Originally Posted by
NuGuy
Totally agreed. I may not support the DPA, but I think that if we want to foster some REAL unity, rather than than simply allowing ourselves to be blugeoned into superficial "unity" by use of the propoganda handbook procedures, then a total vetting of both sides would be a VERY healthy process.
If each side thinks they're right, then make your case. Let the pilots decide. I'm not really sure what the problem with this is.
If any pilot union allowed 10-15% of its membership to "call the question" at any time, the ability of the union to get things done would be impacted. THAT is the problem with this.
You're a sharp guy. You know that 10-15% of our pilot group is perpetually angry.
Should they control the agenda of our union?
From a pure statistical standpoint, that's what you're telling us.
Let's say there's a miracle, and the DPA doubles their support over the next year...to 30% of the pilot group. Should less than a third of our group be allowed to interrupt contract negotiations for a No Confidence vote?
Leading up to the Northwest strike in 1998, a small group of pilots were opposed to the strike. Statistically, it was a small percentage. Should they have been allowed to insert a representational vote? What percentage denotes "unity"? 60%? 85%? 95%?
Give me a number and then tell me how much time and effort the clear majority should spend trying to unify those that will only be happy if things are done
exactly their way.