APFA national officer removal

[FA Mikey]

----------------
On 4/17/2003 7:31:00 AM A77IGW wrote:
----------------​

why do you preach Union constitution. The Union constitution only means something to you when you want it to. Just like it only means something to management when they want it to. I agree with airwar why call for someones resignation (an elected official that you elected) because you did not get your way. It does seem childish but I am not Union so this is just a simple opinion ....not an attack

----------------
Because, the union constitution lists the objectives of the organization, how its is governed, operated and how representation on the various levels will work and be recognized.

It is not a recall for not getting something one way or another. If that was the case John Ward would have been out long ago.

The officers of this organization compromised it. The vote, and our CBA. They didn''t follow the memberships wishes. Instead offered an extended day of voting. There were reasons against doing this the first time. One was security. All of a sudden is was no longer an issue, when AA needed a change. I was as most of us were prepared to live out and abide by the decision of the majority. They spoke and the officers bent over, for the company.

 

maybe the officers did not bend over for the company but for themselves and their own jobs

 

[Bob Owens]

eolesen;
Maybe you could give us a breakdown of the M&E vote by station since the TWU has not released it to its members yet? After all Jim Little, like his predecessor has more communication with management than with his own members.

You guys in the APFA are lucky, you have accountability. We cant remove Jim Little, he is appointed. Plus the international set up this thing called the "Presidents Council" to act as the patsy. Every crap deal that the International brokers gets pinned on the council.

 

[AV8NSIGO]

----------------
On 4/16/2003 7:32:13 PM AirwAr wrote:

What a bunch of children!! What? You didin't get your way?

The majority of your union voted YES. Apparently, more people believe it is better that we take these cuts now rather pushing us immediately into bankrupcty.

Don't be too disappointed. If you pray hard enough, you may still get your wish and see what will happen in bankrupcty.

----------------​

This is not the first time the APFA engineered a change to a ballot result they didn't like.

The arbitrated settlement following the 1993 strike put one issue (one of the duty rigs...sorry, I don't remember the specific one) to a vote of the membership. The outcome was not to the liking of the APFA leadership. A second vote was approoved by the BOD and the outcome was more to the liking of the president and BOD.

Although I already accepted the early out offer, I was livid. The explanation was some mailing addresses were not up to date and that could affect the outcome of the vote. Keeping the APFA informed of one's current mailing address was, and is, an INDIVIDUAL responsibility. I discussed this with a JAG attorney from my National Guard unit. He told me the action, while legal, was highly suspect and unethical.

What's different this time?!? While I think the outcome is the logical one, the avenue the APFA took to get there is, again, very unethical.