It is Election time at Air Canada and this site is frequented by a number of our newer members.
It is important that you know some of the dynamics, so you can cast an educated ballot.
There is a slate of candidates ( particularly in Vancouver) that have covertly hidden an agenda to perpetuate the 8 year Seniority battle.
Quite frankly, wanting to take it down a very dangerous path.
Without going into the gory details, I would ask you, to ask the Candidates the following question;
"After the last LEGAL avenue, (the remaining 'Leave for Appeal' of the Supreme Court,)
..is the Merger OVER."
A simple Yes or No!
It's your career, do you want ACPA continuing to direct its efforts in this protracted fight?
Or, is 8 years of Legal Battles enough?
....ask the Question.
ACPA Elections
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: ACPA Elections
Johnny767 wrote: There is a slate of candidates ( particularly in Vancouver)...
...as opposed to the current member of the ALPA Merger Committee (BR) who is seeking re-election for the ACPA YVR LEC Chair position, and has been on the ACPA MEC for the past 5 years? Talk about personal agenda!!!
At least this YVR slate of candidates you refer to, include a newhire pilot within their group, who was hired as recently as March 2007. Obviously they have numerous issues on their agendas, including Corporate Governance and equality for all members, as opposed to the other slate (OCP) which only has one: To protect the interests of their alternative constituency, no matter the cost.
It's the repeated demonstrations by this alternative constituency that it has absolutely zero commitment to the viability of ACPA, and is ready to destroy it the moment its internal agenda is threatened.
I believe the newhires have taken notice.
Last edited by Watch Out on Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...as opposed to the current member of the ALPA Merger Committee (OCP) who is seeking re-election for the ACPA YVR LEC Chair position, and has been on the ACPA MEC for the past 5 years? Talk about personal agenda!!!
At least this YVR slate of candidates that you refer to, include a newhire pilot within their group, who was hired as recently as March 2007. Obviously they have numerous issues on their agendas, including Corporate Governance, as opposed to the other slate which only has one: To protect their alternative constituency's interests.
The entire Toronto LEC ( ...plus the YWG and YUL LEC's) form what is called;
.... "The Red MEC" which deals entirely with the Merged Seniority List. The fact that the Vancouver chair was on the ALPA merger committee is old news.
And pales by comparision!
The ALPA merger committee no longer exists, as they are of the opinion;
The Merger is over.
As such the committee has been dissolved, contrary to the overtures of some, using it as political propaganda.
As I said in the opening post;
Ask the question!
At least this YVR slate of candidates that you refer to, include a newhire pilot within their group, who was hired as recently as March 2007. Obviously they have numerous issues on their agendas, including Corporate Governance, as opposed to the other slate which only has one: To protect their alternative constituency's interests.
The entire Toronto LEC ( ...plus the YWG and YUL LEC's) form what is called;
.... "The Red MEC" which deals entirely with the Merged Seniority List. The fact that the Vancouver chair was on the ALPA merger committee is old news.
And pales by comparision!
The ALPA merger committee no longer exists, as they are of the opinion;
The Merger is over.
As such the committee has been dissolved, contrary to the overtures of some, using it as political propaganda.
As I said in the opening post;
Ask the question!
Last edited by Johnny767 on Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's the repeated demonstrations by this alternative constituency that it has absolutely zero commitment to the viability of ACPA, and is ready to destroy it the moment its internal agenda is threatened.
I think you are being sold a 'bill of goods' here. That statement couldn't be further from the truth.
I think you are being sold a 'bill of goods' here. That statement couldn't be further from the truth.
Johnny767 wrote:It's the repeated demonstrations by this alternative constituency that it has absolutely zero commitment to the viability of ACPA, and is ready to destroy it the moment its internal agenda is threatened.
I think you are being sold a 'bill of goods' here. That statement couldn't be further from the truth.
This full-page ad appeared on October 13th, 2005, when the voting for the present MEC was in progress.
I’d like you all to think of the last time you awoke to find members of the same profession, the same company, and especially the same professional association, smearing their counterparts, their profession, and their very union in slimy public detail, with maximum public exposure, over an internal dispute. Doing grievous harm to their union, without the slightest regard for boundaries. What would you think of the fringe element who would resort to such scorched-earth tactics?
Did I say fringe element? It so happens that one of the people behind this campaign was in the process of running for re-election to the very body he was brutalizing in the public media. And after the election he took his place, as if nothing had happened, to talk serious union business with the rest of the body. And now, he is seeking re-election once again.
It is not resentment over the merger itself. It’s much worse. This is what I mean when I say "It's the repeated demonstrations by this alternative constituency (which this person leads) that it has absolutely zero commitment to the viability of this union, and is ready to destroy it the moment its internal agenda is threatened."
I equate this to when Lucien Bouchard was the leader of the Official Party in Opposition in the House of Commons. You either give Quebec what it wants, or he will destroy the country.
Last edited by Watch Out on Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Brick Head
- Rank 8
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Johnny,
Ya know you sound an awful lot like the Liberals for the last 3 elections.
Hidden agenda, hidden agenda, hidden agenda.
On the other hand fear mongering did work for them....well for a while anyway.
The guy running against the incumbent is a straight shooter. Never been in the seniority arena. Been involved in ACPA for years. Has a degree in applied Human Factors Psychology, that has been very useful in dealing with fatigue issues, bunks, crewing ect.
I think he would make a fantastic LEC chair. Sharp, energetic.
I agree the merger is over. But I also think it is time to get the old faces out and some new blood, with no baggage, in.
With that in mind I have not cast my ballot for anyone, doesn't matter which color, that has been involved in the seniority battle.
Time to move on.
Out with the old and in with the new. We have bigger fish to fry. The YVR LEC chair has been a proponent of the silo philosophy which I think is killing us. You know treat everything as a separate issue. Don't tie anything together. It is ok to get knifed in the back and still do a deal on another issue at the same time??????????????????
Time to go.
Ya know you sound an awful lot like the Liberals for the last 3 elections.
Hidden agenda, hidden agenda, hidden agenda.
On the other hand fear mongering did work for them....well for a while anyway.
The guy running against the incumbent is a straight shooter. Never been in the seniority arena. Been involved in ACPA for years. Has a degree in applied Human Factors Psychology, that has been very useful in dealing with fatigue issues, bunks, crewing ect.
I think he would make a fantastic LEC chair. Sharp, energetic.
I agree the merger is over. But I also think it is time to get the old faces out and some new blood, with no baggage, in.
With that in mind I have not cast my ballot for anyone, doesn't matter which color, that has been involved in the seniority battle.
Time to move on.
Out with the old and in with the new. We have bigger fish to fry. The YVR LEC chair has been a proponent of the silo philosophy which I think is killing us. You know treat everything as a separate issue. Don't tie anything together. It is ok to get knifed in the back and still do a deal on another issue at the same time??????????????????
Time to go.
You doubt there is a "hidden agenda?"
That is because, it isn't to well hidden.
Look no further than;
http://forum.acpa.ca
..go
Forums
..go
Seniority Issues
And look for the guy driving the Agenda!
He is the ring leader behind the Vancouver group.
However, he doesn't have the courage to put it into his campaign literature.
MISSION STATEMENT
Ø Support the abolishment of the Pay Position Group.
Ø Support improvements to the EMJ wage & working conditions.
Ø Support the elimination of the 5% Pay Reduction on the A320.
Ø Support the inclusion of Retirees on matters important to them, example: Pensions, Access to the ACPA Website and Forum Discussions.
Ø Support the concept of “No Lets”, without an IVR Vote.
Ø Support recorded Votes at the LEC & MEC level, so Members can be held accountable for their actions.
Ø Support Electronic Petitions at the LEC and National Level.
Ø Support Tele Conferencing and/or Conference Calling for Local Council Meetings.
Ø Support Publishing of the recent “ACPA Governance Recommendations”, prior to the commencement of voting on October 9th.
Ø Support the implementation of a “Conflict of Interest Policy”, something desperately lacking in our current Constitution.
Ø Support the Consideration and Careful Study of how we elect our MEC Official’s, with the possibility of Positive Reform.
Ø Support the creation of a substantial Strike Fund, as tool to promote positive and wholesome discussions between our Negotiation Committee and Air Canada Management, prior to Collective Agreement expiring in 2009.
Ø Support ACPA in its continued efforts to be a force in All Union Matters for others to follow and emulate. Similar in concept to UPS & APA Unions in America.
Puts this as the FIRST LINE!
Support the abolishment of the Pay Position Group.
....He is a ONE ISSUE guy and it isn't looking after the junior guys in the "Phil Group!"
....He is a Ring Leader of the fringe group "Red Pilots for Seniority Just- Us."
The rest of the slate of candidates, including the Chairman, are window dressing.
Please re-read the opening post and ask the question!
That is because, it isn't to well hidden.
Look no further than;
http://forum.acpa.ca
..go
Forums
..go
Seniority Issues
And look for the guy driving the Agenda!
He is the ring leader behind the Vancouver group.
However, he doesn't have the courage to put it into his campaign literature.
MISSION STATEMENT
Ø Support the abolishment of the Pay Position Group.
Ø Support improvements to the EMJ wage & working conditions.
Ø Support the elimination of the 5% Pay Reduction on the A320.
Ø Support the inclusion of Retirees on matters important to them, example: Pensions, Access to the ACPA Website and Forum Discussions.
Ø Support the concept of “No Lets”, without an IVR Vote.
Ø Support recorded Votes at the LEC & MEC level, so Members can be held accountable for their actions.
Ø Support Electronic Petitions at the LEC and National Level.
Ø Support Tele Conferencing and/or Conference Calling for Local Council Meetings.
Ø Support Publishing of the recent “ACPA Governance Recommendations”, prior to the commencement of voting on October 9th.
Ø Support the implementation of a “Conflict of Interest Policy”, something desperately lacking in our current Constitution.
Ø Support the Consideration and Careful Study of how we elect our MEC Official’s, with the possibility of Positive Reform.
Ø Support the creation of a substantial Strike Fund, as tool to promote positive and wholesome discussions between our Negotiation Committee and Air Canada Management, prior to Collective Agreement expiring in 2009.
Ø Support ACPA in its continued efforts to be a force in All Union Matters for others to follow and emulate. Similar in concept to UPS & APA Unions in America.
Puts this as the FIRST LINE!
Support the abolishment of the Pay Position Group.
....He is a ONE ISSUE guy and it isn't looking after the junior guys in the "Phil Group!"
....He is a Ring Leader of the fringe group "Red Pilots for Seniority Just- Us."
The rest of the slate of candidates, including the Chairman, are window dressing.
Please re-read the opening post and ask the question!
-
Brick Head
- Rank 8
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Johnny,
[i]....He is a ONE ISSUE guy .........
....He is a Ring Leader of the fringe group "Red Pilots for Seniority Just- Us."[/i]
Exactly why I won't vote for him either. But get real, the individual you speak of is just running as a councilor?????????
I'll say it again.......they all have to go. anyone with seniority battle baggage. All of em.
The rest of the slate of candidates, including the Chairman, are window dressing.
Your kidding right? Now you are calling him a patsy or a puppet? Nothing could be farther from the truth. This guy in particular, is very well respected. He is no ones puppet........well maybe the wife.
Please re-read the opening post and ask the question![/u]
I did and as you can tell I think your question should be slightly re phrased. Same basic idea as you. I just think it should be applied evenly. Make sense? What you appear to be suggesting is that just one side of the seniority issue should be wiped clean. Nope. All have to go.
Ask the candidates, or find out, if they have ever been involved in the seniority battle.
Don't vote for them. None of them. If we want this to truly go away and be over. Wipe the table clean.
Just my opinion of course.
[i]....He is a ONE ISSUE guy .........
....He is a Ring Leader of the fringe group "Red Pilots for Seniority Just- Us."[/i]
Exactly why I won't vote for him either. But get real, the individual you speak of is just running as a councilor?????????
I'll say it again.......they all have to go. anyone with seniority battle baggage. All of em.
The rest of the slate of candidates, including the Chairman, are window dressing.
Your kidding right? Now you are calling him a patsy or a puppet? Nothing could be farther from the truth. This guy in particular, is very well respected. He is no ones puppet........well maybe the wife.
Please re-read the opening post and ask the question![/u]
I did and as you can tell I think your question should be slightly re phrased. Same basic idea as you. I just think it should be applied evenly. Make sense? What you appear to be suggesting is that just one side of the seniority issue should be wiped clean. Nope. All have to go.
Ask the candidates, or find out, if they have ever been involved in the seniority battle.
Don't vote for them. None of them. If we want this to truly go away and be over. Wipe the table clean.
Just my opinion of course.
I'm with you, anybody that is going to perpetuate the "8 year battle," has to go.
My take is slightly different than yours.
The "Chairman" candidate has been picked, for all the reasons you mention. The optics are good, that is why he is there.
I believe the strings are being pulled by two of the candidates for Councilor positions. Toss in a new-hire for good measure.
The two in question, are considered (even by there own) to be "over the top," and wouldn't stand a chance at a Chairman or Vice-Chairman's position.
This group "Team Vancouver," has been carefully picked. There are lots of great, honest, OAC Pilots in Vancouver that I would vote for in a second.
Unfortunately when a group is formed, with an agenda, it isn't going to happen.
For the "Green Pilots," demand an unequivocal answer;
"After the LAST LEGAL challenge is over, IS THE MERGER OVER?"
No political B.S.
Yes or No.
I know for a fact, that for two of the Councilor Candidates, the answer is NO.
...and I believe the Chairman Candidate is in their pocket.
Happy Voting!
My take is slightly different than yours.
The "Chairman" candidate has been picked, for all the reasons you mention. The optics are good, that is why he is there.
I believe the strings are being pulled by two of the candidates for Councilor positions. Toss in a new-hire for good measure.
The two in question, are considered (even by there own) to be "over the top," and wouldn't stand a chance at a Chairman or Vice-Chairman's position.
This group "Team Vancouver," has been carefully picked. There are lots of great, honest, OAC Pilots in Vancouver that I would vote for in a second.
Unfortunately when a group is formed, with an agenda, it isn't going to happen.
For the "Green Pilots," demand an unequivocal answer;
"After the LAST LEGAL challenge is over, IS THE MERGER OVER?"
No political B.S.
Yes or No.
I know for a fact, that for two of the Councilor Candidates, the answer is NO.
...and I believe the Chairman Candidate is in their pocket.
Happy Voting!
I did and as you can tell I think your question should be slightly re phrased. Same basic idea as you. I just think it should be applied evenly. Make sense? What you appear to be suggesting is that just one side of the seniority issue should be wiped clean. Nope. All have to go.
Ask the candidates, or find out, if they have ever been involved in the seniority battle.
Don't vote for them. None of them. If we want this to truly go away and be over. Wipe the table clean.
Just my opinion of course.
To your above point:
In the view of the two Councilor Candidates, the people who have been involved in the Seniority battle to date, aren't strong enough to do the dirty work.
They intend to "do the dirty work."
The fact that they have never entered the "Seniority Arena," means nothing.
They intend to jump in...with both feet.
That is why I phased the question, the way I did.
Thanks for reading, and the civilized discussion.
Cheers
Ask the candidates, or find out, if they have ever been involved in the seniority battle.
Don't vote for them. None of them. If we want this to truly go away and be over. Wipe the table clean.
Just my opinion of course.
To your above point:
In the view of the two Councilor Candidates, the people who have been involved in the Seniority battle to date, aren't strong enough to do the dirty work.
They intend to "do the dirty work."
The fact that they have never entered the "Seniority Arena," means nothing.
They intend to jump in...with both feet.
That is why I phased the question, the way I did.
Thanks for reading, and the civilized discussion.
Cheers
-
Brick Head
- Rank 8
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Johnny,
We basically agree. Save one point.
My comment about anyone who was ever involved in the seniority battle was meant to be broader than I believe you took it. How about this. Anyone who ever has taken a leadership role in the seniority issue either directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, I will not vote for. In my mind that includes the two you speak of who have never held an official position.
The point I absolutely disagree with is your assertion that somehow individuals are other individuals pockets. That there is some conspiracy going on. I know the two groups have trust issues but come on. I personally know some of them.
I understand where you concern comes from but it is unfounded.
We basically agree. Save one point.
My comment about anyone who was ever involved in the seniority battle was meant to be broader than I believe you took it. How about this. Anyone who ever has taken a leadership role in the seniority issue either directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, I will not vote for. In my mind that includes the two you speak of who have never held an official position.
The point I absolutely disagree with is your assertion that somehow individuals are other individuals pockets. That there is some conspiracy going on. I know the two groups have trust issues but come on. I personally know some of them.
I understand where you concern comes from but it is unfounded.
I know the players as well.
Sadly, under different circumstances the Chairman Candidate would get my vote.
I guess we'll have to agree, to disagree.
The Two Councilor Candidates are on a "Hail Mary" mission.
This is an orchestrated slate of candidates.
For those that doubt my therory, ask the question.
What can it hurt.
Sadly, under different circumstances the Chairman Candidate would get my vote.
I guess we'll have to agree, to disagree.
The Two Councilor Candidates are on a "Hail Mary" mission.
This is an orchestrated slate of candidates.
For those that doubt my therory, ask the question.
What can it hurt.
