GC Vote - preferring FOs and SOs to represent the 2/3 who are FOs and SOs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GC Vote - preferring FOs and SOs to represent the 2/3 who are FOs and SOs
With only 8 days left to vote, 10 of the 25 candidates have not even bothered to post their manifestos yet. I have submitted my vote and except for the blank candidates that happened to be someone I already know and approve of, blank candidates did not and will not get my vote.
Considering his self-interested, out-of-seniority/reinterpreted seniority, nearly top-secret sideshow regarding the AMS base, I would think that #7 will not receive many votes. However, I am certain that another CN, #14, would make an excellent, aggressive, motivated, successful new addition to the GC that will breathe new life into the drive to stop negotiating like divided amateurs and start acting and fighting like a real union.
With the exception of #5 and #10, who obviously deserve our votes for all the good, hard work they do, I believe the SOs and FOs are those most ready to change tactics and strategy, and be willing to do more to become more aggressive, to ignore company con jobs, to fight and eliminate "contractual" loopholes, to prevent the erosion of conditions, to refuse to play into endless negotiation delay games, to turn off negotiations while immediately turning on CC as desired, and to ultimately protect our careers and improve our future. They are those with the most to gain from all of the above, and for longer.
I believe these excellent SOs and FOs, despite a few small wins in the last 10 years, have mostly seen too much of the content and/or "intent" of their contracts and agreements ignored/changed/degraded, RA65 as well as extended and part-time/unpaid leave CNs blocking promotions without consequences or compensation, planned/expected age 55-65 CN-friendly agreements further blocking promotions, before-age-55 earnings significantly decreased, massive and unverifiable BPP underpayment and/or disappearance (under duress), temporary and permanent basing opportunities eliminated, too many court cases lost, ineffective and ridiculously re-interpreted rostering practices/FTL agreements, and overall job satisfaction and happiness tremendously decreased.
Now is the time to stop participating in "talks" that last for months/years over agreements that are full of holes. We must stop giving away and start taking back and gaining. We all know there is only one tactic that works considering the manner in which our "opponents" choose to act most of the time. We need a GC ready with a CC plan and a CC mandate as well as a membership that is already properly informed, prepared, organized and motivated to enact that plan correctly, as well as effective, agreed-upon and broadcasted consequences for those too selfish and/or short-sighted to do so...including the non-members who passively do us so much harm but actively partake in the occasional wins.
Considering his self-interested, out-of-seniority/reinterpreted seniority, nearly top-secret sideshow regarding the AMS base, I would think that #7 will not receive many votes. However, I am certain that another CN, #14, would make an excellent, aggressive, motivated, successful new addition to the GC that will breathe new life into the drive to stop negotiating like divided amateurs and start acting and fighting like a real union.
With the exception of #5 and #10, who obviously deserve our votes for all the good, hard work they do, I believe the SOs and FOs are those most ready to change tactics and strategy, and be willing to do more to become more aggressive, to ignore company con jobs, to fight and eliminate "contractual" loopholes, to prevent the erosion of conditions, to refuse to play into endless negotiation delay games, to turn off negotiations while immediately turning on CC as desired, and to ultimately protect our careers and improve our future. They are those with the most to gain from all of the above, and for longer.
I believe these excellent SOs and FOs, despite a few small wins in the last 10 years, have mostly seen too much of the content and/or "intent" of their contracts and agreements ignored/changed/degraded, RA65 as well as extended and part-time/unpaid leave CNs blocking promotions without consequences or compensation, planned/expected age 55-65 CN-friendly agreements further blocking promotions, before-age-55 earnings significantly decreased, massive and unverifiable BPP underpayment and/or disappearance (under duress), temporary and permanent basing opportunities eliminated, too many court cases lost, ineffective and ridiculously re-interpreted rostering practices/FTL agreements, and overall job satisfaction and happiness tremendously decreased.
Now is the time to stop participating in "talks" that last for months/years over agreements that are full of holes. We must stop giving away and start taking back and gaining. We all know there is only one tactic that works considering the manner in which our "opponents" choose to act most of the time. We need a GC ready with a CC plan and a CC mandate as well as a membership that is already properly informed, prepared, organized and motivated to enact that plan correctly, as well as effective, agreed-upon and broadcasted consequences for those too selfish and/or short-sighted to do so...including the non-members who passively do us so much harm but actively partake in the occasional wins.
Last edited by Iron Skillet; 14th Aug 2011 at 21:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. If I thought so, I would have put it there.
2. More people will see it here, and sooner.
As for pitiful, yes, I agree it is pitiful that 10 of 25 have even not posted their manifestos a month or so into the election. That's why I posted my thoughts. Thank you for your support.
2. More people will see it here, and sooner.
As for pitiful, yes, I agree it is pitiful that 10 of 25 have even not posted their manifestos a month or so into the election. That's why I posted my thoughts. Thank you for your support.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The standard response is that the company will not negotiate with anyone other than the AOA pilots.
Of course they don't want us to have professional representatives, but who put them in charge of how we conduct our negotiations? Too bad: CC until they negotiate with whoever we hire to negotiate on our behalf, since pilots are busy flying airplanes. Just as Swire hires full-time people to do it on their behalf, with titles like DFO, GMA, etc., under what authority do they determine who our representatives are?
Or how about CC until they send in the only negotiators that we consider accept acceptable, such as the DFO's butcher, GMA's kids' teacher, ICM manager's doctor, etc.....???
Of course they don't want us to have professional representatives, but who put them in charge of how we conduct our negotiations? Too bad: CC until they negotiate with whoever we hire to negotiate on our behalf, since pilots are busy flying airplanes. Just as Swire hires full-time people to do it on their behalf, with titles like DFO, GMA, etc., under what authority do they determine who our representatives are?
Or how about CC until they send in the only negotiators that we consider accept acceptable, such as the DFO's butcher, GMA's kids' teacher, ICM manager's doctor, etc.....???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam,
Please demonstrate your bravery and intelligence to succinctly indicate any misleading error(s) in my post.
Then feel free to look up the definitions of coward, narcissist, pretend, concern, (internet) troll and moron, as it is clear to me that you are misinformed about the meanings of these words.
Cheers!
Please demonstrate your bravery and intelligence to succinctly indicate any misleading error(s) in my post.
Then feel free to look up the definitions of coward, narcissist, pretend, concern, (internet) troll and moron, as it is clear to me that you are misinformed about the meanings of these words.
Cheers!
Last edited by Iron Skillet; 15th Aug 2011 at 17:19.
