Originally Posted by
Sink r8
Interesting exchange between ftb and Slowplay.
It seems plausible to me that a situation can exist where the administration is allowed to circumvent the MEC, although not without a complicit MEC. More likely, I can imagine a sort of instutionalized setting, where the administration and the MEC work together to steer new reps into some sort of action or policy to keep the status quo going indefinitely.
In that case, if having elected MEC Chairmen is the solution, and we elect both the Chairman and the LEC Reps, and a conflict exists where the elected LEC reps want to remove an elected MEC Chairman... who should have the upper hand?
If the charge is that powerful MEC Chairmen are coercing the MEC, how does giving them more legitimacy through an election help?
Just how do you get "a complicit MEC?" That is the crux of the issue. FtB's argument presupposes that a majority of LEC reps can't think independently and don't understand the structure with which the pilots have entrusted them.
Oh, you'd also have to have a complicit negotiating committee. They're elected by the MEC as well.