Gr82Aviate
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2004
- Posts
- 1,180
I used to buy this line. However, it's flawed thinking.
This is more properly an argument against working for Mesa in the first place. Because even though Mesa would have been worse without ALPA:
WITH ALPA, Mesa was (and is):After seeing this go on for 10 years, the only logical assumption is that ALPA does not work at the regional level. ALPA has a long list explaining why it's not their fault, but the fact remains: membership is compulsory, and people should reasonably expect something for all that dues money. Something better than:
- still a terrible place to work; it simply is a non-employee friendly place run by awful managers
- ALPA takes nearly 3% of your paycheck in dues then . . .
- ALPA tells you that the place "could be worse" . . . .
- ALPA says "things will get better in the next contract" . . . as things get progressively worse and worse.
"Well, it could be worse"
It's only "an argument against working for MESA"!!! If nobody would work for JO(and Hulas & his Ho-jets), ALPA wouldn't have half the battle trying to bring this industry up from the low levels these bottom feeders have taken us!