Originally Posted by
SkepticOptimist
I want to second that. I understand both sides of the VIL argument, but to those who are the most vocal; have you reached out to your union reps? Did you even vote in the elections? No disrespect to our reps, but some were elected with shockingly low turnout.
Calling for a recall on an open forum shows a complete lack of understanding of how our union system actually works. I’m not opposing or defending the system, it is what it is. We elect LEC members, and they form the MEC. It’s unrealistic to expect the MEC to function if every decision has to be put to a vote or a poll. Do our elected government leaders poll the public on every single decision?
First for clarity, I'm not calling for a recall or anything. But I do want to understand this decision fully. As an example...not to be an alarmist at all...but let's say a judge finds we are being unreasonable for withholding the VIL. Could he then rule the MOA is invalid so our pay rates go down and everything else that was negotiated in the MOA? Might be a slim chance but if it's non 0% than there is a risk there. Is everyone convinced that that risk has been articulated properly and voted accordingly?
I understand the larger point of voting for reps (and representative governments). However the odds anyone's rep for anything is 100% aligned with their interests is 0%. Secondly, that would assume I knew my reps position on all known and unknown/future issues while in the election cycle. Also unrealistic. I could make a case about politicians listening to polling, etc, but I'll skip going down that rabbit hole.
I suppose what I'm musing about is with a pilot group that is relatively small (ours), and the technological ability, I don't see any reason we couldn't have a snap poll (behind the ALPA firewall) that lays out our union's case and then asks for a vote on this one specific issue. Do you? What's the downside?
It seems that this would be the best way to gauge everyone's true feelings on this particular issue, without the noise of the most vocal, influential, dilution of other issues, etc. This, to me, would be the best way to stay in alignment with the majority of the membership's interests. Otherwise, you get perceived "unity fractures" and spillage (if that's what you want to call this) when people feel their interests are not being represented. Food for thought.