Blackmail
This entire argument hinges on the threat of having no input for implementation if ALPA opposes the rule. Why is it that ALPA must support the age 65 rule change in order to influence its development? This seems to be a flawed constraint that is undermining our union and its representation.
I say: Oppose the rule change – if it happens anyway – make our inputs known. In negotiations 101 we start with our desired position + something and bargain down to an acceptable position. If our elected officials will not listen to the professionals in the field then we vote them out.
Can someone out there rationally explain the blackmail? Who issued the ultimatum requirement for a yes vote to participate. Was this in writing or a drive-by threat in the parking lot? The blackmail pi$$es me off as much as the union not listening to its majority!
Curby