MalteseX

I don't think that this will "tear down the union". This may be the spark that will light the fire under members --- it may make us stronger; I think that this may be the issue that wakes the "junior varsity" up....

This is just one of many issues. While I hope you aren't right about "tearing the union down" , maybe it will wake up a vast number of previously "sleeping" members ( I include myself in that group) and make us stronger.

Maybe we can get united under new leadership.

I don't mean this to sound like "ready-fire-aim" but there has been a BIG question raised about the leadership of this union and who they are actually representing. It's worth discussing; it's worth questioning; the discontent has been brewing over small issues and it just came to a head over this one.
The issue of age 65 is being argued on this board, but the big bone of contention is the loss of confidence in the leadership that many, many of our members feel.

THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed---NOT whether the the merits of handling the age 65 issue are "correct" or not. We need to work as a union to ensure our leadership represents ALL of us, or at least we have the confidence they are representing all of us.

Today, that confidence is not there

In a previous life, I was in a union where we threw out the entire MEC and went with all fresh blood. The arguments against doing it were the same-- we'll tear everything down etc. As it turned out, the fresh blood was vastly more productive. I'm not saying we need to do that here, but it won't be the end of the "union" and we won't be torn apart if we do --- however, there MUST be good people to take their place ... otherwise you would be correct, and the union could be damaged.

If we can find people that are "GOOD" and can gain the confidence of the membership, then a discussion to replace the current leadership is not that misguided.