Lowers but raised dues?

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

LOL; so as thanks you voted to have them give more!

You need to check your facts. I voted AGAINST changing the 401k duesability policy. The vote on the Executive Council was 9-4, and I was one of the 4. After it got through the Council, it went to the Executive Board, where the vote was 18-17, I believe. I don't have a vote there, but our MEC Chairman voted AGAINST it, on my recommendation. When it got to the BOD this past week, I spoke out AGAINST it. My exact words when asked about it in our election caucus were "I am staunchly OPPOSED to duesing 401k contributions."

But you know what? Sometimes the politics don't go your way. It became clear that a strong majority of the delegates favored changing the policy. That's because a majority of the union already pays dues in this way and always has, and they felt it was unfair that others were not (again, I disagreed, but that was their opinion). With a strong enough majority already in place to ratify the original proposal, there were two options: (a) refuse to budge an inch and the original proposal would ratify, or; (b) try to strike up a compromise that was better than the original proposal, even though it would still be far from perfect. I'm a pragmatist, so I chose option "b." With the hard work of many people (including Jetcareers' own amorris), a compromise was reached that was less onerous than the original proposal.

Tell it like it is.

I do tell it like it is. But "like it is" isn't like you perceive it to be. I didn't hear a single mainline pilot speak anything even remotely similar to what you stated in regards to regional or other non-mainline pilots. Sure, there are plenty of pilots who feel that way. But you don't find many of them in union positions. Such scumbags usually don't have the political acumen to get themselves elected.

 

[HRDiva]

You need to check your facts. I voted AGAINST changing the 401k duesability policy. The vote on the Executive Council was 9-4, and I was one of the 4. After it got through the Council, it went to the Executive Board, where the vote was 18-17, I believe. I don't have a vote there, but our MEC Chairman voted AGAINST it, on my recommendation. When it got to the BOD this past week, I spoke out AGAINST it. My exact words when asked about it in our election caucus were "I am staunchly OPPOSED to duesing 401k contributions."

But you know what? Sometimes the politics don't go your way. It became clear that a strong majority of the delegates favored changing the policy. That's because a majority of the union already pays dues in this way and always has, and they felt it was unfair that others were not (again, I disagreed, but that was their opinion). With a strong enough majority already in place to ratify the original proposal, there were two options: (a) refuse to budge an inch and the original proposal would ratify, or; (b) try to strike up a compromise that was better than the original proposal, even though it would still be far from perfect. I'm a pragmatist, so I chose option "b." With the hard work of many people (including Jetcareers' own amorris), a compromise was reached that was less onerous than the original proposal.



I do tell it like it is. But "like it is" isn't like you perceive it to be. I didn't hear a single mainline pilot speak anything even remotely similar to what you stated in regards to regional or other non-mainline pilots. Sure, there are plenty of pilots who feel that way. But you don't find many of them in union positions. Such scumbags usually don't have thee political acumen to get themselves elected.

On page 1 you said you supported this after they reduced the overall dues. Did you support this or not? Is it page 1 or 4?

I don't expect union reps to state the hidden agenda. It was stated to me in a private venue. To know that it exists is enough for me to believe that is communicated to their reps to carry out. And they have done that under the awesome leadership of your President (I believe you referenced his leadership in getting this done--duh!).

I wish you well in your future endeavors since you say you don't want to fly for SWA much longer. But if you are planning a career at ALPA, please let us know so we can be represented by someone who does not have those aspirations!

 

[higney85]

Politics suck. You want to tax my 401k when it's my sole retirement vehicle, where others with "multiple retirement vehicles" that they don't even pay into, aren't taxed (cause you can't touch them) feel it isn't "fair". Well, hold my beer and watch this. O, wait.... The big boys win? Yea, go team. Chest thump, plus a wet-Willie. Watch this learning curve.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

On page 1 you said you supported this after they reduced the overall dues. Did you support this or not? Is it page 1 or 4?

I support it because it was better than the alternative.

I don't expect union reps to state the hidden agenda.

You shouldn't. Because one doesn't exist.

I wish you well in your future endeavors since you say you don't want to fly for SWA much longer. But if you are planning a career at ALPA, please let us know so we can be represented by someone who does not have those aspirations!

I will obviously not have a "career at ALPA" (whatever that is), because I'll either be at SWA or out of aviation entirely. But I would suggest that the people who have had many years of experience working in ALPA are the best possible people for the job. It's the newbies and the angry malcontents who think that they can change the world who always cause the most harm. The dedicated volunteers who work tirelessly year after year, those you would probably call "career politicians," are the ones who get the most done for the members.

 

[SrFnFly227]

This is how ALL business gets done in EVERY industry.

I'm not saying ALPA MEC's should or should not allow guys to expense drinks, but I AM saying that business gets done after hours. Formality is for formality's sake; you get the real work done behind the scenes.

You've never been engaged in any sort of politics (institutional, corporate, or public), have you?

As others have mentioned, that's just politics. Do you think the business of the United States Senate actually gets done on the floor? Of course not! It gets done in the back hallways and offices, and even more commonly, it gets done after hours at the cocktail parties, fundraisers, and private dinners. The floor sessions are just where the politicians go to give the speeches that they want on the record, and to record their official votes. The politics and deal making gets done over drinks at a cocktail party. That's the real world. Expecting it to be done any differently is just naive and unrealistic.

I understand that business is done over drinks. I see it with my current employer and I have seen it with a past employer. I am 100% on board with that concept. The difference is that my current company is a for profit private company. My past employment was with a for profit private company. If the owners feel like forgoing some profits to pay for those drinks, then that is their decision. The problem I have with ALPA reps doing it, is that ALPA is not a for profit private company.

In my spare time, I also volunteer with the Young Adults for Alzheimer's Awareness. We are a small group, but we work hard for the cause. We get together once a month for our meetings and we put on 2 major events per year. We also volunteer at events put on by other organizations. I bring this up because not once in the two years that I have been volunteering have I heard a member or officer say that drinks or food should be provided at our meetings. Why? Because that would come directly out of the money that we collected for our cause. Sure, we do a lot of our business after the meetings. We even have drinks in front of us while doing that. We, however, pay for our own drinks.

I bring up my volunteer time because I see ALPA much more as a non profit charity than I see it as a for profit business. Every one of those drinks comes directly out of the dues that your membership has no choice but to give. Every one of those drinks is less money that can go to help your membership. If my charity were using donations to buy food or alcohol at meetings, I would bet that we would see less donations. That would probably be the end of our group. When ALPA does use dues (involuntary donations) to do buy food and alcohol and then needs more money, they decide to take more. That's shameful.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Every one of those drinks is less money that can go to help your membership.

I completely disagree. Those drinks are directly contributing to helping the membership, because they're helping facilitate a process that gets things done. No hospitality suites? No business getting done after the meeting recesses for the day. Each individual MEC would just go their own way and no politics would get done with other representatives. In other words, nothing would get accomplished. By hosting the hospitality suites where free food and drinks are offered, it provides ample incentive for reps from all of the carriers to go from suite to suite and engage in politics while they're there.

If my charity were using donations to buy food or alcohol at meetings, I would bet that we would see less donations.

At a small charity, that may be true. But let's be honest here, most large charities host big galas with fancy food and drinks paid for by charitable contributions. Why? Because they know that by doing so, they bring in more people who will contribute more money, and the net effect is a benefit. This is no different. The drinks contribute to a net benefit to the membership.

When ALPA does use dues (involuntary donations) to do buy food and alcohol and then needs more money, they decide to take more. That's shameful.

Your premise is incorrect. First, ALPA doesn't need more money. Our finances are stable, and we're producing a $2 million budget surplus year-to-date. Second, this dues change results in a net loss to our dues revenue of $600k. The dues rate reduction costs us more than the change to the 401k duesability rule brings in.

 

[kellwolf]

Bottom line is this. Most of the guys that only have a 401k aren't the ones bringing in the big money. Sure it levels the field, but in reality it's a tax cut for the rich. The spin doctors on this should work for the Romney campaign. A year ago, I was all about ALPA. Based on what I've been through recently at Pinnacle, I'm actually kinda glad to get my 1.95% back at a different carrier.

Wanna level the playing field, fine. Tell the members that. Don't try to sell snake oil. Of the real work gets done behind the scenes, fine. Stop spending dues money on meetings. Have BOD meetings in hotels in the middle of no where with cheap rates not where the BOD wants to go on vacation and drink. It shouldn't be an MEC policy booze isn't expensed, it should be an ALPA national policy.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Bottom line is this. Most of the guys that only have a 401k aren't the ones bringing in the big money. Sure it levels the field, but in reality it's a tax cut for the rich.

The problem with that argument is that some of the people who were paying on 100% of their income were the guys making the least, and some of the guys not paying on 100% of their income are the guys making the most. For example, Piedmont pilots have been paying on 100% of their income because they have a frozen pension plan. But AirTran pilots don't pay on all of our income, because we only have a 401k plan (have I mentioned lately that SWA's retirement plan sucks?).

So, as a result, the DHC-8 FO making $30k at Piedmont pays an effective dues rate of 1.95%, while I make a six figure income and only pay an effective dues rate of 1.82%. Do you think that's fair? That sounds a lot more like the Rmoney plan to me.

A year ago, I was all about ALPA. Based on what I've been through recently at Pinnacle, I'm actually kinda glad to get my 1.95% back at a different carrier.

Come on, Steve, I thought you were smarter than that! ALPA is not responsible for the mess at Pinnacle. Morons like Phil Trenary and Doug Shockey are responsible for that mess. ALPA can't prevent management stupidity. ALPA can only deal with it as effectively as possible, and that's exactly what ALPA is doing.

As far as your new carrier, I think you're going to find yourself in the minority now. JetBlue pilots are begging ALPA to come back for another organizing drive. Management took their last vote as license to do whatever the hell they want, and conditions have gotten worse. You'll probably be an ALPA member again within a couple of years. And that's a good thing.

Of the real work gets done behind the scenes, fine. Stop spending dues money on meetings.

Both the meetings and the behind the scenes work are necessary. Neither works by itself. Taking away either destroys the system.

Have BOD meetings in hotels in the middle of no where with cheap rates not where the BOD wants to go on vacation and drink.

We already hold the BOD meetings in the cheapest locations possible. You have to remember that we need a meeting location that can hold 400+ people in a single room. It's like a hotel setting up to accommodate Congress. That immediately chucks all of the "middle of nowhere" hotels. They simply can't accommodate an event of this size. So, we're stuck with all of the large city markets. From that point, we have to use unionized hotels. So we again weed out a bunch of locations. We're left with the biggest hotels in the biggest markets. Places like New Orleans, Las Vegas, SoCal, and South Florida. We pick the cheapest of those locations. Vegas and Lauderdale are about even on cost, and the delegates tend to prefer Florida, which is also easier for people to get to, so that's why we go there. It's not about "going on vacation." For the most part, nobody even gets out of the hotel for a week. You're stuck in meetings the entire time. Believe me, this isn't as glamorous as you think it is. Nothing about union work is. I wish I was sitting in the corner office and eating lobster everyday like people think I am, but sadly, that's not the case.

 

[Roger Roger]

All this stuff about how business gets done over drinks and such sounds uncomfortably like the logic that self-entitled douchebag CEOs use to tell people why they need to take trips to the Bahamas and kick it with hookers/strippers/mistresses at expensive five star resorts on the company dime.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Yes, ALPA reps having a few beers after the meeting is the same thing as a CEO paying $5,000 for a high-dollar prostitute and billing it to the company.

 

[Baronman]

Politics suck. You want to tax my 401k when it's my sole retirement vehicle, where others with "multiple retirement vehicles" that they don't even pay into, aren't taxed (cause you can't touch them) feel it isn't "fair". Well, hold my beer and watch this. O, wait.... The big boys win? Yea, go team. Chest thump, plus a wet-Willie. Watch this learning curve.

A-men.... I love at least that we're calling these Alpa guys what they are, they're politicians first, pilots second.

As someone who contributes 15% to his 401k this hurts...I see little difference between ALPA and management.

 

[derg]

My problem is that it's always described as a alco-fest on the level that would make Caligula blush but when it piques widespread interest, suddenly, it's "just a red wine with dinner and maybe a small bowl of off-brand cracker jacks in the breakout room".

Either cut it out or stop bragging about partying like King Louis XIV and back pedaling to justify it after the fact.

Yes, I know my MEC is known for their epic cotillions.

Sent from my Colecovision Adam

 

[Screaming_Emu]

The truth of the matter is, a lot of business gets conducted after meetings over drinks.

And it SHOWS!

 

[derg]

And it SHOWS!

The "They did WHAT?!" Effect.

Ohhhhhhhh yes.


Sent from my Colecovision Adam

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You guys can joke all you want, and everyone knows that I'm not exactly the biggest cheerleader of the current administration, but I think the results speak for themselves. Several significant legislative victories, several big contract improvements, a huge win in bankruptcy at Eagle, an overall dues rate reduction, etc. I may not agree with the current administration's philosophy on a lot of things, but I can't argue with the results so far.

 

[derg]

I'm underwhelmed.

I feel like I went from a Merdeces when I got into the profession, traded in for a used Nissan Sentra. Then we were given a gold kit and a new sun-visor with our latest contract on that Sentra and I'm being told to "praiiiiise da lowwwrd" because people are still driving Pintos.

 

[Gonzo]

I don't think I would use huge win and Eagle in the same sentence.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I don't think I would use huge win and Eagle in the same sentence.

Classifying it as anything else would be delusional. It's incredible what was accomplished there while in bankruptcy.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Classifying it as anything else would be delusional. It's incredible what was accomplished there while in bankruptcy.

That's like saying "we lost...but at least we didn't lose by 10."

Seriously, its kind of frightening that the people who have the lowest expectations are the ones supposedly looking out for our best interests. Good job guys! Beers on me!

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

There's a difference between low expectations and realistic expectations.