APFA national officer removal

[FA Mikey]

To remove a national officer from office one of two things must happen.

One, a two-thirds vote by the BOD would trigger a removal balloting by the membership. It would require a vote of two-thirds majority of the valid ballots returned.

Two, the membership can on its own, collect signatures numbering 30% of the active members in good standing. The APFA treasurer would take 30 days to verify the names are valid members in good standing. Then that would trigger the national balloting committee to proffer a removal vote by the membership.

So if anyone wants to take up the cause. If you can get 2/3 of the board. I doubt it since that was the block that voted for the John Ward Jeff Bott resolution.

 

[FA Mikey]

Article 8 of the APFA constitution gives all the info. Removal of national officers.

 

[AirwAr]

What a bunch of children!! What? You didin''t get your way?

The majority of your union voted YES. Apparently, more people believe it is better that we take these cuts now rather pushing us immediately into bankrupcty.

Don''t be too disappointed. If you pray hard enough, you may still get your wish and see what will happen in bankrupcty.

 

[IORFA]

Correction AirwAr,

We voted NO once, they chose to ignore the union constitution and the will of the flight attendants. That is the problem. Do you think if we voted yes yesterday that it would have been extended? HA, never. This second vote is nothing but a vote of fear. AA promptly sent out the agents and supervisers to meet all in bound flights to get people to change their vote. They also had hotel staff pass flyers out under our doors. That is wrong and illegal. When does it stop? We voted NO, and they took that away.

 

[IORFA]

If your base chair voted for this debacle, take a stand against them and tell them to resign. Start a recall campaign. It shouldn''t be too hard to get people to sign off for a "revote" of our elected officers.

 

[IORFA]

IOR Chair Nancy Moehring is going to be the first to go. She is my new hobby that will consume the now free 15.6% of my day. I can''t beleive the a$$ ramming we are taking. Anyone who voted to extend the voting needs to stand up be an adult and RESIGN!!! Even Sherry Cooper didn''t vote for this cr@p.

 

[F/A TWAA]

----------------
On 4/16/2003 7:29:59 PM FA Mikey wrote:

To remove a BOD member. It takes signatures of 30% of the active members in good standing at the base in question.

----------------​

Where do I sign up?

 

[FA Mikey]

To remove a BOD member. It takes signatures of 30% of the active members in good standing at the base in question.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 4/16/2003 7:32:13 PM AirwAr wrote:

What a bunch of children!! What? You didin''t get your way?

The majority of your union voted YES. Apparently, more people believe it is better that we take these cuts now rather pushing us immediately into bankrupcty.

Don''t be too disappointed. If you pray hard enough, you may still get your wish and see what will happen in bankrupcty.

----------------​

NOT TRUE!

The majority voted NO and the children went whining to get a second chance.

Commonly called Company/Union Collusion.

 

[oldbscaler]

Not really. It is no different than full page ad''s favoring someones opinion. With the APA a group of pilots went to court to stop/delay the voting. It was defeated. Flyers, leaflets, News paper ad''s, are no more illegal than voicing your opinion either in person or on this web site. Hopefully for the rest of us we will never see the inside of a bankruptcy court.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

I don't know if that was the cause, and I don't think even APFA had access to the realtime voting information. Why bother with a neutral party like AAA if that's the case?

I seriously doubt there were a bunch of people who changed their mind overnight, but sure, it's possible there could have been more people who changed their vote to yes, and more people who voted no for the first time.

The end result was still the same -- more people voted with the extension, and it appears that most of them were "yes" supporters, whether they changed their vote or voted for the first time.

APFA probably shouldn't have released the voting results until after the voting was complete, but they did. Even if the APFA wouldn't have allowed vote changes, but allowed the additional timeframe for voting, my guess is that the same outcome would have occurred.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Actually, if you look at the change in numbers day over day, there weren't a lot of people who changed their vote. 192 votes changed overnight, which isn't a lot, but there were almost 1400 additional votes cast with the extension.

Could it really have been a problem with the way voting was executed? Or were there 1400 flight attendants who were so intimidated by the "no" supporters that they chose to sit on the fence rather than vote?

 

[Boomer]

eolesen,
How would you know that the voting patterns or results were cause and effect of "non-voters" voicing their opinions.

You, meaning AMR, wouldn''t have had real time exposure to the votes(voters) would you?

 

----------------
On 4/16/2003 7:44:09 PM IORFA wrote:

Correction AirwAr,

We voted NO once, they chose to ignore the union constitution and the will of the flight attendants. That is the problem. Do you think if we voted yes yesterday that it would have been extended? HA, never. This second vote is nothing but a vote of fear. AA promptly sent out the agents and supervisers to meet all in bound flights to get people to change their vote. They also had hotel staff pass flyers out under our doors. That is wrong and illegal. When does it stop? We voted NO, and they took that away.

----------------​

why do you preach Union constitution. The Union constitution only means something to you when you want it to. Just like it only means something to management when they want it to. I agree with airwar why call for someones resignation (an elected official that you elected) because you did not get your way. It does seem childish but I am not Union so this is just a simple opinion ....not an attack

 

go ahead eowens give a break down so the thugs that did not like the yes votes can make plans to harrass the yes voters and scare them