AGE 65 Victory Party

[PCL_128]

The pilot group at CCAir agreed via democracy that it was willing to take concessions to avoid being shut down...... DW ignored that democratic vote for a greater good.... How does that jive with the BS you just spouted......

DW refused to sign that agreement because it was negotiated in violation of the ALPA C & BLs. It was the equivalent of the Supreme Court striking down a law because it is unconstitutional. Pilot groups are free to negotiate what they want, provided it does not directly violate the C & BLs.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The pilot group at CCAir agreed via democracy that it was willing to take concessions to avoid being shut down...... DW ignored that democratic vote for a greater good.... How does that jive with the BS you just spouted......

You'd rather lawsuits that democracy eh Joe?

Same deal with Midway in RDU....Joey... no DFR there either... can you explain it?

 

[JoeMerchant]

DW refused to sign that agreement because it was negotiated in violation of the ALPA C & BLs. It was the equivalent of the Supreme Court striking down a law because it is unconstitutional. Pilot groups are free to negotiate what they want, provided it does not directly violate the C & BLs.

......so "democracy" didn't apply in this case...... Despite the fact that it harmed the CCAir pilots......

 

[JoeMerchant]

You'd rather lawsuits that democracy eh Joe?

Same deal with Midway in RDU....Joey... no DFR there either... can you explain it?

..... you said "democracy" trumps a veto of a concessionary contract...... Apparantly that wasn't the case for the CCAir pilots..... Selective "democracy" is the motto......

 

[PCL_128]

......so "democracy" didn't apply in this case...... Despite the fact that it harmed the CCAir pilots......

No, democracy worked perfectly in this case. Democracy created the C & BLs, and democracy can change them. The CCAir MEC easily could have requested a special vote by the BOD to change the ALPA policy on concessionary bargaining. Instead, they intentionally violated ALPA policy and attempted to force through a contract that they knew to be in violation. That's not a failure of democracy, that's a failure of their own leadership. The CCAir case was a textbook example of democracy and a system of governance. You many not like the democratically created rules of governance, but they are the rules.

 

[JoeMerchant]

No, democracy worked perfectly in this case. Democracy created the C & BLs, and democracy can change them. The CCAir MEC easily could have requested a special vote by the BOD to change the ALPA policy on concessionary bargaining. Instead, they intentionally violated ALPA policy and attempted to force through a contract that they knew to be in violation. That's not a failure of democracy, that's a failure of their own leadership. The CCAir case was a textbook example of democracy and a system of governance. You many not like the democratically created rules of governance, but they are the rules.

Doesn't alter the fact that a majority of pilots wishes were disregarded for the sake of the majority.....

Either don't sign concessionary agreements that affect all of regardless of the effect on others, or sign them all..... I doubt the CCAir issue would have gone the same way if it had been a large dues paying pilot group..... They were easy to sacrifice......

.....again.....selective democracy......

.....by the way, the CCAir leadership was better than the Mesa leadership..... but AH had the kneepads.....

 

[PCL_128]

Doesn't alter the fact that a majority of pilots wishes were disregarded for the sake of the majority.....

Just as there's a Constitution in this country that limits the powers of the government, there is a constitution that limits the powers of ALPA's governance. That's not a violation of the principles of democracy, because there is a system in said constitution to change it when necessary. You can keep pretending that democracy was violated here, but you and I both know that it wasn't.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Just as there's a Constitution in this country that limits the powers of the government, there is a constitution that limits the powers of ALPA's governance. That's not a violation of the principles of democracy, because there is a system in said constitution to change it when necessary. You can keep pretending that democracy was violated here, but you and I both know that it wasn't.

Were the majority of CCAir pilot's wishes granted by ALPA national? The simple answer is NO......

We can argue all day about whether or not that was the right thing to do, but the simple fact of the matter was that their wishes were disregarded for a greater good.....

The hypocrisy starts when you ALPA cheerleaders then claim that ALPA can't disregard what the pilots of an airline want..... They did exactly that in the CCAir case......

 

[PCL_128]

Were the majority of CCAir pilot's wishes granted by ALPA national? The simple answer is NO......

Of course not, because what they wanted was in violation of the democratically created C & BLs.

We can argue all day about whether or not that was the right thing to do, but the simple fact of the matter was that their wishes were disregarded for a greater good.....

It had nothing to do with "the greater good." It was simply a matter of them wanting something that was illegal under ALPA Bylaws. The Association cannot legally ignore its own Bylaws. Then people like you will file lawsuits. Only in that case, the lawsuits would actually be legitimate. That would be a change for you.

The hypocrisy starts when you ALPA cheerleaders then claim that ALPA can't disregard what the pilots of an airline want..... They did exactly that in the CCAir case......

If the pilots of CCAir had complied with the requirements of the Bylaws, then their request for concessions would have been signed by DW. Again, this isn't difficult to understand. A majority in Congress can vote tomorrow to outlaw all firearms, but the law won't stand because it's in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Likewise, when an MEC ignores the Bylaws of the union, they don't get their way. Part of a democracy is having a set of rules that are created through the democratic process and adhered to.

 

[JoeMerchant]

A majority in Congress can vote tomorrow to outlaw all firearms, but the law won't stand because it's in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Likewise, when an MEC ignores the Bylaws of the union, they don't get their way. Part of a democracy is having a set of rules that are created through the democratic process and adhered to.

...... but if Obama is elected, there will be a new makeup of the Supreme Court..... The new makeup will declare that the law is not in violation of the Constitution because they will say that a "well regulated militia" only applies to the military.....

Given this distinct possibility if Obama is elected, answer the following questions....

1. Will that law passed by Congress in your example still be "unconstitutional"?

2. Will you abide by that law if it is passed and Obama's Supreme Court upholds it?

3. Will you still support Obama?

4. What will you think of people like me who disregard the new law?

"Democracy" is always open to interpretation..... In your example, we may have it tested if your man is elected..... If we had a "Supreme Court" for ALPA, the CCAir case may have been different...... and there is no doubt it would be a different interpretation depending on who appointed the judges.......