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.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
ASA Furlough Fund
- Thread starter probablecause
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
Well, we know it was not for Pay-For-Training!
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?
Last edited:
Speedtape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
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
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
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
Cruise Bores Me.......
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Posts
- 1,222
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.
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.
Speedtape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
No, if I had my guess, he has taken a bath in his investment world, just like everyone else. My investments are worth Half of what they were a year ago--and I didn't even get a kiss or the K-Y!
JumpersAway
Cruise Bores Me.......
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Posts
- 1,222
I totally understand what you are saying, however, I'm not sure there is much to learn here, so much as there is a point to be had. It seems people are only really willing to get involved and educated when there is a contract at stake. Contracts are a major slice of the pie, but not the whole deal. There is always something going on with the union- PBS for example. The blast mail, website, and forums should have alerted people that this vote was out there. I know people have been talking about it- ops was buzzing with the talk regarding the vote. However, I think the bulk of people took an apathetic attitude towards it- if it passes, it passes........if it doesn't, it doesn't.
You are spot on though- if it is that big a deal, and the discourse is this prevelent, we need to review the ballots cast, and exclude those that are to recieve the aid. I'm still of the impression it would pass, however.
I have an example of why the furloughed pilots should still be able to vote IF they were off probation (which none were but since at least I voted believing I was off just bear with me)Lets say that this furlough occured at a time when those who were being furloughed were off probation and covered by the new contract. OK, lets say the same 80 pilots get furloughed and lets say that they are not allowed to vote. Now, lets say that at least one guy in the top 10 of the list wants to vote no. Now lets say a month into the furlough, ASA decides to call 10 back. Now, we have a situation where at least one of the 10 are back and having monies taken out of their pay for something that they were not allowed to vote on. That, to me, is not fair. Also in that example where we are assuming that the 80 are actually off probation, lets say the vote is happening before the effective furlough date. Are you going to tell them "your an active member in good standing with voting rights, but.... we arnt going to let you vote"?? You can't, that would be unlawful I believe. It is not a conflict of interest. If we were ligitimatly off probation (which we wernt) but if we were, it would not be a conflict of interest unless you can guarantee that if ASA recalls some that they will not have the assesment taken out of their pay because they were not allowed to vote. Now of course I would be willing to help, but jsut for arguments sake, that is why a furlough-to-be pilot should be allowed to vote. The only legal way I see around it is to have the voting after the 80 are furloughed so that they arnt active members. But, as it has been repeated many times, this isn't about conflict of interest. This is about the conversion of pilots to active membership dispite our new contract and about pilots voting thinking they were off probation.
How about this. Lets say ASA only fuloughed 50 pilots. Now we have a situation where the pilots in question like me are not going to be furloughed BUT STILL WOULD HAVE VOTED ILIGITIMATLY because they would have thought they were off probation even though they shouldnt have been. It may have gone unnoticed but it still would have been an illegal vote.
How about this. Lets say ASA only fuloughed 50 pilots. Now we have a situation where the pilots in question like me are not going to be furloughed BUT STILL WOULD HAVE VOTED ILIGITIMATLY because they would have thought they were off probation even though they shouldnt have been. It may have gone unnoticed but it still would have been an illegal vote.
I know, I am trying to. It is hard when someone keeps saying something that isn't true or misquotes me or says something again that has already been addressed. I have just been concerned with this fire spreading around to other people by word of mouth who arn't going to be able to hear my defense on here. Because the people who spread things about me that do not know me surely arn't going to also spread my explinations to other people to let them decide for themselve, thus leaving an entire pilot group with a one sided story about what a horrible person I must be when I am not around to defend myself. That is why I dug in so hard and have been countering every punch i have been handed to limit the number of people who go from here to the cockpit with one sided stories. But you are right, I have said enough and I will do my best not to bring it up anymore. I hope I am not put in a position to defend myself anymore. Thank you to those who have understood
Speedtape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
I think this issue may have to go to the Supreme Court for a ruling!
Last edited:
Speedtape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
Hmm, with all due respect, where have you been? Last I checked, the information was on all of those places you mentioned.
Last edited:
JumpersAway
Cruise Bores Me.......
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Posts
- 1,222
Hey Speedtape- reread it now that you're not tired. That's what I'm saying happened, and if people were not informed via the above methods, then there is no helping them. All this stuff should have been sufficient.
Speedtape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Posts
- 1,973
I just reread your post. The statement regarding the blast mail and forums could be read 2 different ways, especially since there was not alot of other corroborating statements supporting it. With this post, I now understand what you were saying.
When I read it, initially, it sounded as though you may have meant that the information was not out there and but that those methods "should" have communicated it, but the communication may have been void of the information.
What you were really saying was that the information was out there, but most did not engage to retrieve it.
Thanks for clearing that up
79%N1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 2,441
James,
I'll vouch for your character and work ethic like you claimed many would in a post above. BUT...you need to really just fade into the backround now and STOP TYPING!!! You are going to do irreversible damage to your character if yo keep this up, and when you get back people are not going to forget.
We get it, now. You voted, and we all see the reason why. Some agree with you, some don't. Personally, I believe the ALPA rep "meant" that someone about to be furloughed, or on the list, could not vote. (Or should not) Not simply one already furloughed and out the door. It simply does not matter now. Just quite typing on this issue and people will forget.
And, for the love of god and all that is holy, PLEASE capitalize the first darn letter of a sentence and the letter I.
I'll vouch for your character and work ethic like you claimed many would in a post above. BUT...you need to really just fade into the backround now and STOP TYPING!!! You are going to do irreversible damage to your character if yo keep this up, and when you get back people are not going to forget.
We get it, now. You voted, and we all see the reason why. Some agree with you, some don't. Personally, I believe the ALPA rep "meant" that someone about to be furloughed, or on the list, could not vote. (Or should not) Not simply one already furloughed and out the door. It simply does not matter now. Just quite typing on this issue and people will forget.
And, for the love of god and all that is holy, PLEASE capitalize the first darn letter of a sentence and the letter I.
mtsupilot376
happy to be alive
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Posts
- 156
What are the ALPA regulations on voting discrepancies? I am not as familiar with the particulars on these matters. Do such discrepancies need to be significant enough to have affected the outcome of a vote before they merit a recount or additional referendum?
I highly agree with the previous poster that stated that this has seriously blemished ALPAs character in the eyes of this pilot group. If they brush this issue under the rug without even acknowledging the error in their ways, I would have no trouble in understanding why there was only a 20% turnout in this election.
Forced Charity is wrong. It is practically welfare.
When you start forcing people to pay for programs like this, taxing them for having a job, it is no wonder that people aren't going to give a flip about anything having to do with their union representation.
Exhibit A: 67% of U.S. voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.
Exhibit B: Forty-four percent (44%) voters also think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress, but 37% disagree. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
-both pulled from a recent Rasmussen Poll
source
If our MEC were to have an approval poll, I would be curious to see the results given the last voter turnout.
"Apathy is the glove into which evil slips it's hand"
-Bodie Thoene
I highly agree with the previous poster that stated that this has seriously blemished ALPAs character in the eyes of this pilot group. If they brush this issue under the rug without even acknowledging the error in their ways, I would have no trouble in understanding why there was only a 20% turnout in this election.
Forced Charity is wrong. It is practically welfare.
When you start forcing people to pay for programs like this, taxing them for having a job, it is no wonder that people aren't going to give a flip about anything having to do with their union representation.
Exhibit A: 67% of U.S. voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.
Exhibit B: Forty-four percent (44%) voters also think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress, but 37% disagree. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
-both pulled from a recent Rasmussen Poll
source
If our MEC were to have an approval poll, I would be curious to see the results given the last voter turnout.
"Apathy is the glove into which evil slips it's hand"
-Bodie Thoene
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
