ATNMEC closes pilot web board

[j41driver]

Some of the semi-regular posters are rolling their eyes too.

 

[Elwood Blues]

My advice is to consider arbitration. Those arbitrators have no conflicts of interest, and only collect a fee. If you are worried about a negotiated settlement, you may want to consider that option. Godspeed!


OYS

+1. Listen to those words of wisdom and get an arbitrated settlement.

 

[carl p]

Just tired of all the drama...

 

[j41driver]

Just tired of all the drama...

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[SkiFishFly]

When we have the final document to look at then they'll open the forum back up for debate. ... Wait for the facts, then debate. SWA AND AT guys will be slapping each other on the back and buying each other rounds before long. Relax.

Problem is some of us are getting the feeling that a few on our MEC have already decided that they are going to turn down the AIP. If they get their way, we are never going to see it, there will be no debate and we are not going to get a vote.

I trust the folks on the MC. I don't really trust my MEC.

 

[717capt]

They still need 5 of the voting reps to approve not sending it out, or a 4-4 tie in which case LH breaks the tie. The thing is, that since the ATL domicile is larger than MCO & MKE and since the ATL reps are getting advice from former mec and even former npa bod members, they know that if they so choose, they can institute a roll call vote and the ATL domicile reps would get all the votes and would get to make the decision.

Also, if the rumors are true about the MKE & MCO domiciles closing (The Airtran MCO domicile, not the SW MCO domicile), then councils 75 & 76 would cease to exist. Just some fyi.

 

[slaquer5]

Just tired of all the drama...

+1

well said, will be nice when its over.

 

[SkiFishFly]

They still need 5 of the voting reps to approve not sending it out, or a 4-4 tie in which case LH breaks the tie. The thing is, that since the ATL domicile is larger than MCO & MKE and since the ATL reps are getting advice from former mec and even former npa bod members, they know that if they so choose, they can institute a roll call vote and the ATL domicile reps would get all the votes and would get to make the decision.

and the rumor out there is that they are going to exercise roll call voting so they can "save us from our own stupidity".

This is far too important. We need to be given the opportunity to debate and vote on this.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Let's recall them now, since they don't want to listen to the pilot group.

 

[jonjuan]

Let's recall them now, since they don't want to listen to the pilot group.

Listen to which pilot group?

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

The majority!!! And the marjority will either vote it in or out. This isn't a dictatorship.

 

[XRMEFLYER]

Not to split hairs but wouldn't it be more like an oligarchy?

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Ok. But u get the point.

 

[Lear70]

If you want to call a recall now, all you have to do is petition the LEC Chairman in writing for a special LEC meeting at the earliest convenience with the recall of _______ as the main agenda item.

It will take 4-6 weeks for them to call a meeting (they have to give the pilots enough notice to bid around it if they want to attend). Then you have to get enough of your like-minded constituents to show up in order to pass it at the LEC meeting. Then it goes to vote.

Voting takes another week to set up and runs 2-3 weeks. Once that rep is removed the other reps vote their roll call vote. If it still doesn't go the way you want, repeat process.

In the meantime, it takes about a month to run nominations and elections for a replacement rep.

I don't think you can get it done in time to affect this...

 

[RLAblows]

I can't imagine the powder keg of anger that would explode if this is blocked by the MEC.

 

[Britpilot]

I can't imagine the powder keg of anger that would explode if this is blocked by the MEC.

You're right. Through their many leaks (LEC,MEC,MC) they have created this ridiculous situation.
Closing the forum (which is paid for with our dues) does nothing except lower my confidence in these people.

 

[PCL_128]

Problem is some of us are getting the feeling that a few on our MEC have already decided that they are going to turn down the AIP.

Since they've seen it, and we haven't, maybe they have a better idea of whether it is worthy of our consideration or not. But I have yet to talk to a rep who says that their mind is already made up, anyway. They're all leaning in one direction or another, but everyone is saying that they're waiting to see the full language before making a decision. No need to get all bent out of shape now when the reps still haven't made any final decisions.

If they get their way, we are never going to see it

Even if the agreement doesn't go out for a vote, they can still let us see it. I would imagine that they would if they decide to vote it down, because if they're not going to send it out, they'll probably want to show us why, so we can understand their reasoning. Not even letting anyone see it would create a political firestorm, and they're not going to do that, I'm sure.

I trust the folks on the MC. I don't really trust my MEC.

Just a couple of weeks ago, everyone said that they trust their MEC. When the MEC was making crazy decisions like recalling officers and committee chairmen, everyone said "well, we trust them, so I guess it's ok." But now suddenly the trust has disappeared? It seems that trust if very fleeting for some of you.

 

[Lear70]

Just a couple of weeks ago, everyone said that they trust their MEC. When the MEC was making crazy decisions like recalling officers and committee chairmen, everyone said "well, we trust them, so I guess it's ok." But now suddenly the trust has disappeared? It seems that trust if very fleeting for some of you.

*snerk*

If the spirit of the AIP is honored in the writing of the language, then nearly every rep I've spoken to says they will send it out to the pilot group (and that's enough for a majority and it will come out). If it's not, then we have a different discussion on our hands, but I think it will be just fine in that regard.

If there is a rep that ISN'T saying that, it's because they believe it's a disservice to their constituency and that's who they represent, not the pilot group as a whole, but their particular demographic (which is why the last T.A. that became our contract didn't come to us with a unanimous vote by the MEC). However, even though that person voted NO, it still came to us anyway and now it's our CBA.

People need to chillax. The system works. Call/eMail your reps, let them know what you expect from them, then wait for the process to work its way through.

 

[XR650R]

Really, both boards should allow this AIP to reach the members. This isn't a Section Six where you can just kick it back to the NC for more negotiation. The members need to see this unvarnished an make their own individual decision. Then let the chips fall where they may.
The deal (especially regarding the AT guys) is as good as it's ever gonna get. An arbitrator my slightly fiddle with some of the numbers but I'd be willing to bet they would use this ISL as a starting point. All other guarantees and protections set forth in the AIP will probably be highly degraded or even evaporate entirely.

 

[NuGuy]

Rather than shut the whole thing down, couldn't they have suspended the offenders from posting for some amount of time?

Heyas,

You can't suspend "offenders" on a union webboard. Even removing posts has to be done very, VERY carefully, and then they have to clearly violate the terms and conditions of the site.

Pulling the plug on people on a union forum willy-nilly is a sure fire way to wind up in Federal Court, and paying treble damages from a OLMS complaint.

Nu

 

[Lear70]

I haven't heard of a 458.2.a.2 complaint being filed before regarding a message board issue with the DoL.

Do you have a case to cite? I'd be curious to know what prior precedent there is for such an issue, as ALPA isn't required to have a separate internet message board apart from the ALPA board (which is still up but no one uses) and has the right to either have an external one, not have one, or put it up and pull it down at their discretion.

With the ALPA server board still up and running on the ALPA site, you'd have a hard time citing lack of freedom of speech per the OLMS guidelines...

 

[scoreboardII]

Nuguy, first; what are the monetray damages going to be? Thought so, none.

Second; you have to get the DOL to agree to take the claim, very tough and how much extra money do they have to fight a rich guy (airline pilot) fight for a website infraction when they are out trying to keep ACORN and others dutifully employed? Thought so, no action by DOL.

Lear has it right, there are no cases citing freedom of speech outside of a union election as a problem, it has never been challenged in court.

Now, if this was an election, there are plenty of cases to backup those type of claims, but freedom of speech on a union website can and is censored regularly to suit the unions needs.

 

[NuGuy]

I haven't heard of a 458.2.a.2 complaint being filed before regarding a message board issue with the DoL.

Do you have a case to cite? I'd be curious to know what prior precedent there is for such an issue, as ALPA isn't required to have a separate internet message board apart from the ALPA board (which is still up but no one uses) and has the right to either have an external one, not have one, or put it up and pull it down at their discretion.

With the ALPA server board still up and running on the ALPA site, you'd have a hard time citing lack of freedom of speech per the OLMS guidelines...

Heyas Lear,

My point was you can't single out individuals and ban or suspend them.

You have either let it run, and leave the "offenders" be to rant and/or rave, or pull the plug on the whole thing, which is what they did.

Nu

 

[Lear70]

True dat.

 

[scoreboardII]

contrary opine, yes, a union can single out offenders and ban them. It's up to the effended one to bring claim, not the union to "hold harmless". I don't agree with this, i think let whatever is said be said, but they don't ask me.

 

[Lear70]

Well of course you can ban someone, the problem comes in what you ban them for, requiring a seconding opinion on the board rule that they violated and does the punishment fit the crime, etc, plus common enforcement for everyone who does the same thing.

You have to get pretty far out of whack to get banned from an ALPA forum, but people were pushing the limit.

 

[NuGuy]

Well of course you can ban someone, the problem comes in what you ban them for, requiring a seconding opinion on the board rule that they violated and does the punishment fit the crime, etc, plus common enforcement for everyone who does the same thing.

You have to get pretty far out of whack to get banned from an ALPA forum, but people were pushing the limit.

Heyas Lear,

I think we are talking past each other.

You can ban and pull posts.

But you ban someone, or pull a post, it had better be for a violation of the T&Cs at log in. These are pretty general, but the biggies are "don't say you want to kick out ALPA" or advocate some kind of illegal self help.

But beyond that, if one guy or a dozen get on the board, and say they've seen the SLI, and it consists of man-on-man combat with ahn-woons for 1000 quatloos a piece, then there isn't much you can do.

If I recall, there has been at least one case where this HAS been run all the way up to the EC, and it was kicked back, reinstating the guy and his posts.

If you want to stop rampant rumors, your only option is to pull the plug on the whole forum. You can't single out people for posting their opinion or what they think, as long as it steers clear of the "third rails".

Nu

 

[PCL_128]

My point was you can't single out individuals and ban or suspend them.

Sure you can, as long as they've violated the Terms and Conditions of Use more than once after being warned. Those terms include anything that could jeopardize ALPA's legal obligations. It's not just advocating illegal self help. That legal obligations provision allows a wide latitude for determining when someone is in violation, and it could easily be argued that a lot of the stuff that was being said on the web board could violate those legal obligations by causing problems for the SLI negotiations. The MEC could easily delete posts and suspend members' access for violations without taking down the whole web board.

 

[NuGuy]

Sure you can, as long as they've violated the Terms and Conditions of Use more than once after being warned. Those terms include anything that could jeopardize ALPA's legal obligations. It's not just advocating illegal self help. That legal obligations provision allows a wide latitude for determining when someone is in violation, and it could easily be argued that a lot of the stuff that was being said on the web board could violate those legal obligations by causing problems for the SLI negotiations. The MEC could easily delete posts and suspend members' access for violations without taking down the whole web board.

Heyas PCL,

It had better be a clear violation, and not something "well, you could say it violated". Some spurrious argument about "making life difficult for the NC" won't cut it.

People have fought and won this argument infront of the EC, and the board admins were overruled.

The Labor Department has given extremely wide lattitude to "freedom of speech in a Union Hall", which they have held is what a union sponsored web forum is.

If you start pulling pilots or posts, you'd better have a good paper trail with clear violations of the T&Cs. Anyone who reads up and gets motivated and follows the appeals process and files the right paperwork can make for a LOT of work for the people who did the pulling, as well as exposing them to potential damages.

Not saying it can't be done, but if you start down that trail, it had better be for LEGIT reasons, like organizing an illegal sickout, and not because a person, or a group of people have different political or union views.

Nu

 

[RLAblows]

actually I think I know the answer. Is it, who gives a rip?