AGE 65 Victory Party

[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.......

 

[PCL_128]

...... 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.....

This case will probably be settled before the election anyway, but I'll play your little game for sh--s and giggles.

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"?

The Constitution grants the authority of interpretation to the Supreme Court, so they are the final authority as to whether something is unconstitutional or not. If they determine that such a bill is legal, then I would disagree (just as I do with Roe v Wade), but that would be the official law of the land.

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

I would not, but I would accept whatever consequences came as a result. If I used one of my guns in self defense, then I would be prepared to go to jail for it.

3. Will you still support Obama?

I wouldn't support him on that issue, but overall, yes. You seem to think that you have to agree with someone on every issue to support them. But just as I disagree with ALPA about the Age-65 rule and still support them overall, I could disagree with Obama on gun control and still support him overall.

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

I will expect you to deal with the consequences of breaking the law, just like any other criminal.

If we had a "Supreme Court" for ALPA, the CCAir case may have been different...

What ALPA has is better than the Supreme Court. The Supremes are appointed, and therefore not accountable to anyone. ALPA has a system of checks and balances through the BOD, EC, and EB that are all elected representatives that are accountable for their actions.

 

[mdf]

Oh please...you really think that the 390 representatives are celebrating over this vote? You're age preferences are really not all that important in an election year.

C'mon...this one is a minor one, being voted on at night, nothing more than clearing out the schedule before the Christmas break.

Those guys celebrate over the big votes...not minor ones like this one.

And where does this leave the 45 representatives that chose not to vote on this one at all?

Just a poll question...but how many of those 435 Representatives will be re-relected in November 2008? Of those that don't come back, I can assure you that it will not be due to a vote ( or not ) on a stupid little age change bill.

Big scheme of things...you really think the American public cares about the complaints of an airline pilot who works only 12 days a month and makes over $100,000 per year?

You are not that important...

I think you missed the point of my post entirely. I was merely adding a dose of reality for all the folks who think was some great victory for the profession. I think I spelled it all out very clearly. After all my points, I find it curious you wish to debate that portion of my post. I think you need to read it again.

 

[waveflyer]

Rez-
I get your point. That's acknowledged-
When can we talk about leadership?

Why do we have a national union, if they are powerless to have a plan and lead each MEC in their role to increase leverage nationwide? Are you implying that ALPA national doesn't make decisions that affect each MECs ability to make decisions?

Have you read atlas shrugged yet?

 

[Flopgut]

Oh please...you really think that the 390 representatives are celebrating over this vote?...

I think they are celebrating. For a profession that clearly deserves more in pension reform, job security, and bankruptsy reform, (along with a review of the ATSB) just to name a few, to accept an incredibly marginal improvement in such a devisive way, is a victory to them! These men and women differ in extraordinary ways, but at the end of the day when they vote on a pay raise they take care of each other.

They are celebrating all right! Because thanks to guys like you, we are a joke!

 

[Sluggo_63]

I spoke with a FX contact today... the way the company is handling the bid is BS... disapointed...

So you blame FedEx for this, and not the change in the Age-60 law?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Rez-
I get your point. That's acknowledged-
When can we talk about leadership?

We always talk about the leadership... but when I want to talk about membership repsonsibilities...no one wants to look inthe mirror... fearing what they will see....

Here is the problem.... I can cleary talk about the leadership failures... but if I do, then everyone will jump up and say... "see see... there is the problem"... now, they won't adhere to thier obligations to particapte, vote, educate, inform...

Why do we have a national union, if they are powerless to have a plan and lead each MEC in their role to increase leverage nationwide?

Good question.... one the problems with ALPA... the MEC's function as individual Iraqi tribes, with war loards only concerned about themsleves? How do we change that? Got any good ideas?

Are you implying that ALPA national doesn't make decisions that affect each MECs ability to make decisions?

I think its very complex... what issue are you specficially talking about?

Have you read atlas shrugged yet?

On my reading list.....


The puzzle is complex....

one...just one of the solutions is each member functioning as a professional....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

So you blame FedEx for this, and not the change in the Age-60 law?

I try, as difficult as it is, to reject the blame game...

Whereas, I seem perfectly content to remind members of thier obligation to particapte in the democractic process of thier careers...

Block meetings at the AOC..... next door in the rec room you got guys playing pool, reading, etc...

Someone comes in and says.. hey fellas, there is an ALPA meeting in progress.... the poolballs still clacking...

For all the MIL guys that are all about defending freedom and democracy they turn around and reject it when it is representing thier careers. Explain that?


I've no position on Age 60/65. I just think ALPA pilots had an obligation to particapte in the process.... in majority numbers...

 

[PCL_128]

I've no position on Age 60/65. I just think ALPA pilots had an obligation to particapte in the process.... in majority numbers...

What a frickin' concept! People participating in something that directly affects them. Who woulda thunk it? Apparently not ALPA members.

 

[jke406]

blah, blah blah....it's like a broken record from the radical ALPAists...

answer this question, ALPA stooges:

WHY AM I PAYING YOU MONEY IF YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING MY INTERESTS?

I'd rather see my dues go towards Prater's double-chin reduction than whatever they're going towards right now...which is....?

 

[PCL_128]

WHY AM I PAYING YOU MONEY IF YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING MY INTERESTS?

Why do I pay taxes even though I don't agree with 100% of what the government does with it? Should I just stop paying? What would happen if everyone stopped paying because their pet issue wasn't being handled in the way they wanted it to be handled? How would society continue to function? Why do you feel that your selfish interests are more important and more valid than the interests of the majority?