Flight Attendants' Voices Heard: Hell No!

[Phoenix]

Where would you ever get the impression that I would support the notion of majority rules? I wouldn't trust the majority to make decisions that impact my life. That's not liberty; that's not freedom; and that's not the American way. I don't take a poll of my neighbors to see what they think I should eat for dinner, or what kind of car I should drive, or where I should go on vacation. Likewise, I don't support a majority of my neighbors deciding what I can and cannot with my money or my personal property. I don't support a majority of Americans who might decide that we should confiscate Bill Gates' assets and distribute them to those of us "less fortunate" than he. I don't support the majority if they should decide that killing people as a convenience (born, unborn, old, sick, whatever) is a proper thing to do.

The majority does not define right and wrong or the rule of law. The majority is more often than not wrong which is why our founding fathers setup a Constitution to specifically enumerate the powers of the federal government which restricts what the majority, through their representatives, can legally authorize. Freedom and liberty are personal decisions for each person to make. Turning those liberties over to the collective will of the majority is the antihisis of the way I would approach any political or business decision. Mob rule just doesn't appeal to me at all.

Eat what ever the F you want and go on vacation where you want. The FA vote had nothing to do with your dinner, neither did the FAs have any intention of dictating your dinner choices.

You on the other hand have some twisted fascination with dictating your singular view to the FAs, in opposition to their choice.

Hey, teach, I am confused. You want the freedom to choose what you have for dinner but you also want the freedom to choose the FAs contract. Seems to me that is more than you can chew.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Eat what ever the F you want and go on vacation where you want. The FA vote had nothing to do with your dinner, neither did the FAs have any intention of dictating your dinner choices.

You on the other hand have some twisted fascination with dictating your singular view to the FAs, in opposition to their choice.

Hey, teach, I am confused. You want the freedom to choose what you have for dinner but you also want the freedom to choose the FAs contract. Seems to me that is more than you can chew.

Your confusion stems from an assumption that I want to make a decision for the FAs. I never said I wanted that power or control over anyone else's life. Way back when I first posted on this thread it was in response to SH seeking my opinion, or so his reference to "Callaway Gold" would imply. So I offered my opinion and here we are. The bottom line for me is I would like to see a ratified FA and Pilot contract, but not if those contracts mean the company will be forced into a weakened financial position which means more lost jobs and/or a trip into bankruptcy court. Making fun of the collective bargaining process and baseless entitlement midsets is something I throw in just for folks like you.

 

[Res Judicata]

They voted. They live with the decision....unless they're USAPA. USAPA would sue the minority voters under RICO statutes. Good for the FA's hope it works out for them.

 

[MyrnaMinkoff]

Where would you ever get the impression that I would support the notion of majority rules? I wouldn't trust the majority to make decisions that impact my life. That's not liberty; that's not freedom; and that's not the American way. I don't take a poll of my neighbors to see what they think I should eat for dinner, or what kind of car I should drive, or where I should go on vacation. Likewise, I don't support a majority of my neighbors deciding what I can and cannot with my money or my personal property. I don't support a majority of Americans who might decide that we should confiscate Bill Gates' assets and distribute them to those of us "less fortunate" than he. I don't support the majority if they should decide that killing people as a convenience (born, unborn, old, sick, whatever) is a proper thing to do.

The majority does not define right and wrong or the rule of law. The majority is more often than not wrong which is why our founding fathers setup a Constitution to specifically enumerate the powers of the federal government which restricts what the majority, through their representatives, can legally authorize. Freedom and liberty are personal decisions for each person to make. Turning those liberties over to the collective will of the majority is the antihisis of the way I would approach any political or business decision. Mob rule just doesn't appeal to me at all.

Good God, where does your skewed logic come from? The rejection of the TA is not analogous to suggesting that a public referendum be held to determine if your gastronomical and leisurely predilections are acceptable, nor is anyone threatening to tell you what you may or may not do with your money or personal property. And this is not a matter of anyone trying to thwart the rule of law--it was a matter ordinary working people legally exercising a right to vote on a substandard contract, and to powerfully and summarily reject it. And who said anything about Bill Gates? Your postulate that a bunch of overindulged ingrates having the right to say no to this contract proposal is tantamount to someone encroaching on your personal freedom rings a little hollow. Who could've predicted that you would've invoked terms like "freedom" and "liberty" in your defense of robber-barons and scoundrels?

 

[MyrnaMinkoff]

Where would you ever get the impression that I would support the notion of majority rules? I wouldn't trust the majority to make decisions that impact my life. That's not liberty; that's not freedom; and that's not the American way. I don't take a poll of my neighbors to see what they think I should eat for dinner, or what kind of car I should drive, or where I should go on vacation. Likewise, I don't support a majority of my neighbors deciding what I can and cannot with my money or my personal property. I don't support a majority of Americans who might decide that we should confiscate Bill Gates' assets and distribute them to those of us "less fortunate" than he. I don't support the majority if they should decide that killing people as a convenience (born, unborn, old, sick, whatever) is a proper thing to do.

The majority does not define right and wrong or the rule of law. The majority is more often than not wrong which is why our founding fathers setup a Constitution to specifically enumerate the powers of the federal government which restricts what the majority, through their representatives, can legally authorize. Freedom and liberty are personal decisions for each person to make. Turning those liberties over to the collective will of the majority is the antihisis of the way I would approach any political or business decision. Mob rule just doesn't appeal to me at all.

Good God, where does your skewed logic come from? The rejection of the TA is not analogous to suggesting that a public referendum be held to determine if your gastronomical and leisurely predilections are acceptable, nor is anyone threatening to tell you what you may or may not do with your money or personal property. And this is not a matter of anyone trying to thwart the rule of law--it was a matter ordinary working people legally exercising a right to vote on a substandard contract, and to powerfully and summarily reject it. And who said anything about Bill Gates? Your postulate that a bunch of overindulged ingrates having the right to say no to this contract proposal is tantamount to someone encroaching on your personal freedom rings a little hollow. Who could've predicted that you would've invoked terms like "freedom" and "liberty" in your defense of robber-barons and scoundrels?

 

[high*flyer]

No offense callaway, just curious: libertarian, right?

 

[AAviator]

Since this paragraph is all conjecture and speculation, in addition to your oft repeated disbelief of a US/AA ever happening, why bother answering? It's not like you don't have enough to rant about.

Oh ms. "Nobody knows" speaks.

Sure why bother answering.. Its not like "How will we pay for it?" has any relevance..

🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

 

[CallawayGolf]

No offense callaway, just curious: libertarian, right?

Constitutional conservative is probably more accurate but there are quite a few similarities between the two viewpoints. Libertarians have historically believed in legalizing recreational drugs as a fundamental platform. This is not because regulating mind altering substances is unconstitutional but because Libertarians by and large want to use recreational drugs. I don't limit my views to just one issue and certainly not one wouldn't change my life one iota if drugs were suddenly legal. I do care about freedom, liberty, and a prosperous economy which I think is the same message as a Ron Paul libertarian.

 

[SparrowHawk]

No offense callaway, just curious: libertarian, right?

If he is a Libertarian then he not MY kind of Libertarian.

Individual Liberty and Freedom also means that a group of like minded individuals can organize to promote their own best interests. This could be a group like oh say American Association of Retired Persons, better known as AARP. Another group may join together to fight for a cause like maybe higher wages and better working conditions. The may call themselves the Association of Flight Attendants. As free and sovereign citizens of the Republic they in turn may notify their company that they intend to negotiate as a group and not individuals.

In a truly free society there would be no NLRB, RLA, NMB etc etc. Conversely there would be no right to work of agency shop laws either. The relationship between worker and employer would be left alone by government. The proper role of government in a Labor dispute is to protect all parties from the initiation of force against each other. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS!

In a free market, greed and competition will often drive wages down. We saw this in the Coal Fields of Appalachia in the 20's and 30's. There the end result was the West Virginia Coal Field Wars, The Matewan Massacre and the Battle of Blair Mountain. The last event was where the phrase "Redneck" originated. More importantly it was the first time Federal Troops were used to prevent violence in the US. The UMW of A was formed and most of this was done before the NLRB and the rest. So a free market worked then and it will work again today.

The problem we have now is akin to the Government trying to write rules to a knife fight. Leave the companies and workers alone. Keep both safe and allow the market to do its job.

That's a Libertarian Approach, NOT the neo-fascist Republican anti Labor approach.

 

[nic4us]

With each post you are displaying that you have not the slighest clue how the world works. Are you nearing meltdown like your NIC 4 buddy or res???

NICDOA
NPJB

Nearing meltdown???

Now that there is funny stuff.


PS...here is how the world works. The planet spins on its axis, the sun rises the sun sets, people have children that grow up and have children of their own before they pass just like those that have gone before them. Calloway has a way better grasp of the facts of life and how the world works and the very insignificant fact that the FAs rejected the company's first offer, than do most posters on this board.

I hope the FAs get a better offer in the near future, but as a person nearing "meltdown" I don't really think the next offer will be that much better, and the prospect of self help will simply never materialize. So, where they are headed is to a better contract that will pay a little more and have a little better benenfits, but will have already been payed for by the duration of time spent on the current contracts. i.e. the company can pay them $45/hr now, or it can pay them $50/hr two years from now if they stay at $40/hr for those two years.

Now off to have a pilot thread meltdown!

 

[SparrowHawk]

Constitutional conservative is probably more accurate but there are quite a few similarities between the two viewpoints. Libertarians have historically believed in legalizing recreational drugs as a fundamental platform. This is not because regulating mind altering substances is unconstitutional but because Libertarians by and large want to use recreational drugs. I don't limit my views to just one issue and certainly not one wouldn't change my life one iota if drugs were suddenly legal. I do care about freedom, liberty, and a prosperous economy which I think is the same message as a Ron Paul libertarian.

I'm a registered Libertarian and I don't do drugs. Also I'm not arrogant enough to want to impose my rules of personal conduct on another as the Neo-Con Fascists do.

Libertarians oppose the insane war on drugs because it raises violent crime, property crime and the only real victim is the sovereign citizen who chooses to use the drug. The COTUS conferred upon us a great many rights and responsibilities. We have the right to do stupid things. We also have the responsibility to accept the consequences. Go back to Prohibition and check the crime stats before during and after Prohibition and you'll see that once Prohibition ceased the 40% rise in crime dropped within months to its pre prohibition level. Portugal has in essence legalized all drugs and has seen a DECREASE in crime and addictions.

Libertarianism - the radical notion that other people aren't your property

View attachment 9411

 

[signals]

As usual at US, a good thread goes off course 🙄

 

[CallawayGolf]

I'm a registered Libertarian and I don't do drugs. Also I'm not arrogant enough to want to impose my rules of personal conduct on another as the Neo-Con Fascists do.

Libertarians oppose the insane war on drugs because it raises violent crime, property crime and the only real victim is the sovereign citizen who chooses to use the drug. The COTUS conferred upon us a great many rights and responsibilities. We have the right to do stupid things. We also have the responsibility to accept the consequences. Go back to Prohibition and check the crime stats before during and after Prohibition and you'll see that once Prohibition ceased the 40% rise in crime dropped within months to its pre prohibition level. Portugal has in essence legalized all drugs and has seen a DECREASE in crime and addictions.

Libertarianism - the radical notion that other people aren't your property

View attachment 9411

I never said all libertarians do drugs, but legalizing them has been a platform of the party since its inception. I also never said I was for or against their legalization.

As I've said before I have no problem with groups organizing for whatever lawful purpose they desire. However a company in a free society should be under no legal obligation to sign a labor agreement by force of a government operating in an unconstitutional manner. And likewise no employee should be forced into a collective group as a requirement of the government overreaching it's enumerated powers.

 

[SparrowHawk]

As usual at US, a good thread goes off course 🙄

Well then let's get it back on course. I think that little excursion regarding Organized Labor in a Free Society was perhaps useful in a Global Way, not specific to this thread I agree.

To me the open question now that the F/A's have drawn their line in the sand is what happens next? I am forever boggled by the mind numbing process of the RLA and all of the ins and outs of strikes and the like.

In my simple Copier Guy brain it should go like this. Negotiate a contract on Monday, Vote it down on Friday and on strike Monday, Settle Tuesday and back to work. However with all the Government BS it becomes more and more clear that the goal of all of the rules is to pervert the process in the Companies Favor. Thus my Libertarian rant.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

This is not because regulating mind altering substances is unconstitutional but because Libertarians by and large want to use recreational drugs.

Congratulations on finding one (in your world that must constitute "by and large") of your so-called Libertarians who want to use recreational drugs. You certainly know how to denigrate an entire group of people and, I am not even sure you know it. Why am I not surprised.