Conehead has it right. The whole reason for having a board of directors is to set direction, and that includes the constitution. I could see where the cost of holding an election for each structural change could get pretty costly.
And, as Informer pointed out, there's an adequate safety valve allowing members to petition for a referendum, which is something the TWU apparently doesn't have.
CIO might appear to be a newbie, but I suspect he's no stranger to the forums or trying to defend the TWU.
In 2003 on the PlaneBusiness forums, I offered to moderate a debate between one TWU supporter and one AMFA supporter. The rules of engagement were simple -- we'd set up a dedicated thread, and only the two named individuals could alternate posts.
An AMFA supporter stepped up immediately, but the TWU was so threatened by the possibility of not being able to defend themselves on the merits of their constitution that they went running to the Company, and demanded that I be reprimanded and forced to stop moderating on PlaneBusiness. We shut down the boards shortly after that.
I doubt we'd see someone from the TWU step forward to present their side, but maybe Ralph or one of the other moderators here would consider a similar format. If they're not management employees, they wouldn't be biased or subject to being harassed by AA HR...