on. If it changes the vote, there are other plans to move forward.

 

[Texx]

Never really thought about it before, but anyone have any idea why probation was changed to completion of IOE plus 1 year? As for as I know, its been industry standard for probation to end at DOH plus 1 year. Being honest, since it didn't apply to me, I never noticed the change in the contract either.

The Company wanted it. It was exchanged for something. What I don't know.

 

[Speedtape]

No I do not see the conflict of interest. We may just have to disagree on that. We vote for our own interest in this country all the time. Millions of people who do not pay taxes just voted for a president believing he would increase taxes on those who do and give it to them. The question isn't on whether a furlough to be pilot should have been able to vote. The question was whether he was allowed to vote at the time. As I have stated, probation aside, the ballots were certified prior to the furlough. With that said, It was not whether or not I was going to be furloughed that was at issue, it was whether or not I was still on probation. I will say it again; I was wrong. I was still on probation and have made my case why I thought I was not several times now. The two main reasons being the "active member" card alpa sent me and that I was charged union dues. It also didn't help that I did not recall that change in the new contract. Again, I am sorry I mistakingly voted while on probation.

For the record, any active member in good standing has the right to vote. To prevent that would be illegal.

For the record, no one in the group of 80 was officially off probation due to the new contract language that states the probation ends IOE + 1 year. Therefore, everyone in the 80 would have been classified an Apprentice Member. An Apprentice Member has no voting rights until he becomes an Active Member, which occurs post probation.

In addition, a furloughed pilot is no longer considered an Active Member.

In summary, at least one pilot(maybe more) of the 80 voted, as he has declared. That pilot was not furloughed at the time, however, he was officially an Apprentice Member,(no voting rights) as were the other 79. For that reason alone, that pilot and the other 79 should not have made the election roster for elegible pilots.

Apparently, the National staff who oversees the election process, did not know that our contract had changed regarding the probationary period. When they printed the roster for elegible voters, they apparently did the one year look back and created the list of every pilot who had been here for one year--assuming that they were off probation, because that is the way it had always been done and no one had informed them of the contract change.

 

[Speedtape]

The Company wanted it. It was exchanged for something. What I don't know.

Well, we know it was not for Pay-For-Training!

 

[sayrejm]

For the record, any active member in good standing has the right to vote. To prevent that would be illegal.

For the record, no one in the group of 80 was officially off probation due to the new contract language that states the probation ends IOE + 1 year. Therefore, everyone in the 80 would have been classified an Apprentice Member. An Apprentice Member has no voting rights until he becomes an Active Member, which occurs post probation.

In addition, a furloughed pilot is no longer considered an Active Member.

In summary, at least one pilot(maybe more) of the 80 voted, as he has declared. That pilot was not furloughed at the time, however, he was officially an Apprentice Member,(no voting rights) as were the other 79. For that reason alone, that pilot and the other 79 should not have made the election roster for elegible pilots.

Apparently, the National staff who oversees the election process, did not know that our contract had changed regarding the probationary period. When they printed the roster for elegible voters, they apparently did the one year look back and created the list of every pilot who had been here for one year--assuming that they were off probation, because that is the way it had always been done and no one had informed them of the contract change.

In addition to that, they also sent me paperwork and a new ALPA card saying I was activated and charged me dues. I am not going chase it because it is only 13 bucks, but ALPA owes me the money I paid for dues back. Is that worth chasing just on principle?

 

[johnpeace]

If we were ineligible to vote, why did ALPA send us directions for how to participate in the referendum?

 

[Speedtape]

Write the rules, play by the rules.

Originally Posted by Speedtape
According to a member on the Furlough Committee, the new contract modified the language on the probationary period from D.O.H. + 1 year to a longer period of I.O.E. + 1 year. Apparently, our pilot group is the only pilot group that has the difference, now.


This was the first election that has happened since the contract. Apparently, the National folks that run the elections had no knowledge of the change in contract and that our process, related to the probationary period, was now different. Moreover, when the "elegible pilots to vote" on the roll were assembled for some list, somewhere between 6 and 15 pilots were included that should not have been included under the new contract language on probationary period. It was an honest oversight by the staff, that has no dog in the fight, and were going through the motions of running an election that is usually somewhat routine.

It's more like 70 pilots.
Is that a firm number?

What some pilot, soon to be furloughed, was told in the LEC meeting by the Rep was true--that this pilot would not be able to vote because he was still on probation, according to the new contract language. This pilot was officially on probation, as were all of the affected pilots in the furloughed group. That would have taken care of the conflict of interest issue.

According to the Pilot Furlough committee member, the issue only came to light because one of the pilots to be furloughed, announced that he had been sent a ballot and had voted. Apparently, several members not impacted by the furlough brought it to the attention of both National and the ASA MEC. According to the Pilot Furlough Committee member, the MEC, surprised by the news, contacted National for an investigation regarding the elegibility roll or list, and to seek guidance and remedy if there was a an election anomaly.

The Pilot Furlough Committee member, speculated that once an investigation was complete, if there was an improper roll, that some National election committee might review the roll, remove the inelegible voters that were officially still on probation, and retally the results.

If this is what happens, and the numbers are correct, the result of the election will remain unchanged. However, given those circumstances, the margin would be much closer.

In restrospect, had the usual whiners, who claimed to stand on their principle, gotten off their whining arses and made the effort to organize a No vote, they may have been successful. Get a Clue!

You need to get a clue. Improper vote and any member in good standing has the RIGHT / DUTY to call it to the attention to National
I've got a clue--several of them! I agree that any active member has the right/duty to challenge the election. Given the declaration of one voting probationary pilot, a challenge is only fitting. My point was, did anyone (opponents) get off the ALPA boards or F.I. long enough to mount a campaign? I doubt it! However, if your numbers are correct, then the outcome will be reversed. My source claims it was only 6-15 at the most--not enough to reverse!

Morals of the story:
1. The screeching wheel may not always get the oil.
2. If you are going to stand on principle, then do something more than just run your mouth to affect the outcome.

They did. Protested an improper vote.
Yeah, but that was the last line of defense. With a vote this close, a little effort would have assured a different outcome--even with some illegal votes.
3. The Democratic Process works--for those who care to participate.
4. The Democratic Process works--when there is a lack of participation, the minority can rule the majority.
5. The Democratic Process works--through strategy, Clinton won 2 elections because there was a 3rd party candidate, and he did not have to win majority vote or popular vote.

Clinton wasn't an ALPA member.
Yes, and he claims he didn't have sex with "That Woman" also. Do you think he knows the meaning of "is?" How about the words to "The Devil with the blue dress on?" My point or "clue" was that he knew how to win the election without winning a majority of the votes--in 2 elections! It does not necessarily matter who writes the rules! He who knows the rules, rules! He didn't write the rules--but he knew how to play by the rules--to win! Maybe, you and your buds will prevail1

6. Last and most importantly for the principled whiners, The Democratic Process works--when like "O" or "Oh!Bama", you get out and off your arse, and organize the vote.

They did get off there arses. They called the BS Flag with National and the MEC didn't like it specifically 1 person.
I guess you know the politics and the players. I don't, but I guess there will be more drama and suspense.

Bah-Bye


Write the rules, play by the rules.
And you missed the 2 more of the important sayings:
1. It ain't over, until it's over!
2. It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings! She has not sung yet, but I hear her warming up:
"Dough"----a few bucks is what it's all about.
"Ray"--we could all use a little sunshine and brotherly perspective.
"Me"---that says it all, but, shouldn't we think about others, less fortunate?
"F/A" If all else fails "What would a F/A do?"
"So!" A little too much of the "Me" attitude is holding some back.
"LA"--Most of us are so sick of this we go "LALALA!"
"Tea" A Long Island Tea or two and we could get this settled in a gentlemanly way!
"Dough" Finally, it's where it all begins and where it all ends--$$$$!

TexxView Public ProfileSend a private message to TexxFind More Posts by TexxAdd Texx to Your Buddy List

 

[sayrejm]

Basically, alpa made a mistake by taking guys off probation on their anniversary and then sent them a ballot. we got an email telling us to vote and thus some of us assumed we were eligible and voted. It isnt like we went to the polls with fake IDs and voted for dead people. Honest systematic mistakes all around. It happened, lets fix it and move on.

 

[Speedtape]

Basically, alpa made a mistake by taking guys off probation on their anniversary and then sent them a ballot. we got an email telling us to vote and thus some of us assumed we were eligible and voted. It isnt like we went to the polls with fake IDs and voted for dead people. Honest systematic mistakes all around. It happened, lets fix it and move on.

Exactly! This was not your fault. Apparently, it was a change in our contract that did not get communicated. No one had bad intentions or was trying to pull a fast one. You and others were simply exercising your vote, assuming that SOMEONE knew what they were doing!

Hey! At least you voted, that's more than about 1400+ others did, and they are the ones who will be assessed. And for those who told you that you should have known better--tell them to kiss the blarney stone! Had I been in your shoes, I would have voted also. You were acting in good faith thinking you were an Active member with full voting rights. Had you been an Active Member under the old contract, you not only could have voted, but your vote would have had to been counted and there would be no argument!

I doubt that there was enough in your case, that it will change the results.

 

[JumpersAway]

Do you understand the Time Value of Money principle? Over time 5 here,10 here, 20 here sucks. In a good account it adds the F up in 40 years. You have a mortage, why not pay a little more every month? You may need it when you get laid off or lose your medical. Looks like you could use a money manager!

Then that's fantastic. I'm glad to see that you have the foresight and fortitude to invest for your future- it's obvious that through your superior money management skills, you will have the fundage for the furlough fund.....................Glad to see you planned for such an event.

 

[maxcackel]

Perfect example of the ME generation. James your arrogance as a first year f.o. is killing me. I could not imagine saying the thing's you have on the alpa board of here when I was hired, or now for that matter. And your vote is a major conflict of interest, end of story.

 

[Texx]

Moreover, when the "elegible pilots to vote" on the roll were assembled for some list, somewhere between 6 and 15 pilots were included that should not have been included under the new contract language on probationary period. It was an honest oversight by the staff, that has no dog in the fight, and were going through the motions of running an election that is usually somewhat routine.

It's more like 70 pilots.
Is that a firm number?

All you have to do is take Feb18, 2009 and roll it back 1 year plus 60 days (for all training and IOE) and see what DOHs would fall in that window. Those pilots are still on probation when it came to this vote.

117 pilots approx.

 

[Texx]

I think we need to focus not on the error of one but the error of the way the vote was handled.