It's official!

Status
Not open for further replies.
AANOTOK, it's not that they exercised their right to vote against the TA that I object to.  It's the fact that so many of them decided to vote NO based upon misinformation and lies being spread by malcontents on Facebook.  It's the same with political elections.  I would rather someone not vote than place an uninformed vote.  If just 17 of those particular NO votes had decided to "stay home," we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
except in a democracy, no one has to justify the reason for their vote - and the repercussions are no less real.

It is impossible to know how many of those people would choose another path if they got a chance to revote - but there are a lot of thinks in life that we would all do differently if given a chance.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #318
jimntx said:
AANOTOK, it's not that they exercised their right to vote against the TA that I object to.  It's the fact that so many of them decided to vote NO based upon misinformation and lies being spread by malcontents on Facebook.  It's the same with political elections.  I would rather someone not vote than place an uninformed vote.  If just 17 of those particular NO votes had decided to "stay home," we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Or better yet, only 9 somehow got smarter and voted yes instead of no. Again, MORONS!!!!!!!!! As Mark said, thanks and Merry Christmas! I'm not bitter about it or anything.
 
Jimtx...you are wrong. Doug said and continues to say he is willing to allow the ta that failed to be voted on again. It's the union who is saying that they do t want that and that the majority rules. Not sure where you got you're info but it is incorrect. Happy to send the links to the facts if you would like.. In the latest apfa hotline the union indicated its efforts ....the company declined all of the unions ideas....no where did it say a revote was not an option...again..Doug said in the latest dtw crew news that in Fact....he would be willing for a revote....now...prove me wrong....
 
Jim tx...you are wrong. Doug said and continues to say he is willing to allow the ta that failed to be voted on again. It's the union who is saying that they do t want that and that the majority rules. Not sure where you got you're info but it is incorrect. Happy to send the links to the facts if you would like..
Please supply the links because I have only seen the opposite of what you are saying.
 
Below is the link where the Union addresses the offer of a revote and the union declines...

If you're a flight attendant go to the last dfw crew news...he stated it multiple times....his exact words...we would be willing to allow the union to take a revote however the unionhas said they do not want a revote ....in the last hotline no where did it say a revote was turned down...so...go to the Dfw crew news...he discusses at length...this is so aggravating that misinformation is still out there...

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1450c9c25bd3b5096022a9f71&id=175c10201e#awesomeshare
 
usfliboi said:
Jimtx...you are wrong. Doug said and continues to say he is willing to allow the ta that failed to be voted on again. It's the union who is saying that they do t want that and that the majority rules. Not sure where you got you're info but it is incorrect. Happy to send the links to the facts if you would like.. In the latest apfa hotline the union indicated its efforts ....the company declined all of the unions ideas....no where did it say a revote was not an option...again..Doug said in the latest dtw crew news that in Fact....he would be willing for a revote....now...prove me wrong....
Ok, you are correct.  I was reading something in that last APFA email that wasn't there.  However, there will not be a re-vote.  And, I support the union's position that the agreement was that if the negotiators could not reach a TA or the membership voted down the TA, the issue would go to arbitration.  I don't know what the union could have done to make it clearer, but just for a moment, let's assume that the flight attendants think and act like adults, and when they vote on something it follows a period of research and thought about the issues involved.  (I know it's a stretch, but give it a try.)  A majority decided they didn't like the TA.  (And it really matters not one whit whether they are LAA or LUS f/as...there were a number of NO votes on both sides and a few votes the other way on either side would have changed the outcome).  The union did all it could to inform the voting membership of the consequences of voting NO.  I say let them live with those consequences, and you do as I plan to do.  Over the next five years when f/as start bitching about the arbitrated contract, ask them, "How did you vote?"  Then if they say, "I voted NO" or "I couldn't be bothered voting for that POS" just tell them "Shut up now.  You got what you deserve."
 
I see no reason for a re-vote.  They chose the persimmon lollipop over the cherry one.  Let 'em lick it.
 
P.S.  If the union decides to cave and allow a re-vote, that's ok with me also.  But, imagine the mess in the future when the Facebook crowds learns from this episode that you can always get a re-vote if you don't like the results.  It's bad training for them in case AA goes out of business or they decide to seek other work in the real world.
 
A re-vote makes no sense unless the terms of the TA were sweetened (More money, better QOL provisions) and that ain't happening. If the current TA was voted down, then what makes anyone think the outcome would be any different the second time around? If a re-vote occurred and it was again rejected, would people be asking for a third vote on the same TA?

Votes have consequences, and the consequences of this vote were clearly laid out by the APFA before the voting even began. The consequences were repeated by the APFA board and other observers. Accept this TA or we go to arbitration where we'll get less.

Yes, I realize that it's possible that a re-vote would turn out differently (no-voters would see the light and vote "yes," abstaining voters would vote "yes," etc) but the ratification process doesn't provide for "send it out again until it passes."

As anti-democracy as this may sound, perhaps in situations like this, the board of directors should simply ratify the TA without polling all the members. Like our representative democracy at the federal and state levels where the Congress and the state legislatures make most of the decisions without holding a vote of all the citizens.

In normal section 6 negotiations, where a rejected TA can be renegotiated and improved and then sent out again for ratification, in this setting, we all knew the two possible outcomes: Either accept the TA or get less in arbitration. Giving everyone a vote merely invited the disgruntled (and/or ignorant) to reject it, forcing everyone to get less. $400 million less over the life of the contract. IMO, it wouldn't have been the worst thing if the board had simply said "We agreed with management on the TA which will be worth $81 million (or $83 million or whatever the number is) more than the alternative. You're welcome."

Probably not a popular idea, however. When the TWU accepted a contract "without further ratification," more than a decade ago, some of the members went ballistic. Not enough of them to throw the bums out, but it caused some deep-seated anger that continues to this day.
 
Maybe APFA needs to say the membership was "confused" like Robert Roach said about concessions at UAL.

Josh
 
Look...if you want to shoot your nose off despite your face then that's fine....there's no reasonable logic other than pride or the "I told you so "mentality ...that would stop a revote.... We are leaving millions of dollars on the table here....I voted yes. I'll survive either way but it makes no sense that the union would refuse it's members another vote...but hey I'm one person....now...if I were apfa..I'd say we will accept your terms and no revote and gladly hand the team 83 plus million...
 
First off, it's "to spite your face" not "despite your face."  And, what you are proposing is anti-democratic to the nth degree.  Any time you don't like the outcome, you demand a revote.  The reasonable logic is that the majority of the members who voted, voted NO.  Whether they did that after careful thought and consideration OR they decided to believe the crap they read on Facebook or heard in the galley does not matter.  In a democracy we move on and live with the results.  How else do you think a died-in-the-wool Democrat could stand to live in Texas?  Particularly when our Governor-elect is on record saying that legalizing same sex marriage would cause an increase in the number of illegitimate births! ?????  Do we need to explain to him where babies come from?
 
usfliboi said:
Look...if you want to shoot your nose off despite your face then that's fine....there's no reasonable logic other than pride or the "I told you so "mentality ...that would stop a revote.... We are leaving millions of dollars on the table here....I voted yes. I'll survive either way but it makes no sense that the union would refuse it's members another vote...but hey I'm one person....now...if I were apfa..I'd say we will accept your terms and no revote and gladly hand the team 83 plus million...
I have no doubt that the result would probably change if a re-vote took place, but the "cutting off nose to spite face" already happened: When 8,000 voted to accept arbitration (and less money) than the TA. Each and every "no" voter is guilty of cutting off their nose to spite their face. They affirmatively chose to accept less money by rejecting the TA. Most democracies don't have a mechanism for rejecting the results of an election by calling for a "do-over" when the results don't turn out the way you want.

Like I said above - given that it was a "take-it or leave-it" scenario, might have made sense to forgo a ratification vote and impose the TA on the members. Why? Because 8,000 FAs irrationally chose to accept less money by voting no.
 
Talking about making no sense....this isn't a federal election lol but hey...you have your opinion and I have mine....in the end..I do not think the company nor the un ion will leave the monies lying on table it's in both their best interest to make this work...could be wrong....but common sense ...by definition will have to prevail...sooner or later.
 
Below is the link where the Union addresses the offer of a revote and the union declines...

If you're a flight attendant go to the last dfw crew news...he stated it multiple times....his exact words...we would be willing to allow the union to take a revote however the unionhas said they do not want a revote ....in the last hotline no where did it say a revote was turned down...so...go to the Dfw crew news...he discusses at length...this is so aggravating that misinformation is still out there...

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1450c9c25bd3b5096022a9f71&id=175c10201e#awesomeshare
Can you post any of his many quotes from the dfw crew news? The link you gave has no quotes from him stating he would allow a revote on the T/A. Only that he was asked about a possible revote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top