Aren't you confusing having a union, and the choice of having a union?

We've had different aspects of this discussion over time, especially WRT the F/A's. I'v argued they seem to enjoy better conditions with the threat of the union, than with an actual union. They get the payoff for not joining, and they get the "me-too" items we negotiate. In return, we have decent leverage when we go through our own negotiations, because we are essentially the one stumbling block to labor peace. Seems to have worked very well for decades.

When it came to this DPA stuff, I've argued a divided union is like no union at all. I think we agree we don't know what will happen in the vote, or what direction the F/A's will eventually take. I think it's easy to see that it will take time for either side to gain consensus, in any event, and this time will mean any restoration will be delayed.

There are no purely pragmatic reasons we would want another group to unionize, but that doesn't mean we should/could/would stand in their way, in any shape or form. I don't think any of us advocate interference. But I'm certainly done supporting organizing efforts on the F/A side. I was supportive twice before, and the South F/A's have voted otherwise. Upon further reflection, I've decided there is no gain in it, and no point in it. And, incidentally, since many of them don't seem to get it, and many have voted against representation, we're only respecting their wishes. You always seem to assume the "right" outcome for them is a foregone conclusion. They (the South F/A's) haven't been voting your way. What the post-merger group as a whole does, noone knows. But when you advocate for a certain outcome, aren't you in effect trying to deny them the right to choose self-representation?