netjetwife
1 of many w/an opinion
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Posts
- 2,741
NJW, Good debate. I think so, too. However, I think you're missing a few points. I'm listening, Reality...
1) This isn't the 2004 POSTA, 2005 CBA fight, or IBB. This is something entirely different. ... Yes, but there's also common ground: A goal has been set that will require a high level of participation to be successful. Failure will have a profound impact on a large segment of the pilot-group; while success benefits not just NJ pilots, but potentially the rest of the industry, as well, if the other fracs try alternatives first, too.
2) .... If I stay on my present 7/7 line I can tell you as far into the future as I wish which holidays I'll be working, Actually, just the ones you're scheduled for, working assumes that you never get sick and life always runs smoothly for your family. That's not too realistic for a Realityman...... However, I'll grant you it's impossible to do with after midnights. Eh, I don't get those anyway, and I doubt they're a big factor for most folks. That brings up an important point; most folks can afford to opt-in and the extra days at home are a nice incentive. Extended days are fairly rare now, too, right? Still, I don't think we should discount the symbolic gesture that remaining opted in can send to those facing a furlough. It's a tangible way to show support for junior pilots and the Company.
3)Your assertions that anyone who would feel guilt or animosity if pressured or "persuaded" aren't for unity anyway may be off a little. I didn't make it that black and white; there is a range of commitment. Instant resentment instead of open discussions would place someone in the lower end, IMO. Most people who care about unity also value communication and are willing to explain their position.
4)Our union officials have asked us NOT to do what you're doing. On the official Union message board they must represent members equally. As noted, these are stressful times and emotions are running high. Maybe they are trying to keep things calm while the process unfolds? It must be a bit un-nerving to have guys asking them to read the tea leaves while the tea is still swirling.. Who can say how it will end? Did they do that during POSTA 2004, CBA 2005, or IBB? The "bully pulpit" was used regularly by leadership and by the line pilots to advance the cause. Impassioned pleas to Stop Extending and to Fly the P****e were heard frequently. ... some had a "read between the lines" thing going on ... Which still got the message across. The fact that NJASAP helped design the options clearly suggests that they think it's worth trying. ... I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm not getting those same vibes this time around from our leaders. But maybe this paragraph relates back to point #1 above. Very likely. The outcome of those pass-fail votes was a known quantity--much less reading of the tea leaves was required. This time there are more variables and the furlough question isn't up for vote. Looking back, advocating better pay and work rules was much easier and it was easy to predict a bleak future if the pilotgroup failed to act. Now the situation is more complicated and tea leaves are hard to read.
5)It's a little disturbing that you think a pilot who may be experiencing hardship, should make it worse for the cause. That is not what I think, nor was it my suggestion. I see opting-in as making a donation to a good cause which also directly benefits the donor. Each family can control how much they give because there is a provision to opt-in and out as needed. Okay, so let's say pilot A is having some sort of financial hardship ... and But according to you, he should just give some more. Not so. I've already said that 100% participation isn't feasible. That's because I recognize extenuating circumstances prohibit it. During the contract battle some pilots who supported the cause had to take the occasional extended day and explained their reason for doing so. I think the NJ pilotgroup is fair-minded and empathetic. So let's say he does. And by doing so, ... is now experiencing even more hardship. This really seems fair to you? When passing the "hat", I value one dollar from a poor family every bit as much as $20 from the wealthy ones. Actually more because of the greater sacrifice involved. If, because pilot A already has too much on his plate, can't participate in the JPMC measures, you're labeling him as "selfish" and not given towards unity? I call BS on that one! Alas, we jumped into the conversation without stating the parameters first. I don't see participation as an all or nothing deal. I realize Management wants to do it that way, but that's a mistake IMO. I follow the belief that every little bit counts; and I give offset credits for moral support. To me the selfish ones lacking unity are those who can easily afford to remain opted-in but don't care enough to make the smallest donation in saved hours or posts. ... Everyone has a breaking point where they simply aren't able to give anymore, or even start giving. That doesn't make them selfish or against (or apathetic towards) unity. No it doesn't (providing they care and still follow the situation -- like you do) so my comment obviously doesn't apply to them. I thought having exceptions for true hardship cases was a given. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. (It would have shortened our posts,but it's still good to start the debate). Furthermore, pilots have been known to give their time when they can't give money and I count that as participation, too. What you and your family were (are) able to do was great. Not everyone is in that position, even with our new CBA. We've given far more in time than we have in $ and those donations were usually the extra dollars that came from grievance settlements, Atlantic bucks, tips, etc. Who are you to stand in judgement? I'm not trying to...
I'm just a concerned member of our extended Union family who is following the situation closely and waiting for the debate on what is the best way for us all to handle this as a group. As for your comments about folks extending during our previous fights while others stopped extending, please see point #1 above. I scrolled up and looked again, just to be sure. I still think the analogy is fitting, in that the stated goals of the Union were set as the priority and it was made clear that success was dependent upon pilot participation. That said, it was the first example I thought of and I'm open to suggestions for another one.
Okay, I've had enough. For real this time!Do what you like. I know what I can and can't do. As do most others. If you judge everyone, then you are absolutely creating the break in unity you claim is so near and dear to your heart.
Which should tell you that I wouldn't do that. By now, I hope that the NJ pilots know my heart is in the right place (as your's is, Reality) and that I'm a fair person. I'm asking for an open discussion on the issues and a good faith effort to show support for the cause. Notice that I didn't spell support with a $ in place of the "s". Moral support is worth a lot, too.
I understand that even among those who care about the junior families there may be varying opinions on what is the best way to proceed. Some NJ pilots have asked (posted on the NJ board) if Management is doing their part before looking to the employees for help. That's a legitimate question and it may be that the jury's still out on it. Regardless, NJA has given the employees an opportunity to affect the outcome and I don't think the pilotgroup should pass up that rare chance. There's a lot at stake, above and beyond saving jobs and setting an example for the industry.
This could well be a turning point in the labor-management relationship. Just presenting the package of options calls for a lot of trust--on both sides. Upper management has to trust that the pilotgroup isn't still holding a grudge for past mistreatment, and the pilots need to see wasteful spending come to an end. If the JPMC brings about progress on both of those fronts then it will be a silver lining in these dark days. I'm not advocating blind faith from either side, far from it. I think that trust from the pilotgroup will suffer if RTS doesn't make some fundamental changes to the way things are done in CMH. Welcoming pilot input, especially when large sums of money are spent, and explaining their reasons for questionable expenditures, would go a long way toward earning trust. Likewise, if the pilotgroup refuses to help the Company out now w/voluntary measures, no one should expect a friendly IBB style of negotiations next time we go to the bargaining table. I'm afraid that a pithy, ugly response like "Screw you!" would be much more likely. I think we'd all rather see the Labor-Management relationship come thru these trying times stronger and more secure because mutual respect and trust was earned by solving problems together--fairly--and sharing the burden.
Good luck to all of us!
Netjetwife
