E
ezrider
Guest
<font color="0000ff">Hey Charlie Brown,
Maybe I am being selfish, but it's my family and my bills that come first and that's my main concern if it ever comes down to a pilot strike.</font>
If that's your main concern, I don't think that makes you selfish. Self preservation is a natural reaction to a looming crisis and any labor disruption would have me feeling apprehensive as well. But I'm not about to let fear take over as the rationale for condemnation of another bargaining unit that's having to rattle the same sabre that the the union of the "MAJORITY" has now done THREE TIMES IN A ROW in negotiations with this company. Take a look in the mirror before you start dissing the "MINORITY" for doing nothing more than what IBT members willfully endorsed or turned a blind eye towards by not filling out the strike-authorization ballot.
What I read on the news section of this very site only leads me to believe that there's evidence to support that the pilots' stance is legit. The article states that it's coming down to the pension and that the company's figures for funding the pension are nowhere even near the figures of what the IPA hired actuaries have arrived at. It's already been pointed out on another pension thread that a company executive testified before Congress giving bogus numbers in an effort to distort the reality or "truth" as it were, so it's already established that the company will resort to means that most of the "MAJORITY" would deem as dishonest and by no means is it out of the realm of possibility that the company would try to pull the same thing at the talks with the "MINORITY" as well.
Fear of the unknown is one thing, but decisions based solely on fear are the worst decisions of all. Bashing pilots for no more than fear that it would cause uncertainty to your personal situation isn't acceptable. That's not anywhere near conclusive proof that IPA are out-of-touch stupid prima-donnas with no sense of loyalty. If that's what the IPA has always been, then Bob Miller just as easily could have not only withheld pilots from walking the picket lines with us in '97, he could have easily stood on the sidelines and not backed the "MAJORITY" or worse, IPA could have tried undermine the "MAJORITY" by publicly stating that the "BEST PAID" package handlers in the business were walking out on thier employer due to irrational greed in an attempt to gain favor with the company when IPA's turn to negotiate was just months away.
In other words, the pilots could have easily bashed the package handlers had they wanted to, maybe resulting in weakening the bargaining position of the "MAJORITY" at a crucial and pivotal juncture. Which is basically what you and some others in the "MAJORITY", without so much as bothering to gain any perspective on what the issues facing the "MINORITY" actually might be, are of course doing to them. Thier right to negotiate for security far outweighs your compulsive need to undermine them in irrational attempts to reconcile your own insecurity.
Maybe I am being selfish, but it's my family and my bills that come first and that's my main concern if it ever comes down to a pilot strike.</font>
If that's your main concern, I don't think that makes you selfish. Self preservation is a natural reaction to a looming crisis and any labor disruption would have me feeling apprehensive as well. But I'm not about to let fear take over as the rationale for condemnation of another bargaining unit that's having to rattle the same sabre that the the union of the "MAJORITY" has now done THREE TIMES IN A ROW in negotiations with this company. Take a look in the mirror before you start dissing the "MINORITY" for doing nothing more than what IBT members willfully endorsed or turned a blind eye towards by not filling out the strike-authorization ballot.
What I read on the news section of this very site only leads me to believe that there's evidence to support that the pilots' stance is legit. The article states that it's coming down to the pension and that the company's figures for funding the pension are nowhere even near the figures of what the IPA hired actuaries have arrived at. It's already been pointed out on another pension thread that a company executive testified before Congress giving bogus numbers in an effort to distort the reality or "truth" as it were, so it's already established that the company will resort to means that most of the "MAJORITY" would deem as dishonest and by no means is it out of the realm of possibility that the company would try to pull the same thing at the talks with the "MINORITY" as well.
Fear of the unknown is one thing, but decisions based solely on fear are the worst decisions of all. Bashing pilots for no more than fear that it would cause uncertainty to your personal situation isn't acceptable. That's not anywhere near conclusive proof that IPA are out-of-touch stupid prima-donnas with no sense of loyalty. If that's what the IPA has always been, then Bob Miller just as easily could have not only withheld pilots from walking the picket lines with us in '97, he could have easily stood on the sidelines and not backed the "MAJORITY" or worse, IPA could have tried undermine the "MAJORITY" by publicly stating that the "BEST PAID" package handlers in the business were walking out on thier employer due to irrational greed in an attempt to gain favor with the company when IPA's turn to negotiate was just months away.
In other words, the pilots could have easily bashed the package handlers had they wanted to, maybe resulting in weakening the bargaining position of the "MAJORITY" at a crucial and pivotal juncture. Which is basically what you and some others in the "MAJORITY", without so much as bothering to gain any perspective on what the issues facing the "MINORITY" actually might be, are of course doing to them. Thier right to negotiate for security far outweighs your compulsive need to undermine them in irrational attempts to reconcile your own insecurity.
