A New Low For Aapfa, Dba Apfa

[jimntx]

Danger! Danger! There's another interesting gotcha that I found in the proposed changes.

In case you haven't noticed, the proposed changes intend to make it official that the BOD is above suspicion, reproach, or error.

Note that in Article VII, Section 1.F, a member of the BOD may not have charges brought against them for any resolution they put forward or second or for how they voted on any resolution put forward. Even if the resolution is illegal. (It doesn't say "even if illegal", but there are no exceptions to the exemption from charges.)

Also, I guess we all need to be very careful what we say if these changes pass...
Article VII, Section 1.I, makes you subject to fine, suspension, and/or expulsion from the union if you threaten, intimidate, harass,or defame an officer or representative of the APFA. Guess who gets to decide if you have violated any of the criteria... THEY DO.

Ain't constitutional chicanery grand?

 

[LiveInAHotel]

Exactly what do you mean by "my side?"

I believe latreal is referring to the "nAAtive" side. Anyway you look at it, the bottom line to this BS is that JW doesn't want the TWA people back. AA doesn't want the TWA people back either. Do you honestly think AA will recall all remaining 5,760 f/a's by 2008?

I wasn't a fan of the merger to begin with. Some of the TWA f/a's have been rude to the nAAtives and we have given it back to them. They can't be mad at us because we the AA f/a's didn't put them in this situation.

We're all now one group of AA f/a's and we need to fight together and get our profession back. John Ward and his robots are going to continue to kill our profession if we don't stop it. The first step is to vote NO on the changes to the APFA Constitution. The second is to find a way to get rid of JW and send his a** back to the line! If AA comes asking for more concessions and they probably will, he is just going to hand the rest of the CBA to them on a silver platter.

 

[L1011Ret]

Hotel, you posted, "They can't be mad at us because we the AA f/a's didn't put them in this situation." If not the APFA putting the TWA F/As in the situation they are in, who did?

 

[Ifly2]

LiveInAHotel,

you say..." They can't be mad at us because we the AA f/a's didn't put them in this situation."

C'mon, the APFA is entirely responsible for a seniority integration that put 10/20/30 year veterans on the list behind - literally - yesterday's new-hires. The APFA did most certainly put the TWA f/a's in this situation. That is just a fact.

and..."Some of the TWA f/a's have been rude to the nAAtives and we have given it back to them."

C'mon again, you can't actually believe that the 'rudeness' all originated with the TWA folks, and the poor AA f/a's just 'gave it back'? Get real. I am still here, and it still hasn't stopped, not even with all -100%- of the TWA f/a's gone for over a year now. The insults to and degrading comments about the TWA f/a's are still flying. And they are not even here.

If that is the way you and your union believe fellow labor/union members/flight attendants/human beings should be treated, that's your business. But don't get on here and try to paint some BS "we didn't do anything to anybody, can't we all just get along" story.

At least be honest with yourself.

Disgusted by hyppocrites

Fly

 

[jimntx]

Please let's not start that all over again. That issue is not going to be solved, nor evidently discussed intelligently, on this bulletin board.

Do you have any idea how childish it sounds to be posting, "Well, it's not my fault. He/she/they started it. She touched me first. Momma, he's looking at me!"

Ok, let's play like NOBODY CARES HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT. The important thing is stop the damage before it goes any further. The APFA Board of Directors is trying to deny us our voting rights and put themselves above the rules from here on out, and we are on here arguing about water over the dam.

Even more important, we have less than 2 years before negotiation openers on the next contract. Has anyone heard a word about any preparation, research, or work that has been done to prepare for that event??? No, I thought not. As a certain feisty former TW flight attendant would put it, the company is preparing to savage us in the next round of negotiations and we are arguing about who gets to have a key to the executive washroom at Useless Boulevard.

Focus, people. If we want to preserve some shred of a decent career for ourselves and future flight attendants at AA, we had better all get on the same page and do it quickly. It doesn't matter who started where with which airline.
And, we are not going to get on the same page by denying some subset of the membership the right to vote.

The company would like nothing better than for us to go into negotiations with half the nAAtives in one camp, the other nAAtives in another, and the former TW people in still another. It's called Divide and Conquer. Duh!

 

[L1011Ret]

Nice thought Jim, but APFA has not been focused or unified for several years. With the charges brought by both nAAtive F/As and TWA F/As in Federal Courts, unity and focus will be difficult at best. Adding to the turmoil is the DOL resolution of election issues. Some of these issues need resolution before APFA can act responsiibly. Even JW repeatedly walks out of union meetings to deny a quoroum when the ballot issue comes up.

 

[jimntx]

Captain, no disrespect, but we can always find reasons why it won't work. Let's try to find a way to make it work.

 

[*Proud*AAf/a*]

All I have to say is I will vote YES that any furloughee has no right to vote. Why should they be allowed to influence my unions decisions while I'm paying my dues and the furloughee's are not. You don't pay you don't vote. Why you ask? Look at the way the furloughed TWA f/a attendants voted. It WAS NOT representative of the whole work group. So since mandatory voting can't be imposed to all f/a's. Here's to Change and Here's to freedom of speech and opinion. UP UP UP...

 

[twasilverbullet]

I wasn't a fan of the merger to begin with. Some of the TWA f/a's have been rude to the nAAtives and we have given it back to them. They can't be mad at us because we the AA f/a's didn't put them in this situation.

Ok, LiveinaHotel:

It is a two way street, I wasn't a fan of the merger either.


And some of the nAAtives have been rude to the former TWA f/a's, thou I must say the nAAtives that I have come in contact with have never been rude to me except for on this board and one native pilot that was jumpseating on LLC who took my coat from the hanger threw it on a seat and proceeded to hang his coat with the comment "I own this hanger now." Well, I know for sure he wont ever do that again, lol!....it must not have been his day, he happened to pick on the wrong person.


I would also like to point out to you that you can't be mad at us either because we didn't ask to be put out in this situation. I along thousands of former TWA'ers was totally against this merger from the very beginning. :down:


I never saw AA as our savior but our destruction, as did many of us!

 

[twasilverbullet]

All I have to say is I will vote YES that any furloughee has no right to vote. Why should they be allowed to influence my unions decisions while I'm paying my dues and the furloughee's are not. You don't pay you don't vote. Why you ask? Look at the way the furloughed TWA f/a attendants voted. It was representative of the whole work group. So since mandatory voting can't be imposed to all f/a's. Here's to Change and Here's to freedom of speech and opinion. UP UP UP...

another pycho!

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< bullet------ Seems this company is full of them !!!!! Hpoe you had a good 4th. holiday!!

 

[FA Mikey]

another pycho!

agree completely

 

[FA Mikey]

All I have to say is I will vote YES that any furloughee has no right to vote. Why should they be allowed to influence my unions decisions while I'm paying my dues and the furloughee's are not. You don't pay you don't vote. Why you ask? Look at the way the furloughed TWA f/a attendants voted. It WAS NOT representative of the whole work group. So since mandatory voting can't be imposed to all f/a's. Here's to Change and Here's to freedom of speech and opinion. UP UP UP...

A complete fool or just another trying to stir things Anyone who is stupid enough to vote on a package having not seen it and claims to be willing to vote for it based only on hear say of a single issue, well what else can you call a person like that. I can think of a few words, but they will not let me post them here.

FYI to the newbie.

1 Its not your UNION its OURS.

2 They are not paying dues and, they are also not collecting a paycheck. They are still members and membership has certain rights. Because they will be coming back, they have every right to influence and help shape there work environment as you do.

3 Look how the furloughees voted. The highest voting turn out. The non furloughees should have as much concern for there future, vote and be involved.

4 Here is one last thing to show how ridiculous your statement is. You blow off about your freedom of speech and opinion on one hand, while trying to restrict another groups very same membership rights. That is sick, who are you, George Bush?


What a oxymoron, freedom of speech and opinion as you try to redoes not

 

[L1011Ret]

Vote Yes so the furloughees cannot vote. But this has been in the APFA constitution for a long time has been no problem. WHY NOW? Most people would agree that changing the constitution at this point reflects not a genuine APFA need but hate towards subgroups of the membership. APFA has put forth no credible reasons to make the change thus when you change a constitution that has been in effect for many years, questioning the motivation behind such a change is something a court would certainly do.

 

[TWAnr]

WHY NOW?

...questioning the motivation behind such a change is something a court would certainly do.

Because Maggie is not happy being represented by Sherry and Greg in SLT? Didn't she, at the least, plant the seed for this discriminatory proposal by constantly complaining on the 4M?