Minutes From Apfa Bod's Meeting
- Thread starter LiveInAHotel
- Start date
I know of some others. In all the cases I have heard involving the ISP's including the head up the butt club RIAA. (Don't even get me started on the DMCA!) They have fought to protect there records and the customers. On the other hand the web sites themselves different story. I am almost sure this site although I am not going to look it up. Says in the TOS we all clicked on that they will not with hold your name to any law enforcement, or court order. Which is not out of the ordinary for a site. Take Ebay for example. They will relese to any law enforcement organization all records and files on you with a simple faxed request.Garfield1966 said:
jimntx
Veteran
Correction: The BOD member referred to called me and pointed out that is not what was said in our conversation. I retract what I said.jimntx said:
Adding to Jim's corection, resolution were put on the floor May 11 & 18, and June 28. Three members refused to be present or left the meeting so there was no quorum, thus denying a vote. Democray in action. On July 27 by a vote of 11 to 7 representatives chose to take not action on DOL's findings. Democracy in action.
This is probably the most honest record of this issue you will see...
Subject: Re: A message from THB.....
> Below you will find my DOL update. You may distribute this as
widely
> as you wish.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> August 2004
>
> Dear AA Flight Attendant Colleague,
>
> It is my hope that this update will be my last communication to
> my co-workers as an "activist in exile" awaiting the Department of
> Labor's (DOL) final ruling concerning my election complaint
stemming
> back to the March 12, 2004 APFA national officers' run-off
> balloting. I will assume that anyone reading this letter remembers
> that I lost the office of APFA President by a margin of 5 votes on
> that date. Following the certification of this election I filed an
> election complaint with a focus on the 412 voided ballots. The
> purpose of this letter is to give the members of APFA the best
update
> that I can, almost five months into this process, particularly
since
> our union is choosing to remain all but silent regarding this
matter.
>
> Here are the current facts that make up the chronological
history
> concerning my election dispute. I filed a timely election
complaint
> with my union in accordance with the APFA Constitution on March 23,
> 2004. Our current constitution has a two step internal process to
> review an election complaint.
>
> Step one - the APFA National Ballot Committee (NBC) reviewed my
> complaint. I received a letter from the NBC in April sharing their
> research regarding this complaint. They informed me that their
> research had found 3 voided ballots that in their opinion should
have
> been counted; further, that since these 3 ballots would not have
> impacted the presidential race they would not be opening these said
> ballots. Later that month I filed a timely appeal with the APFA
> Executive Committee (EC).
>
> Step two - the EC on the last possible date allowed in
accordance
> with our current constitution, held two days of research and review
> in May and found 13 more voided ballots that the majority of the EC
> found should have been counted. Steven Ellis, a member of this
> executive body and who was also a presidential candidate in the
> primary of this national officer's election, authored a resolution
to
> direct a count of these now 16 ballots. On three separate meeting
> dates (May 11, May 18, and June 28, 2004) this Ellis resolution was
> entered into the EC record, as a resolution both seconded and
> discussed, but never voted on due to three members of this APFA
> executive body refusing to participate in the vote. By either
> refusing to be present or choosing to leave the meeting these 3
> members prevented any further EC action on this matter. This is
due to the requirement in our current constitution of a 7-member quorum
> of the EC "in order to conduct the business of the APFA" (page 15
of the current constitution).
>
> Since my internal election dispute was blocked at the
> constitutional EC appeal level, and thus no decision was made, on
May
> 29, 2004 I filed a timely election complaint with the U.S.
Department
> of Labor (DOL) in accordance with the Labor Management Reporting
and
> Disclosure Act (LMRDA). On July 13, 2004 the DOL District Director
> of the Office of Labor-Management Standards wrote to the president
of
> our union with a pre-determination and very specific preliminary
> investigative findings. This was following 6 weeks of
investigation
> and three agreed to extensions of time limits.
>
> The current APFA President shared this above information with
the
> APFA Board of Directors late in the day on the final day of their
> recent meeting (July 27, 2004), urging no action to these specific
> DOL's findings. Two board resolutions stemmed directly from these
> closed session board discussions regarding this matter - Resolution
> #17 and Substitute Resolution #17. Though the presentation from
the
> president and general counsel of our union were only heard by the
> Board members and Executive Committee members in closed session,
both
> resolutions are on the record of this 4th board meeting in 5
months.
> Substitute resolution #17 directed the NBC in conjunction with
> neutral parties to open the sixteen questionable ballots, as
> determined by both the Ellis Resolution and the initial DOL
findings -
> this resolution failed by a 7/yes - 11/no vote. Resolution #17,
> which passed by a vote of 11/yes - 7/no, found that no action was
> necessary at this point regarding the July 13, 2004 DOL's
> investigative findings. You will be able to read the complete text
> of both of these resolutions and how your base representative voted
> on these issues on the APFA website.
>
> There are two other current important issues for the AA Flight
> Attendants that I would like to address in this public
> communication. At the most recent EC meeting in June an internal
> Election Procedures Task Force was established as formal policy.
> Many of us feel this election process overview, with a serious
> internal audit, should have taken place shortly after the April
2003
> AA/APFA Restructuring Participation Agreement election fiasco.
After
> more than a year, via another EC Ellis Resolution in June 2004, an
> internal election task force had been installed as formal policy.
> This task force had just begun their work at APFA headquarters
during
> the week of July 19th. What amazes me beyond belief is the fact
that
> the Board of Directors in Resolution #15 during last week's meeting
> voted to disband this task force, again by a vote of 11/yes - 7/no.
>
> This is another resolution I urge you to review. In one
person's
> opinion our union must thoroughly review both the March 2004
national
> officer's election process as well as the history of the April 2003
> election complaints.
>
> The second additional issue that I believe APFA members need to
> be aware of concerning this recent Board Meeting is the Board's
> continuing dialogue regarding a contractually required "pocket-
sized
> copy" of our current ratified collective bargaining agreement
> (CBA) "to be distributed as soon as possible following
> ratification." I'm sure that I don't need to remind you that you
and
> I are currently working under hugely altered workrules, wage
> structures, and benefits; yet effective today we have no printed
copy
> of our current CBA. As a former president and vice-president of
our
> union and current LGA based flight attendant, I became so enraged
> over this huge noncompliance of our contract after speaking
> repeatedly with both union and management personnel, that in April
> 2004 I filed my own individual grievance (Notice of Dispute). In
my
> opinion this is a clear contractual violation in accordance with
> Article 28 A.2.a. (page 261) and Article 24 A. (page 224) of the
> APFA/AA Agreement.
>
> During last week's board meeting, this issue was once again
> raised formally and the current president said he would "look into
> this matter." Please, I urge you to raise your own voice regarding
> this issue with both your union and your base management. Both the
> pilots and the ground workers have received a printed contract.
This
> is a real injustice that should be argued in front of a neutral
> referee to force compliance to the terms and conditions of our CBA.
>
> I have certainly taken up enough of your time as you read
through
> this open letter to APFA members. I just hope that you can try to
> understand how it feels to be a union advocate of well over 30
years,
> who watched with total dismay as my union after months of denial
> following 9/11 and flight 587, finally joined the other labor
groups
> who had been in preparation and discussion months ahead of APFA.
We
> went in late and we got our asses kicked in concessionaire
> bargaining. APFA went in under prepared, with the most
inexperienced
> negotiating team in our history. APFA under valued our 2001
Contract
> and produced a product (the RPA) that has set us back as a
workgroup
> by more than 25 years. These facts cannot be blamed totally on
> management - much of this responsibility is with the union
president.
>
> Again, there is much work to be done. I urge you too to get
> involved. Our union is currently in grave danger. We need
effective
> and strong leadership at this time in our history.
>
> Beginning in the early '70s there was a slow and steady process
> of turning a once short termed dead-end job into a career with a
> respectable retirement. We must not give up now. Stand with me
and
> see to it that true leadership is restored to our union. Please
> remember that you will have another chance to vote in the upcoming
> Base Elections. Again, I urge you to stay informed and get
involved.
>
> In closing, the final deadline for the U.S. Department of Labor
> to enter into Federal Court to force a remedy in my election
> complaint is currently on or about September 7, 2004. This is the
> day after Labor Day. It just may be the date we take our union
back
> and then the REAL WORK will begin.
>
> With hope for our collective
> futures,
>
> Tommie Hutto-Blake
> LGA flight attendant
Subject: Re: A message from THB.....
> Below you will find my DOL update. You may distribute this as
widely
> as you wish.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> August 2004
>
> Dear AA Flight Attendant Colleague,
>
> It is my hope that this update will be my last communication to
> my co-workers as an "activist in exile" awaiting the Department of
> Labor's (DOL) final ruling concerning my election complaint
stemming
> back to the March 12, 2004 APFA national officers' run-off
> balloting. I will assume that anyone reading this letter remembers
> that I lost the office of APFA President by a margin of 5 votes on
> that date. Following the certification of this election I filed an
> election complaint with a focus on the 412 voided ballots. The
> purpose of this letter is to give the members of APFA the best
update
> that I can, almost five months into this process, particularly
since
> our union is choosing to remain all but silent regarding this
matter.
>
> Here are the current facts that make up the chronological
history
> concerning my election dispute. I filed a timely election
complaint
> with my union in accordance with the APFA Constitution on March 23,
> 2004. Our current constitution has a two step internal process to
> review an election complaint.
>
> Step one - the APFA National Ballot Committee (NBC) reviewed my
> complaint. I received a letter from the NBC in April sharing their
> research regarding this complaint. They informed me that their
> research had found 3 voided ballots that in their opinion should
have
> been counted; further, that since these 3 ballots would not have
> impacted the presidential race they would not be opening these said
> ballots. Later that month I filed a timely appeal with the APFA
> Executive Committee (EC).
>
> Step two - the EC on the last possible date allowed in
accordance
> with our current constitution, held two days of research and review
> in May and found 13 more voided ballots that the majority of the EC
> found should have been counted. Steven Ellis, a member of this
> executive body and who was also a presidential candidate in the
> primary of this national officer's election, authored a resolution
to
> direct a count of these now 16 ballots. On three separate meeting
> dates (May 11, May 18, and June 28, 2004) this Ellis resolution was
> entered into the EC record, as a resolution both seconded and
> discussed, but never voted on due to three members of this APFA
> executive body refusing to participate in the vote. By either
> refusing to be present or choosing to leave the meeting these 3
> members prevented any further EC action on this matter. This is
due to the requirement in our current constitution of a 7-member quorum
> of the EC "in order to conduct the business of the APFA" (page 15
of the current constitution).
>
> Since my internal election dispute was blocked at the
> constitutional EC appeal level, and thus no decision was made, on
May
> 29, 2004 I filed a timely election complaint with the U.S.
Department
> of Labor (DOL) in accordance with the Labor Management Reporting
and
> Disclosure Act (LMRDA). On July 13, 2004 the DOL District Director
> of the Office of Labor-Management Standards wrote to the president
of
> our union with a pre-determination and very specific preliminary
> investigative findings. This was following 6 weeks of
investigation
> and three agreed to extensions of time limits.
>
> The current APFA President shared this above information with
the
> APFA Board of Directors late in the day on the final day of their
> recent meeting (July 27, 2004), urging no action to these specific
> DOL's findings. Two board resolutions stemmed directly from these
> closed session board discussions regarding this matter - Resolution
> #17 and Substitute Resolution #17. Though the presentation from
the
> president and general counsel of our union were only heard by the
> Board members and Executive Committee members in closed session,
both
> resolutions are on the record of this 4th board meeting in 5
months.
> Substitute resolution #17 directed the NBC in conjunction with
> neutral parties to open the sixteen questionable ballots, as
> determined by both the Ellis Resolution and the initial DOL
findings -
> this resolution failed by a 7/yes - 11/no vote. Resolution #17,
> which passed by a vote of 11/yes - 7/no, found that no action was
> necessary at this point regarding the July 13, 2004 DOL's
> investigative findings. You will be able to read the complete text
> of both of these resolutions and how your base representative voted
> on these issues on the APFA website.
>
> There are two other current important issues for the AA Flight
> Attendants that I would like to address in this public
> communication. At the most recent EC meeting in June an internal
> Election Procedures Task Force was established as formal policy.
> Many of us feel this election process overview, with a serious
> internal audit, should have taken place shortly after the April
2003
> AA/APFA Restructuring Participation Agreement election fiasco.
After
> more than a year, via another EC Ellis Resolution in June 2004, an
> internal election task force had been installed as formal policy.
> This task force had just begun their work at APFA headquarters
during
> the week of July 19th. What amazes me beyond belief is the fact
that
> the Board of Directors in Resolution #15 during last week's meeting
> voted to disband this task force, again by a vote of 11/yes - 7/no.
>
> This is another resolution I urge you to review. In one
person's
> opinion our union must thoroughly review both the March 2004
national
> officer's election process as well as the history of the April 2003
> election complaints.
>
> The second additional issue that I believe APFA members need to
> be aware of concerning this recent Board Meeting is the Board's
> continuing dialogue regarding a contractually required "pocket-
sized
> copy" of our current ratified collective bargaining agreement
> (CBA) "to be distributed as soon as possible following
> ratification." I'm sure that I don't need to remind you that you
and
> I are currently working under hugely altered workrules, wage
> structures, and benefits; yet effective today we have no printed
copy
> of our current CBA. As a former president and vice-president of
our
> union and current LGA based flight attendant, I became so enraged
> over this huge noncompliance of our contract after speaking
> repeatedly with both union and management personnel, that in April
> 2004 I filed my own individual grievance (Notice of Dispute). In
my
> opinion this is a clear contractual violation in accordance with
> Article 28 A.2.a. (page 261) and Article 24 A. (page 224) of the
> APFA/AA Agreement.
>
> During last week's board meeting, this issue was once again
> raised formally and the current president said he would "look into
> this matter." Please, I urge you to raise your own voice regarding
> this issue with both your union and your base management. Both the
> pilots and the ground workers have received a printed contract.
This
> is a real injustice that should be argued in front of a neutral
> referee to force compliance to the terms and conditions of our CBA.
>
> I have certainly taken up enough of your time as you read
through
> this open letter to APFA members. I just hope that you can try to
> understand how it feels to be a union advocate of well over 30
years,
> who watched with total dismay as my union after months of denial
> following 9/11 and flight 587, finally joined the other labor
groups
> who had been in preparation and discussion months ahead of APFA.
We
> went in late and we got our asses kicked in concessionaire
> bargaining. APFA went in under prepared, with the most
inexperienced
> negotiating team in our history. APFA under valued our 2001
Contract
> and produced a product (the RPA) that has set us back as a
workgroup
> by more than 25 years. These facts cannot be blamed totally on
> management - much of this responsibility is with the union
president.
>
> Again, there is much work to be done. I urge you too to get
> involved. Our union is currently in grave danger. We need
effective
> and strong leadership at this time in our history.
>
> Beginning in the early '70s there was a slow and steady process
> of turning a once short termed dead-end job into a career with a
> respectable retirement. We must not give up now. Stand with me
and
> see to it that true leadership is restored to our union. Please
> remember that you will have another chance to vote in the upcoming
> Base Elections. Again, I urge you to stay informed and get
involved.
>
> In closing, the final deadline for the U.S. Department of Labor
> to enter into Federal Court to force a remedy in my election
> complaint is currently on or about September 7, 2004. This is the
> day after Labor Day. It just may be the date we take our union
back
> and then the REAL WORK will begin.
>
> With hope for our collective
> futures,
>
> Tommie Hutto-Blake
> LGA flight attendant
Garfield1966
Veteran
Jimjimntx said:
Did you actually use your real name to register? I know I did not. Besides, I could go through a phone book and pick a name. The only entity that I am aware of that can legally determine who the owner of the pc who wrote the message would be the ISP rght? This site could only tell what name the member put in. Hell, I could have used a name from a FA, or a member of management or who ever.
LiveInAHotel
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 645
- Reaction score
- 0
Garf,Garfield1966 said:
Actually they have a way to find out the true identity of every poster on BB 's. Somehow with your IP they can trace it and find out your home address. Then they come a knockin'!
Garfield1966
Veteran
No they cannot. They can find out what ISP the IP is registered to. They do not have access to the name of the individual who is subscribing to the ISP to get that IP. That is why the RIAA had to go to court to force the ISP to release the names of the individuals who they suspected of sharing copy write material. If I ever find out that my ISP is releasing my personal info to anyone they will have a law suit slapped on them so fast their eyes will spin. As far as I am aware, when surfing the net, everyone is completely anonymous up until their ISP. No one will come knocking unless a judge says they can.
Besides, that is how I sort my spam. Any mail that comes addressed to my alias that I use gets deleted, my friends know to address the email too directly to me. If it were as easy as you state, I would be getting much more spam addressed to me since I would be much more likely to open it.
Besides, that is how I sort my spam. Any mail that comes addressed to my alias that I use gets deleted, my friends know to address the email too directly to me. If it were as easy as you state, I would be getting much more spam addressed to me since I would be much more likely to open it.
