1108 Union Leadership Abandons Hostages

[BeeDubya]

This is a good point. In the end the only ones who truely have a voice are members in good standing.

Members in good standing are the ony ones who can cast a vote for leadership, and for that matter are the only ones who can run for a leadership position and effect change in their union.

Ultimately the only ones voting for or against a CBA will be those who are dedicated enough to pay dues.

Unless the IBT has changed their Constitution or IBT 1108 has changed their Bylaws, FLOPS pilots do not have to be in Good Standing to vote on their first CBA -- it was an exception carved out for Organizing, that allows all newly-organized pilots to vote on their first CBA. The same does not apply to successor agreements, nor does it apply to internal Union elections (for leadership or referendums on issues, such as bylaws), where the voter must be in Good Standing, including being current on dues and dues in arrears.

 

[jetwash]

Unless the IBT has changed their Constitution or IBT 1108 has changed their Bylaws, FLOPS pilots do not have to be in Good Standing to vote on their first CBA -- it was an exception carved out for Organizing, that allows all newly-organized pilots to vote on their first CBA. The same does not apply to successor agreements, nor does it apply to internal Union elections (for leadership or referendums on issues, such as bylaws), where the voter must be in Good Standing, including being current on dues and dues in arrears.

A letter you must have missed



December 31, 2008


Fellow Pilots,

We have received numerous questions from the membership about whether or not members who are not in good standing are permitted to vote in a contract ratification referendum for our first contract. Many of our members have stated that they do not think it’s proper for pilots who have not supported our Union to be able to vote in this referendum, which represents the fruits of the collective solidarity and unity of those pilots who have been supporting our Union.

With that in mind, we asked our attorneys to consider the issue and provide us with a legal opinion concerning this issue. As stated in the attached letter, it is the opinion of our attorneys that Flight Options pilots who are not members in good standing with respect to the payments of dues do not have the right to participate in a ratification vote and, in fact, are prohibited from doing so by both the Local 1108 Bylaws and the International Constitution.

After careful consideration of the opinion letter, the relevant sections of Local 1108’s Bylaws and the International Constitution, the Local 1108 Executive Board concurs that only members in good standing may vote on the contract and will conduct the ratification vote accordingly. We think it’s important that our members understand that the previous interpretation of the Local 1108 Bylaws that purported to allow members not in good standing to vote was made by our predecessors on a previous Executive Board that was made up exclusively of NetJets pilots.

The Executive Board believes that member participation in the referendum is important. Therefore, we strongly recommend that all members who are not in good standing with respect to the payment of dues contact the Local 1108 offices in order to determine how they bring themselves into good standing.

Fraternally,

IBT Local 1108 Executive Board

 

[shanes123]

Looks like a strong arm tactic to me..Funny how they can play hard ball with there own members but dont have the Cojones to stand up to management..

 

[jetwash]

Looks like a strong arm tactic to me..Funny how they can play hard ball with there own members but dont have the Cojones to stand up to management..

No strong arm, just doing what is right.

Every pilot at Flight Options had the choice to pay union dues and become a member.


If you don't pay, you can't play.
If you don't pay, you can't vote.

 

[BeeDubya]

A letter you must have missed

Yes, I did miss it. Interesting, as I helped rewrite the bylaws.... (a couple years ago). Although, I certainly understand why this is a desirable situation for the leadership and why the President would interpret them this way.

 

[993_Pilot]

I agree that there should be an equal standard for all, and there should be no exceptions for the koolaide drinkers, but I know about one of the cases that you alluded to, and apparently you don't have all the facts. There are circumstances which makes it very difficult for the union to defend. The only hope that this person might have is to show that he was singled out as a union supporter, because others have done worse and not been disiplined for it. I am not against bringing any of them back, only saying that at least one of them made it difficult, and I think that our leadership is doing what they can. Unfortunately, in this economy they don't have a lot of chips to bargain with.

 

[Narrow Bridge]

Looks like a strong arm tactic to me..Funny how they can play hard ball with there own members but dont have the Cojones to stand up to management..

What it really means is "only those that intend to vote the way we want them to vote are permitted to vote".

 

[waka]

Looks like a strong arm tactic to me..Funny how they can play hard ball with there own members but dont have the Cojones to stand up to management..

You are full of $hit. The leadership has a history of standing up to management and it is the Kool Aid drinkers that are lacking in the cajones department.....spineless ass kissing cowards.

What it really means is "only those that intend to vote the way we want them to vote are permitted to vote".

Yeah? Tell me genius, how is the MEC going to dictate who votes for what? There is nothing that the MEC can do to control the votes of members in good standing. Pay your dues, and you can vote no or yes. No matter how much you delude yourselves, non dues-paying slackers will reap the benefits of the MEC's and the negotiating committee's hard work and the IBT's expensive legal resources. What? You want to vote but you don't want to contribute to those that negotiate on your behalf? The point being, pay your dues or STFU.

Both of you are full of it. You have zero basis in fact and are talking out of your asses.

 

[TurboHonda]

Bullshirt!! This is where I part company with everyone. I know and respect both the MEC and the pilot in question. If he is not a hostage, no one is. If this is the unraveling of everything we’ve fought for, I’ll just say good night and God bless.

I know that’s what I said, but I’ve thought better of it. This brings to mind an old folksy saying that I grew up with. “Stories are like slicing baloney. No matter how thin it’s sliced, there are always 2 sides.” Another witticism is “Never cut off your nose to spite your face.”

And, here’s one from me. “What the hell are you guys thinking?” And, I’m not talking about the principles in this pissin’ contest. I’m talking about the rank and file that is listening to idiot advice from anonymous geniuses, such as don’t pay your dues and quit following the advice of your elected leader.

I know everyone involved and they’re all my friends. I don’t like being in the position of choosing sides, but it looks like I don’t have a choice. So, here goes:

Mat Slinghoff has my support. Mat is not able to respond to every slanderous insult thrown at him. That’s because he’s restrained by confidentiality, ethics, and other mundane stuff that we’re not.

I’ve known Mat for a long time. We were together at the beginning of this drive and even before. All of us were. That’s why it’s so uncomfortable to be in this position. But, still yet, the only choice for me is to back the leader.

And, he is the leader. He may not be the most popular choice, but he is the right choice. His intelligence and intellectual restraint is exactly what we needed then and still need now.

It’s inconceivable that we could come this far and then lose out.

 

[skyismyoffice]

I agree with you to the extent that there are some offenses that exceeds a threshold of defensible...

My point is that regardless of the alleged offense of these hostages they in no way exceed the unprofessional, unsafe, stupid, illegal actions of a management pilot still employed at options.

They should get their jobs back.

And engine plug Ed should lose his - Possibly even his license.

 

[shanes123]

What is your Union doing about guys like Engine plug? Can someone answer that? Probably nothing I assume..

 

[HSDriver]

His intelligence and intellectual restraint is exactly what we needed then and still need now.

That is the thing I noticed about Mat from day one, and it is what I like and respect about him. I'd much rather have him at the helm than some of the hot heads that seem to flame up so easily. Slow and steady wins the race.

HS

 

[B19 Flyer]

Stuffing the ballet box.

A letter you must have missed



December 31, 2008


Fellow Pilots,

We have received numerous questions from the membership about whether or not members who are not in good standing are permitted to vote in a contract ratification referendum for our first contract. Many of our members have stated that they do not think it’s proper for pilots who have not supported our Union to be able to vote in this referendum, which represents the fruits of the collective solidarity and unity of those pilots who have been supporting our Union.

With that in mind, we asked our attorneys to consider the issue and provide us with a legal opinion concerning this issue. As stated in the attached letter, it is the opinion of our attorneys that Flight Options pilots who are not members in good standing with respect to the payments of dues do not have the right to participate in a ratification vote and, in fact, are prohibited from doing so by both the Local 1108 Bylaws and the International Constitution.

After careful consideration of the opinion letter, the relevant sections of Local 1108’s Bylaws and the International Constitution, the Local 1108 Executive Board concurs that only members in good standing may vote on the contract and will conduct the ratification vote accordingly. We think it’s important that our members understand that the previous interpretation of the Local 1108 Bylaws that purported to allow members not in good standing to vote was made by our predecessors on a previous Executive Board that was made up exclusively of NetJets pilots.

The Executive Board believes that member participation in the referendum is important. Therefore, we strongly recommend that all members who are not in good standing with respect to the payment of dues contact the Local 1108 offices in order to determine how they bring themselves into good standing.

Fraternally,

IBT Local 1108 Executive Board

You're trusted union speaking and changing the rules to fit their needs.

The fact is that non-paying members don't agree with the union and probably won't go along with the contract vote anyway. By excluding them, the union hides the amount of apathy involved in the vote.

By changing to limit the vote to only members "in good standing", they increase the chances of things going the way they want. It takes fewer votes to ratify or turn down the contract.

It's the union's way of stuffing the ballet box.

 

[B19 Flyer]

What a colossel waste of time, money and effort for nothing gained.

Please give details and sources....or at least the reason you believe this. If you just say stuff and don't back it up, you sound like those idiots B19 and skanza

Speaking of idiots and name calling, good morning to you Waka. I used to back up every claim with documentation and links, but it's not worth it anymore because ignorant posters like you stick your head in the sand and let other people think for you.

The intervention by 1108 has failed miserably. It's over 3 years now, your ranks have shrunk, the economy is so bad that Options pilots are lucky to even have jobs and the company is clearly torn apart with internal turmoil while other fracs have remained stable without the heartburn.

I've repeatedly written that 1108 didn't get it done when they had the chance because they were unreasonable and being baited by the success of the deep pockets of NJ.

It will be interesting to see how the "strong union" aspects will be at NJ when the furloughs start and NJASAP wants to hold the contract line without reopening it.

1108 had clearly damaged the product of Options a lot more than management ever could have. 1108 really needs to be proud of their complete failure and they aren't smart enough to adust to the marketplace.

Pretty much all the preditions I've made have come true, over three years of turmoil, Options is completely stagnated just like NJ was during their contract negotiations and as a result the company is worse off now than before. The pilots are doing nothing but languishing in the failure of 1108.

What a colossel waste of time, money and effort for nothing gained.

 

[CALRepublic]

I've repeatedly written that 1108 didn't get it done when they had the chance because they were unreasonable and being baited by the success of the deep pockets of NJ.

It will be interesting to see how the "strong union" aspects will be at NJ when the furloughs start and NJASAP wants to hold the contract line without reopening it.

B19 I have nothing against you, I've never insulted you in any way, shape or form. I agree with some of the things you say, and I disagree with some of the things you say.

Unions aside, It's not cool to talk about "when the NJ furloughs begin".....lets talk about the day when you're going to loose your job, or your house, or your retirement (if you're retired). Let's talk about that, see how you like it.

 

[RNObased]

I'm sure NJA owners would love to know Santulli and friends only objective is to get their pilots to fly unsafe airplanes.

Seriously are you retarded, or have some sort of disorder that makes you spew ignorant stuff on the message boards???

 

[Spackler]

Your childish absurd accusations about me and my loyalty to this pilots group are nothing more then laughable. I do not have to defend my loyalty or my service and sacrifice to you or anyone else. If it were not for me we would likely not have a union now. Grow up!

Oh but your post is filled with nothing but inaccurate statements.

Lastly ---- I truly hope that you have the opportunity in the future to call my integrity into question to my face.

These are the words of the would be savior of all hostages. Don’t worry, if you are unsure about why the pilot in question should be considered a hostage he’ll tell you. Never mind that the guy was fired because he waited until the 11th hour to write up an airplane in what he has admitted was an attempt to get his co-pilot fired. This hot-head wants the union to expend resources, bargaining credibility and even hold up the contract for this guy?

Keep in mind that this is the same hot-head that spent several years at the bargaining table and was only able to bring in a TA on three, very minor contract sections. Looks to me like he’s just envious of our current leaderships success. Looks to me like even though he was too much of a hot-head to be effective as a negotiator, he now wants us to follow his lead, because he’s some kind of tough guy. Please, I’ll hitch my wagon to cooler heads in this fight. Fact is from what I hear we “likely have a union” in spite of our hot-head,

And you know what? I don’t think it’s really about hostages, I think it’s about our hot-head trying to save face and using this issue to do so. That’s the sad part of this. He would try to torpedo our negotiators ability to get a contract for 360 pilots all so he can save face. Nice work partner, if you keep it up, maybe we can all talk about how well thought of you are, in line at the unemployment office.

 

[Phoenix]

These are the words of the would be savior of all hostages. Don’t worry, if you are unsure about why the pilot in question should be considered a hostage he’ll tell you. Never mind that the guy was fired because he waited until the 11th hour to write up an airplane in what he has admitted was an attempt to get his co-pilot fired. This hot-head wants the union to expend resources, bargaining credibility and even hold up the contract for this guy?

Keep in mind that this is the same hot-head that spent several years at the bargaining table and was only able to bring in a TA on three, very minor contract sections. Looks to me like he’s just envious of our current leaderships success. Looks to me like even though he was too much of a hot-head to be effective as a negotiator, he now wants us to follow his lead, because he’s some kind of tough guy. Please, I’ll hitch my wagon to cooler heads in this fight. Fact is from what I hear we “likely have a union” in spite of our hot-head,

And you know what? I don’t think it’s really about hostages, I think it’s about our hot-head trying to save face and using this issue to do so. That’s the sad part of this. He would try to torpedo our negotiators ability to get a contract for 360 pilots all so he can save face. Nice work partner, if you keep it up, maybe we can all talk about how well thought of you are, in line at the unemployment office.

Sport I don't really give a damn what you think of me. But you might want to get your facts straight.

 

[Narrow Bridge]

These are the words of the would be savior of all hostages. Don’t worry, if you are unsure about why the pilot in question should be considered a hostage he’ll tell you. Never mind that the guy was fired because he waited until the 11th hour to write up an airplane in what he has admitted was an attempt to get his co-pilot fired. This hot-head wants the union to expend resources, bargaining credibility and even hold up the contract for this guy?

Keep in mind that this is the same hot-head that spent several years at the bargaining table and was only able to bring in a TA on three, very minor contract sections. Looks to me like he’s just envious of our current leaderships success. Looks to me like even though he was too much of a hot-head to be effective as a negotiator, he now wants us to follow his lead, because he’s some kind of tough guy. Please, I’ll hitch my wagon to cooler heads in this fight. Fact is from what I hear we “likely have a union” in spite of our hot-head,

And you know what? I don’t think it’s really about hostages, I think it’s about our hot-head trying to save face and using this issue to do so. That’s the sad part of this. He would try to torpedo our negotiators ability to get a contract for 360 pilots all so he can save face. Nice work partner, if you keep it up, maybe we can all talk about how well thought of you are, in line at the unemployment office.

Amen!

 

[B19 Flyer]

B19 I have nothing against you, I've never insulted you in any way, shape or form. I agree with some of the things you say, and I disagree with some of the things you say.

Unions aside, It's not cool to talk about "when the NJ furloughs begin".....lets talk about the day when you're going to loose your job, or your house, or your retirement (if you're retired). Let's talk about that, see how you like it.

OK, let's talk about it. You want to talk about "the day", but it's a more accurate statement to talk about "both days". I've been there, walked it and lived it. I have a lot of empathy when any employee is laid off.

The first time I was laid off was directly as a result of a union action. The second time I was laid of was the direct result of a union inaction.

There are no unions where I am now, and the company can and has adjusted to the economy. I have no fears of layoffs/furloughs, and that goes with all of the other employees because the overall health of the company is the concern of the employees rather than what one particular work group demands over another.

I don't want to see anybody get laid off or lose their jobs, but if they are supporting a union that places the welfare of their work group over that of the entire company, then they get exactly what they deserve.

And thank you, there are a handful of you that haven't taken the time to insult me and that's appreciated.

Of course, the biggest offender and perpertrator of insults hasn't posted in quite some time. But I'm sure she lurks amongst us still.