A New Low For Aapfa, Dba Apfa

[AAStew]

I just looked through my entire packet, there is no ballot enclosed! What are the chances they will mail me another in time to vote????? <_<

 

[SkyLiner]

I just looked through my entire packet, there is no ballot enclosed! What are the chances they will mail me another in time to vote????? <_<

The ballot comes separate. From my understanding its a cost saving thing. I think the ballot has to be sent first class and the packet doesn't or vise versa.

 

[flydcoop]

i voted NO so hard that i actually broke the tip of my pencil.

flyingmywingsoff,

You just put the biggest smile on my face! Thanks! Please don't create a "pregnant chad" on this one...LOL!

Coop

 

[TWAnr]

From the Email Inbox sent by a respected expert in APFA matters:

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:55:50 -0000
From:
Subject: constitutional changes

At first glance, it appears that the APFA's Board of Directors have
recommended for ratification changes to the APFA's Constitution which
have the effect of:

1. exposing to punitive measures any union member using the term
"apfa" in any way and in any forum without prior approval (example:
this board);(see article I, section 1);

2. depriving the membership of their right to elect members of the
Negotiating Committee;(see Article X; Section 5)

3. changing the balloting procedures to allow for less than 30 days
ratification of material changes to the bargaining agreement (they
already did this one, they're just trying to cover their posteriors
retroactively);(See Article XI, Section 1(E));

4. effectively depriving any union member from seeking recourse
through Article VII (seeking to have a union officer removed from
office by an arbitrator for violations of the constitution);(See
Article VII, Section 7, (a)-©)

5. saddles those on furlough with a continuing dues obligation which
has never been previously required;

6. carves out an exception to the otherwise mandatory obligation of
the Board of Directors, National Officers and Executive Committee
members to enforce the letter of the rights enumerated in the members
rights provisions;(see Article VII, Section 1 (F))

and

7. seeks to protect ONLY the officers and representatives of the APFA
and NOT the MEMBERS from "threatening, intimidating, harassing," and
defamatory behavior of other union members;(See Article VII, Section
1(I).

All of these items are obviously grounds to reject the amendments and
to vote NO on the proposed changes. Get your ballots in early.

 

[L1011Ret]

Where is the constitutional change that prohibits the President from walking out of union meetings denying a qorum whenever a motion is introduced s/he does not like? I suppose then they can bring charges against him/her for harassing the APFA? It seems obvious APFA cannot tolerate dissent and their only recourse is to create a dictatorship.

 

[skivoodoo]

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?

Here is Maggie's latest confessional concerning her efforts to rid herself of any TWA memory. She is the one that began this latest push to silence the furloughed f/a's. Note that the constitutional changes don't go FAR ENOUGH for her tastes! She knows that we will make sure that our base remains dues current in order to protect our ONLY voice in union matters. It really is all about her and her needs as she has no idea of true unionism.

=====
As I have stated previously, I have exhausted any and all means
available to me Constitutionally. In addition, I have met with the Constitution Review Committee, many Officers and Representatives
past
and present, as well as current members of the Board of Directors
and
the Executive Committee regarding my concerns.


There is nothing in the proposed Constitutional edits that would
remedy our situation in St. Louis. The furloughed f/as won't like it
one bit, but if they have to, I have every reason to believe that
they will pay dues to maintain control of our base. They won't let
us take away their right to vote and run for office that easily!

I am not supporting the Constitutional edits for a number of reasons,
but this would be the primary one. I don't believe that these edits
fix anyone's problems - at best they are innocous and at worst they
limit some very basic freedoms. Our membership already has very
little control over our union's decisions!

 

[Skyyggoddess]

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...

Proud,
Its about protecting each other...taking care of each other...one day that other person will be you. It may not be as a F/A, but it will happen to you at some point in your life.

By helping the furloughees out by not asking for union dues, what we are in essence saying is that we will fight for one another. We all know that if the TWA F/A's had not voted as a block in April 2003, then this constitutional change would not be happening. That motive alone should make you wonder about the ethics of this BOD.

I'll repeat what has been said many times on this board. The TWA F/A's did not change the outcome of any vote. The 11,000 F/A's who usually don't bother to vote...they're the ones who change the outcome of every vote.

I received an e-mail from John Nikides, base chair from LAX-D today. He is urging his base to vote NO. There are many issues in these changes which are self-serving for the officials and extremely detrimental to the membership.

One more point I would like to make...when our F/A's are out on disability they do not pay union dues, but are considered "dues current." Do you see the parallel between our F/A's who are ill and those who have lost their jobs? The strength of a union will be shown by how we care for the weakest amongst us. Believe me, it does not pass by AAL that we are so willing to sacrifice our very own.

Terry
IDF

 

[LiveInAHotel]

I spoke to John Nikides by phone last Thursday and he informed me as well, that he is urging all of his base to vote no. I just wish my base chair would do the same. I have given her a piece of my mind on several occasions. Our vice-chair is urging all of our base to vote no too.

If this passes and I hope it doesn't, we will have no rights, future or freedom as flight attendants under the representation of the APFA and our sellout President John WAArd. Hopefully in August those ballots will be deemed valid and JW will be out the door and back on the line. JW a piece of advice, don't let the door slam you in the a** on your way out!


Vote NO on the proposed changes to the APFA Constitution, your career depends on it!

 

[Flyboy4u]

Do you see the parallel between our F/A's who are ill and those who have lost their jobs? The strength of a union will be shown by how we care for the weakest amongst us. Believe me, it does not pass by AAL that we are so willing to sacrifice our very own.

Thank you so much Terry for that post. It's really nice when senior F/A's actually see and understand what is actually happening out there. I appreciate your understanding and hope others who are senior will pull there heads out of the sand and look at the bigger picture here. Unfortuantely, there are alot of senior f/a's who have recently returned to the line from leaves and are still having faith in their own union. Please continue to spread the word...Vote NO on this ballott...Your futures depend on it!

What Unity?