Originally Posted by
bigbusdriver
"But For" more than forty years DALPA has had contractual FPL. That covers a period of time when dues were lower and dues were higher than they are now and beats you by seven years. It has covered down contracts and up contracts and everything betwixt and between. Yet when an alternative group appears in early 2009* just as the ink has dried from the merger approval on Halloween 2008 and a mere month after the combined operating certificate on New Years Eve 2008, it suddenly becomes an issue?
Coincidence?
The fact that it's been around for forty years is not a defense for its continuation. As people change and their motivations change, old provisions with long histories can become a problem. As I've said earlier, if our MEC bureaucrats were junkyard dogs fighting for scope reversal and C2K restoration, I'd be lobbying my reps to increase their pay. The fact that our MEC bureaucrats are doing nothing of the sort, I'm forced to ask the question: "Why Not?" Part of the answer could very well be the fact that they identify with the entity that actually pays their salaries. If the dollars are exactly the same, it shouldn't matter to our MEC bureaucrats where their money comes from.
When I represent a party and their interests, I'm paid BY that part, not some third party with a competing interest to the party I'm charged with representing. It's a tried and true process, and one I can hardly believe we're even arguing about.
Carl