Quote:
Originally Posted by PCL_128  You see, this is the problem. You think this is easy to measure, but it's actually impossible. What constitutes a "win?" Many people think of a grievance as either "won" or "lost," but it's not that simple. The overwhelming majority of grievances are settled and never reach arbitration. Some of them never even reach System Board. With a grievance settlement, there is give and take, just like negotiations. So how do you determine who "won?" What I would call a "win" would be considered a wash or a even a loss by someone else. Even when a grievance goes all the way to arbitration, there are no clear "winners" in many cases. Remember, grievance arbitrators don't operate under the same principles of "baseball-style arbitration." In other words, they aren't required to pick one side's argument over the other's. They can pick something in the middle, they can go even further than one side argued, they can even issue rulings on parts of the contract that weren't even referenced in the grievance filing or the briefs. It gets very muddy, and picking a clear "winner" is impossible in many cases. Quantifying this isn't workable.
Again, not an accurate way of measuring the work that is done by ALPA Aeromedical, as most of their work doesn't involve reinstating medicals. Most of their work revolves around advice given to members long before their medical is ever in jeopardy. You can't quantify advice, other than to give just the sheer number of phone calls that they've received from members, and that isn't really a worthwhile number to report, as it doesn't give any relevant information.
It even gets muddy on this one, too. Remember, most ALPA pilot groups actually represent a drain on Association resources, not a net increase to the coffers. Revenue increases with the addition of new groups, but expenses exceed revenue for most ALPA pilot groups. For instance, if Colgan had joined ALPA last year, revenue would have started coming in from CJC, but ALPA's expenses to represent CJC would be higher than the revenue that they produce. That means that ALPA's cash position would actually be less today as a result of obtaining this new group of members. But if you're only interested in revenue, then that's reported to the members in the magazine.
I disagree that these things can be "measured." You can report to the members on what actions are being taken, but that's already done every month in the magazine and in regular Fast Reads from National that are delivered via email. Quantifying what can be termed a success is a different story, though. Again, some members will determine some things to be a success, while others will deem it a failure. Age 65 is a perfect example of this.
Eh, math presents a distorted picture in most things. Reality is much more complex than a simple math problem. |
Math is ABSOLUTE!
I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate the explainations - I understand better now.
As for math, it can help explain reality. The problem with math is the people that use it. "Liers figure and figures lie" is oftentimes the reality. I think the key with measuring and math is that you completely disclose HOW you are using a number and WHY. If you can support an argument that is gray by using figures and explain how and why you used them it can be enormously helpful. As for grievances described above, you could only show how many were worked on, because the outcome is so murky. As for medical, you can only measure how many you worked on. Measuring both and reporting them...and then being able to tie and expense number to that will help spot trends that develop earlier. I am almost sure ALPA is doing this as any sophisticated organization would.
I just see a lot of arrows that get flung at ALPA and the responses, while impassioned, often devolve into generalities and "because that is just the way it has to be". You are a better defender of ALPA than most. As for the Colgan issue - that makes sense, although I didn't know that it would cost you money. Is this only at first for start-up, or will a small pilot group always be a drain? I can see ALPA saying "CJC is going to cost us money in year one relative to dues, but over five years we will be cash-flow neutral on them"...I would have a hard time understanding "CJC is going to cost us money and will continue to cost us money with no possibility of recouping our services/investment in them.