well you're missing out on some bad ideas.

I'm on firefox too though. I guess I don't block ads. But then if I did I'd end up missing the ads.

It's good for the overall confidence to know young single women and especially Asian women want me... tonight.

It means what it says. Here's an example to better understand the question:

If the UAW follows the same policy as DALPA does (i.e. supporting unions that have a higher degree of an organized work force), and thus avoids Delta when it can fly American instead, does our union support that action? Based on its policy of supporting another labor union though its policy of supporting the hotels that are organized, one would see the consistency in such support. It would be dumb, but it would be consistent.

lol!

Ten

*I do not know how ALPA would answer that, but my take is:

AMR is unionized and isn't APA affiliated with AFL-CIO like ALPA? If not they are unionized and many of their other labor groups are AFL-CIO affiliated. The support as I take it from ALPA is along the broader context of AFL-CIO. That was the takeaway I had when I discussed the reasoning on the Westin Diplomat with a NYC Rep a few weeks ago.

Well, Westin hotel workers aren't affiliated with AFL-CIO either.

for a guy who supposedly has decades left at the company, you are remarkably short-sighted. It's not just about the PA issue, although that is problematic in and of itself.

If you don't understand the long-term ramifications of the company unilaterally imposing non-contractual obligations upon us with nary a peep from "our" union, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Strategy. It's not just for executives. johnso29 and DALPA, I suggest you look into it.

So, is it unionized workers supporting unionized workers. Or, is it unioniods using the union to union angle to support the plausible deniability of why they stay at a high end hotel. Or, is it that if a high end hotel has some unionized workers that's where we must stay. Or, is it that it's okay to spend more money for a hotel if there are unionized workers there even if the workers don't personally receive the money. Or is it that unionized workers don't believe unionized workplaces deserve their support. Or, is it that unionized workers think that unions are unneccesary in certain workplaces. Or, is it that unionized workers think that unionized employers should have lower prices for their products. Or, is it that unions are dinosaurs? I am so confused.

IMO, the union angle is plausible deniability for staying at a high end property. My opinion carries zero weight in the decision of where to stay.

Yep. good points by Scambo and Gunship Guy.

DALPA's self-righteous rationale for choosing a luxurious property for their boondoggles reeks of corruption and hypocrisy.

It's almost as though, after fighting tooth and nail to avoid any measure of transparency, DALPA got together to brainstorm some explanation--any explanation!--that could retroactively justify their extravagance at our expense. Apparently that was the best they could come up with.

If you dont want to make a PA simply dont make one! Reading way tooooo much into all this....

But I guess the "find evil at every turn" threads need new evils even if completely ridiculous....

:eek::eek::eek:

My opinion isn't proof of anything.

And my rambling previous post picked at ALPA, ACL and Gunship guy.

We are unionized (an association). I believe we benefit from that.

Drank;

Just in case you missed the memo, DPA is dead. Hopefully I'm telling you early enough that you can emotionally recover prior to Christmas.