Ok, for semantical reasons, let's change the word "assumptions" to "reasons".
then you must also include logic with reason, (as logic and reasoning can be interchangeable.. since you are using another term) .. logic tells me..
1) it is a conflict of interest
2) if any changes are made, it may reflect poorly on her reputation..
3) there are no assumptions at this time.
I don't doubt how it is "considered" or "perceived". All I'm saying is she has actually done nothing, to my knowledge, (key word being an action verb--DONE), that SHOWS she would be biased. All I'm saying is that yes, her appt, may be perceived as a conflict of interest but let's wait and see what she actually DOES. Will it confirm that she has a conflict of interest or will it dispel it?
she does not have to actually do anything for it still to be considered conflict of interest..based on the fact she was a President of an organization she may possibly oversee regarding an election of that same organization..and it is not isolated only to our election, any future 'elections' involving a group from the same organization would also be deemed..conflict of interest..
She wasn't VP of Inflight Service but she was a lobbyist for NW (Van de Water).
I understand she was not, it was theoretical..if an individual such as a President or Vice President of a group is nominated to the NMB(regardless of company or union) and oversees an election of that same group..and how it could be determined not the best appointment for that person to be on the board..
it was an example..
As far as either appt changing your vote--I don't think AFA is saying either appt is going to change your vote.** They are saying that they believe a FAIRER election process can take place. You have not been through a FA election yet.
We've been through TWO.
well I have been through a few more...many within the past 5 years..
(will the drama ever end??)
It's the PROCESS (signs up in the lounge, anti-union DVDs playing in the lounge on a loop 24/7, challenges about who or who shouldn't be on the final voting list, etc..) they're talking about and moreso this time because they know the election will probably be close.
I'm not saying I agree with everything AFA is doing but again it is strategy--like political strategy. And Delta does it too and has enjoyed the formerly Rep-controlled NMB to its favor as well.
Strategy is strategy...on both sides.
the workplace actually should be neutral..but of course that is merely my personal opinion..
(any "anti-anything" in the workplace bothers me..)
Oh.. I believe it..** Believe it or not, there ARE fence-sitters (people unsure) from both airlines...probably NW moreso than DL as we just went thru an election.
So, in fact, the process may very well affect how some end up voting (or not voting).
I understand she is a very well respected woman, but it does not diminish conflict of interest with her being directly associated with 'our' election, since she played a key role in the past..