ALPA Age 65 Vote

[PCL_128]

I spoke with an EVP the other day..... he was for Age 60 but understood the pragmatism of the issue. Hence the vote...

No, hence the elitism. He has basically said "I know we've thoroughly educated the members on this issue, and I know that the majority wants to keep the current policy, but I know what's best for them better than they do." If I ever start to behave that way in office, then I hope someone recalls me.

Can you understand and explain why, not just Prater, but the EC too has gone in the same direction.....

Because Prater has managed to convince them that we can't be involved in the rule-making process if we keep the current policy. This is, of course, absurd, but Prater can be very convincing on this issue. This seems to be the one issue that Prater has any real passion for at this point.

I think you'll find that the EB vote comes down much differently. It will probably still pass, but there will be a large number of NO votes. The EB already received Prater's briefing on this issue earlier this week, and many of them are still planning on voting NO. It's a shame that members of the EC were so easily swayed.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL... remember this post?

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=1272714&postcount=64

Look at the date on it...

Good to see you're finally starting to see through that ALPA cataract.

I remember the post, and I stand by everything in it.

1. I do still believe that Prater is doing what he thinks is best. I vehemently disagree with him, and I disagree with the idea of ignoring the will of a well-educated membership, but there's no doubt in my mind that Prater truly believes that what he's doing is best for the Association.

2. I still agree with Prater's decision to be involved in the rule-making process even though the Association officially opposes a change. I also still agree with creating the BRP to study the effects of a rule change.

3. I still believe the rule will change no matter what we do. That doesn't mean that we should change our policy and our strategy, but pretending that you can stop this change is ridiculous.

4. I still support the PAC 100%.

So, as you can see, I completely stand by my earlier posts on this subject. The only thing that's changed is the EC's vote, and I am very disappointed in that. I still hold some hope that the EB will do the right thing. We'll find out in a couple of weeks.

 

[Andy]

Certainly not the way you see it. The problem we have is Prater, not ALPA in general. Your disdain for ALPA is ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is your hatred for Duane, when Duane was our biggest advocate for keeping the Age-60 policy!!! Prater won a very narrow victory in this election, and he's responded by acting like he has some sort of madate to change policy and do whatever he feels is appropriate for ALPA, the membership be d@mned.

I miss Duane.

WOW! I thought that I was the only one who missed Duane. Say what you want about the guy, he followed the will of the membership, even if he personally disagreed on the issue. I've seen statements that Duane wanted to change age 60, but ALWAYS strongly opposed any change when he spoke in public.
And that's where prater has done severe damage - he has publically spoken in favor of a change. I cannot support prater.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Complain, complain, complain...yet...not one LEC/MEC has been recalled over this. It all starts at home, boys

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Because it is the direction they PERSONALLY wanted to go all along. They didn't even really try to hide it and the old, senior MEC members agreed with them, their constituents be damned. They have been undermining the resistance to change under the table and now they want to come out from under the table cloth, wipe their mouths and ask us to help them stab us in the back.



FJ

That is not how I understood the conversation. Which was.......... the EVP was personally against it. But when the gov't affairs folks briefed them on the reality of the situation he understood the dynamics of it.

You can't possibly be this dense.

I have yet to address you personally. If I have my apologies...

I am not the one going against the grain here. Recall, I am not for or against Age60. I believe while everyone is focusing on Age60, Open Skies is going to ambush us all and severly limit our jobs making it "not worth it". If I am dense, then so is the ALPA leadership, who, have been working this issue constantly. I really don't think the membership has had its finger on the Age60 pulse for as long as and often as staffers and elected reps... They certainly aren't getting the detailed briefings... but that is why you have elected reps. Should the avg citizen get to see a NSA briefing that his congressmen sees?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Because they are a bunch of old bastards with an agenda?

Because they willfully disregarded the will of its membership?

This isn't debating... this is..... what? name calling?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

No, hence the elitism. He has basically said "I know we've thoroughly educated the members on this issue, and I know that the majority wants to keep the current policy, but I know what's best for them better than they do." If I ever start to behave that way in office, then I hope someone recalls me.

Elitism? Please.

How about the EVP's have recieved briefings from gov't affairs and other staffers on the issue.

I asked you before and I am not sure you replied:

If the LEC membership directs the LEC officers to vote a certain way is the Officer obligated? For example, a TA. The membership is angry at the company for the poor treatment over the years and is determined to shoot down any TA as a sign of defiance. But the MEC, CA and arbitrator have determned that the TA is pretty good and a return to the table might make things worse. In short the TA is a good deal.

So a few politically saavy but radical LEC memebers either call a special LEC meeting or at the next LEC meeting they present a resolution that directs the LEC officers to vote no. In addition, this radical clique was a small minority of the LEC membership as a whole, but yet a majority at the meeting.

And you would do what?

[reference the Admin Manual]

Because Prater has managed to convince them that we can't be involved in the rule-making process if we keep the current policy. This is, of course, absurd, but Prater can be very convincing on this issue. This seems to be the one issue that Prater has any real passion for at this point.

The Prez is one guy directed by the EC, EB and BOD.

I think you'll find that the EB vote comes down much differently. It will probably still pass, but there will be a large number of NO votes. The EB already received Prater's briefing on this issue earlier this week, and many of them are still planning on voting NO. It's a shame that members of the EC were so easily swayed.

Let's see how the vote goes down. Often, people say they will vote "hard core" and fail to do so... recall no one voted for Bill Clinton.

Your last sentence.... is a bit arrogant...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Complain, complain, complain...yet...not one LEC/MEC has been recalled over this. It all starts at home, boys

That is the problem Tejas... they are all at home and not at LEC meetings...

(except you FJ)



I do believe if ALPA pilots were truley active in our careers that we could be a strong enough force.. A force that the FAA and DOT would know not to mess with.... but then I woke up.....

 

[PCL_128]

Elitism? Please.

How about the EVP's have recieved briefings from gov't affairs and other staffers on the issue.

This issue was discussed at our MEC meeting this week, and we received a briefing from the MEC Chairman that summarized the briefing he and the rest of the Executive Board received on Monday. There was no new information. Nothing has changed. Prater is merely arguing the same point over and over again: the rule is going to change, so you might as well change the policy and get over it. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough argument to sway the membership, and it's not a good enough argument to sway me. I've spoken to the senior Leg Affairs lobbyist in Herndon about this issue, and he agrees that there's nothing we can do to change the momentum, but he also stated that changing our policy would not give us any more access to the process than we would have if we retained our current policy. As long as that's the case, then we need to respect the will of the membership. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization. The membership is supposed to have the power. It seems that a select few have forgotten that. I wonder what Duane thinks about what has become of this union in just a few short months.

I asked you before and I am not sure you replied:

If the LEC membership directs the LEC officers to vote a certain way is the Officer obligated? For example, a TA. The membership is angry at the company for the poor treatment over the years and is determined to shoot down any TA as a sign of defiance. But the MEC, CA and arbitrator have determned that the TA is pretty good and a return to the table might make things worse. In short the TA is a good deal.

So a few politically saavy but radical LEC memebers either call a special LEC meeting or at the next LEC meeting they present a resolution that directs the LEC officers to vote no. In addition, this radical clique was a small minority of the LEC membership as a whole, but yet a majority at the meeting.

And you would do what?

[reference the Admin Manual]

I can assure you, I'm well aware of the Admin Manual. The answer is dependant on too many factors to give you a yes/no answer. What does the Wilson Polling say? Does this "radical clique" represent the will of the majority, or is it just a small group that managed a good turnout at a single meeting? Has the leadership conducted roadshows to explain to the membership what they feel of the situation?

Besides, your example doesn't fit the current age-60 situation. Here's the facts:

1. ALPA's policy has been in effect for 27 years.

2. Despite this policy, ALPA has been involved in two Aviation Rulemaking Committees on this issue, and has continued to be involved in the process. In fact, Captain Woerth (an ardent opponent of a rule change) was co-Chairman on the first ARC!

3. Under Duane's leadership, ALPA sent out educational material for month after month that covered every possible aspect of this issue. Despite his personal opposition to a rule change, he made sure that all material was neutral. In fact, many members felt that it was too favorable towards the change side. The membership is very educated on this issue.

4. Two internet polls and a phone poll have now been conducted. The first internet poll and the latest phone poll both indicated a consistent majority in favor of the current rule. I haven't heard the results of the internet poll that just finished yesterday, but I suspect you'll find similar results.

The Prez is one guy directed by the EC, EB and BOD.

Agreed. That's why I'm hoping that the EB does the right thing and tells Prater what he can do with his resolution.

Your last sentence.... is a bit arrogant...

No, arrogance is telling your members that you know what's best for them better than they do.

 

[PCL_128]

WOW! I thought that I was the only one who missed Duane. Say what you want about the guy, he followed the will of the membership, even if he personally disagreed on the issue.

You're certainly not alone. I've talked with many BOD members who voted for Prater that now deeply regret their decision. Captain Woerth took all of the heat for a downturn that he had no control over. He kept this Association in excellent shape, and he was booted out to thank him for his efforts. If the election were held again today, I'd wager that Duane would win in a landslide.

I've seen statements that Duane wanted to change age 60, but ALWAYS strongly opposed any change when he spoke in public.

Actually, Duane was personally opposed to any change in the rule. He was pretty adament about it, in fact.