Apfa's Latest Attack On The Furloughed F/as

jimntx

Veteran
Jun 28, 2003
11,161
3,285
Dallas, TX
The Constitutional Revisions Committee is planning to put forth a revision to the AApfa Constitution that would deny furloughees the right to vote or hold office unless they continued to pay dues while on furlough.

If you are an AA flight attendant and you have one shred of conscience, you will contact your Base Chair and the national officers to express your opposition to this proposal. It should never even see the light of day, much less have an opportunity to be voted on.

Just when I think that the AApfa can not possibly be any more high-handed, hubris-filled, and low-class, they once again test and find a new bottom. While this is obviously an attack on the fomer TWA flight attendants, there are those of us who are furloughed nAAtives who will be affected as well. They plan for this change to be retroactive to cover all currently furloughed flight attendants. Future furloughees would be denied the right to vote or hold office as a matter of course.

It is antithetical to everything that unionism represents. While I don't believe that it would ever pass muster under the current Federal labor law, even if approved by a majority of the half of the membership that votes, think of the unnecessary expense incurred by the union defending such an action before the Dept. of Labor and/or the courts.

Shades of the Deep South and the poll tax prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965!
 
One important question is why now? Why now do they have to change the constitution? It certainly appears as retaliation against the TWA F/As. But in a strange twist of events nAAtive furloughed F/As will be disenfranchised too. Just like no furlough pay. To disenfranchise furloughed F/As, especially the TWAers, will only serve to increase the hostility of a large group of F/As towards APFA. I see it as self destructive for APFA. I really wish they had some forward looking, non retaliatory leadership but rather than going forward to heal old wounds and get rid of some of the apathy and move towards more unity, they seem intent on creating hostility and divisiveness. Sad commentary on APFA.
 
Like this should have not been expected. Again, this "so called" union needs to be gone.... I can tell you when I arrive back on the line which should be very soon, I will fight to the end before I pay them any kind of dues...I don't need them for anything.

What Unity?
 
Why do they want to "punish" the TWA f/a's anyway? What did they do that was so wrong?
 
First, we expected to be treated in a "fair and equitable" manner, as was promised by Don Carty. An outrageous concept, I know. Quite obviously, "Fair and equitable" didn't pan out. Now, however, it is merely the fact that we exist that pisses them off. They will stop at nothing to continue with the red-tail cleansing program. Too bad for the APFA, as they picked the wrong group. We WILL NOT go away, as our voter-turnout proves. THAT is what they are so afraid of.

And to think it could have been so different.

BTW, who did the AAers hate and blame before WE came along?

TransWorldFirst
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #6
L1011Ret said:
One important question is why now? Why now do they have to change the constitution? It certainly appears as retaliation against the TWA F/As. But in a strange twist of events nAAtive furloughed F/As will be disenfranchised too. Just like no furlough pay.
Well, as I said, I'm just "collateral damage." I should have known better than to be at home near the palace when the bunker bomb was dropped. :p

The answer to "Why Now?" is twofold.
1. The STL vote almost defeated JW. In fact, may yet if some of the disallowed votes get "allowed" through further investigation of whether and when the dues were paid.
2. As long as the former TWA flight attendants have a vote, JW can never get one of his toadies elected to the base chair position in STL, or SLT as it is soon to be.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #7
jimntx said:
It is antithetical to everything that unionism represents. While I don't believe that it would ever pass muster under the current Federal labor law, even if approved by a majority of the half of the membership that votes, think of the unnecessary expense incurred by the union defending such an action before the Dept. of Labor and/or the courts.

Shades of the Deep South and the poll tax prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965!
I forgot to add that the reason I don't think that it will pass muster with the Feds or the courts is the fact that it is retroactive, not that there is a law specifically preventing such action.

The concept of "grandfathering" people into a class is a well-established legal precedent. The concept of "grandfathering" people out of a class is another thing entirely. I don't know if it has ever been done before successfully.
 
Well Jim I agree with your thoughts. But much better to change a constitutional question like that after everyone is recalled and it is a no brainer. Any savy politico knows you don't keep alienating your consitutents without eventual repercussions. It is understandable JW would like to kill off the STL vote, but politically it is stupid. Who knows it might result in another DFR suit. As pointed out above, grandfathering in is a lot different than excluding by grandfathering out. Since TWA and probably AA F/As have already paid monies to vote, taking the vote away after you paid for it might not sit well before a jury.
 
jimntx said:
I don't believe that it would ever pass muster under the current Federal labor law, even if approved by a majority of the half of the membership that votes, think of the unnecessary expense incurred by the union defending such an action before the Dept. of Labor and/or the courts.
I don't think there is anything illegal about it. This has been the long-standing policy at AFA: if you want to remain a "member in good standing" and have the right to vote while on furlough, you gotta pay your dues. You don't have to keep paying dues, but if you don't, you can't vote.

Certainly it is aimed at the TW F/As, which is pathetic. But as long as it is done in accordance with the rest of the APFA Constitution and any bylaws, I don't see any legal issues.

About being "grandfathered in or out," if I am understanding correctly, it would not mean furloughed F/As CANNOT vote. It is simply a change in policy saying if you want to vote, you have to remain current with your dues, which is a policy consistent with other unions.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #10
Bear96 said:
I don't think there is anything illegal about it. This has been the long-standing policy at AFA: if you want to remain a "member in good standing" and have the right to vote while on furlough, you gotta pay your dues. You don't have to keep paying dues, but if you don't, you can't vote. Certainly it is aimed at the TW F/As, which is pathetic. But as long as it is done in accordance with the rest of the APFA Constitution and any bylaws, I don't see any legal issues.
It's illegal because it's excluding a previously included group. The current APFA Constitution quite clearly states that if you are dues current at the time of furlough, or even if you become dues current AFTER furlough, you can vote and hold office in the union. And, dues current is defined as your dues being paid in full up to the date of furlough.

Bear96 said:
About being "grandfathered in or out," if I am understanding correctly, it would not mean furloughed F/As CANNOT vote. It is simply a change in policy saying if you want to vote, you have to remain current with your dues, which is a policy consistent with other unions.

No, you are misunderstanding. What is planned is that furloughees would have to start paying dues again while furloughed or we would be denied the right to vote or hold office. Furthermore, any future furloughees would be denied the right to vote or hold office whether they were dues current or not. And, again, it is changing the rules in the middle of the game. What other unions do is of no consequence here. The APFA wants to change the Constitution to make it legal.

It's like saying, "Oh, I know that we've always had 5-year recall rights for furloughees, but we just took a vote and dropped that from the contract. By the way, the company concurs with us on this change." There are serious DFR issues here.
 
Jim,

It still seems to amount to little more than an organization changing its policies. The current furloughees are not necessarily excluded; they just have to start paying their dues to vote, bringing them in line with current active F/As. Current furloughees can still vote, if they choose.

In your last post you indicated FUTURE furloughees will be excluded from voting or holding office, period. That is not changing the rules in the middle of the game; that is changing the rules looking forward, which is certainly permissible.

In any case, how would this be any different than, say, APFA raising dues? It is a "change," certainly, and you could argue you should be "grandfathered" into your current dues rate forever and ever until you retire. But there are no such guarantees and organizations are certainly allowed to change policies. By your logic, unions would never be able to raise dues because that would somehow be illegal-- if you don't pay the new dues, you will no longer be a member in good standing able to vote or hold office. A change? Yes. An illegal one? No.

I agree with you it seems unfair and just plain mean to the TW F/As. But I don't see how it is illegal.
 
This is all WRONG! What the APFA is trying to now do to all the f/a's on furlough is a bunch of BS. We all know the APFA is strapped for cash these days. With 5,760 f/a's on furlough that's a $236,160 loss per month for the APFA. Like I have said in the past John WAArd needs to go! All of you who voted for this dumba$$, will see how foolish you were to re-elect this idiot.
 
L1011Ret said:
One important question is why now? Why now do they have to change the constitution? It certainly appears as retaliation against the TWA F/As. But in a strange twist of events nAAtive furloughed F/As will be disenfranchised too. Just like no furlough pay. To disenfranchise furloughed F/As, especially the TWAers, will only serve to increase the hostility of a large group of F/As towards APFA. I see it as self destructive for APFA. I really wish they had some forward looking, non retaliatory leadership but rather than going forward to heal old wounds and get rid of some of the apathy and move towards more unity, they seem intent on creating hostility and divisiveness. Sad commentary on APFA.
Why now L10? Isnt it obvious? The next round of sked electons are for base Chair/Vice Chairs. There has been STRONG resentmeant on the board towards the ability of the CURRENT STL Chair/V.Chair to be able to legally (constiutionally) remain as such when ofcourse we know what legal crap is being brought to bear on the APFA as a whole by the current STL chair. Now I am not saying she has no right to act against the APFA on behalf of the former TWA f/a's she formally represented. There is also however the deleama which exists that the current STL/SLT f/a's are not recving due representation by said chairperson. If you change the rule and then force ALL current and furloughed STL/SLT/ISL f/a's to become dues current to vote in let's just say base representaion election it comes down to mathmatics. The current STL/SLT f/a's w/exception of a few are dues current already.The time and even the bother by those furloughed to even wanna pay any $$ to the APFA for obviouse reasons makes the likely hood that a current "active" STL/SLT line f/a being elected to base chair that much more likely. Thus riding the BOD of the current STL/SLT chair/v.chair-probably. Just shows that Sherry Cooper is no dumb broad and has been using the legal rights to with she is entitaled by the APFA> I think that that the APFA is now catching up to the wholes that are in the current Constitution/Policy Manual and trying to fill them. This is NO JW evil doimg. This is APFA legal consul advising the BOD on ways to fix the there own mess.
Peace
SB
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #14
Bear96 said:
Jim,

It still seems to amount to little more than an organization changing its policies. The current furloughees are not necessarily excluded; they just have to start paying their dues to vote, bringing them in line with current active F/As. Current furloughees can still vote, if they choose.

In your last post you indicated FUTURE furloughees will be excluded from voting or holding office, period. That is not changing the rules in the middle of the game; that is changing the rules looking forward, which is certainly permissible.

In any case, how would this be any different than, say, APFA raising dues? It is a "change," certainly, and you could argue you should be "grandfathered" into your current dues rate forever and ever until you retire. But there are no such guarantees and organizations are certainly allowed to change policies. By your logic, unions would never be able to raise dues because that would somehow be illegal-- if you don't pay the new dues, you will no longer be a member in good standing able to vote or hold office. A change? Yes. An illegal one? No.

I agree with you it seems unfair and just plain mean to the TW F/As. But I don't see how it is illegal.
Ok, I'll try one more time.

The ability for furloughees to vote and hold office is NOT, repeat NOT, an APFA policy, it is a constitutional right. There is no "right" to pay a certain amount of dues other than the Board of Directors per the APFA Policy Manual (different document) can not raise the dues without a majority vote of the membership.

Changing policy at any time is one thing. Changing constitutional rights is another. If you don't understand or see the difference between "raising your rent" and denying you the right to housing, I don't think I can explain it to you. This is not raising the dues, this is denying people the right to vote.

It's analogous to the difference between Federal and state laws and the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Congress and the state legislatures can pass any law they care to as long as they have a majority vote. These laws set governmental policy. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court determines that the law violates the U.S. Constitution, the Court can declare the law null and void.

The courts have not looked kindly over the past 150 years or so at the majority trying to deny rights to a minority simply by majority vote. Particularly when the motive for doing so is so patently obvious.

The STL (former TWA) flight attendants voted overwhelming for Tommie Hutto-Blake rather than for John Ward who won the election by 5 votes. Now, all of a sudden, the APFA Constitutional Revision Committee has decided that furloughees should not vote.

There is also a situation in STL/SLT that JW wishes to change. The APFA Base Chair (by definition also a member of the APFA Board of Directors) is a furloughed former TWA flight attendant. JW wants to change the rules so that the furloughed TW flight attendants can not vote in the next base elections, and re-elect the Base Chair who has represented them for some time. If he succeeds, the former TW flight attendants will have no representation whatsoever in the APFA government.
What then?

For those who do not know, STL is the designation for the flight attendant base at St. Louis which flies former TW a/c that have not yet been converted to AA's certificate. It is staffed wholly by nAAtives who were transferred there to replace all the TW flight attendants who are now furloughed. SLT is the designation for the flight attendant base at St. Louis which flies a/c operating under the AA certificate. It's strictly an FAA-certificate thing. I think the deadline is Sept. to complete the conversion of TW a/c to AA's certificate. At that point, the STL base disappears.
 
Fly said:
Why do they want to "punish" the TWA f/a's anyway? What did they do that was so wrong?
Nothing.


It seems the apfa ALWAYS needs a 'scapegoat' to blame everything on and to mantain their power.

Far be it from them to take responsibility for something negative!
Far be it for them to show some humility........................................
For What?

To be the heros?

Well, their heroism has been the complete collapse of our careers, our pride and now the apfa.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top