Originally Posted by
pipe
Yeah. Do you want them to endorse Romney - the investment banker?
You can't have it both ways. Complain about the RLA, complain that no one will strike, complain that the union is ineffective. Then, come 4 November, vote for a candidate that opposes everything that your union and your contract depends on.
Bad news gentlemen - you are not in the top 1% of earners who are being represented by today's conservative politicians. Pilots are turning into a bunch of trailer park conservatives. Hang on to your guns boys, it's all you're gonna have left. The corporations will have everything else. Remember, a corporation has the rights of a person (per the current conservative Supreme Court). UAL, CAL, DAL, FDX, UPS, etc. are all wealthier "people" than any of us will ever be. I'm sure they will continue to purchase more democracy than any of us can afford - with or without ALPA PAC.
PIPE
No need to get personal like this. The topic is the ALPA PAC. PAC stands for Political Action Committee. Some here have been insinuating that the reason we're still being hurt by the RLA and the NMB is because not enough of us are backing the ALPA PAC. My point is that the ALPA PAC has done nothing but use that money to back far left political candidates. That is an understandable strategy. But let's look at the results: 2006 election sweeps the right-wing out of Congress leaving only the President. No action on RLA or NMB reform because: "There's still a right-winger in the White House". Fine. 2010 sweeps all branches of government clean of right-wingers. Still no action on RLA or NMB reform. What is ALPA's excuse now? How is that strategy of backing one political ideology working out for us? And most importantly, why isn't RLA and NMB reform even mentioned by ALPA as something their political clout should be used for?
Again, this is not a left versus right debate. It is a question on the strategy (or lack thereof) being used by the ALPA PAC.
Carl