The DPA Constitution
08-05-2016 | 07:18 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Snake
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
The DPA Constitution
The DPA clowns keep touting their governance, specifically the requirement in Article IV, Section 7 of their Constitution & By-Laws. Here’s the quote:
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..”
Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way:
1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time.
2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions.
4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
Here are some quick takeaways:
• It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third.
• Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority.
Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws:
“..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.”
The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy.
The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..”
Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity.
The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance.
Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true.
The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority.
Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too!
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..”
Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way:
1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time.
2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions.
4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
Here are some quick takeaways:
• It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third.
• Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority.
Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws:
“..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.”
The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy.
The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..”
Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity.
The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance.
Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true.
The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority.
Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too!
08-05-2016 | 09:15 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
so. your fellow pilots are 'clowns'?
you relish an alpa pilot being abandoned by the association because they 'dont agree' with his grievance.....or feel any obligation for his defense.
yet this same organization spared no expense defending an mec chairman who was committing tax fraud.
after telling hundreds of training department pilots 'they werent really alpa pilots'.....and were "on their own"....
got it.
p.s. if you want to post something and question what 'clowns' wrote it....how about you start with the retirement language from the alpa experts that allowed our unqualified pension benefit to be left fully exposed as an operating expense....and nothing more than an i.o.u. in a paper sack from the next management frank lorenzo.
you relish an alpa pilot being abandoned by the association because they 'dont agree' with his grievance.....or feel any obligation for his defense.
yet this same organization spared no expense defending an mec chairman who was committing tax fraud.
after telling hundreds of training department pilots 'they werent really alpa pilots'.....and were "on their own"....
got it.
p.s. if you want to post something and question what 'clowns' wrote it....how about you start with the retirement language from the alpa experts that allowed our unqualified pension benefit to be left fully exposed as an operating expense....and nothing more than an i.o.u. in a paper sack from the next management frank lorenzo.
Last edited by BobZ; 08-05-2016 at 09:47 PM.
08-05-2016 | 10:24 PM
#3
Bus driver
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 894
Likes: 9
The DPA clowns keep touting their governance, specifically the requirement in Article IV, Section 7 of their Constitution & By-Laws. Here’s the quote:
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..”
Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way:
1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time.
2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions.
4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
Here are some quick takeaways:
• It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third.
• Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority.
Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws:
“..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.”
The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy.
The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..”
Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity.
The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance.
Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true.
The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority.
Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too!
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..”
Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way:
1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time.
2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions.
4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
Here are some quick takeaways:
• It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third.
• Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority.
Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws:
“..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.”
The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy.
The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..”
Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity.
The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance.
Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true.
The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority.
Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too!
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, Dalpa, via our management friendly NC, has f'd up our negotiations six ways from Sunday. Did you get the memo that we're now in a gubment mandated timeout Rube? Keep wasting your time on an outfit that isn't our CBA...while our current CBA is flushing the last nine months down the toilet. Thanks for your focus Rube...
08-06-2016 | 04:41 AM
#4
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 852
Likes: 1
The DPA clowns keep touting their governance, specifically the requirement in Article IV, Section 7 of their Constitution & By-Laws. Here’s the quote:
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..”
Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way:
1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time.
2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions.
4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
Here are some quick takeaways:
• It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third.
• Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority.
Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws:
“..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.”
The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy.
The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..”
Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity.
The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance.
Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true.
The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority.
Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too!
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..”
Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way:
1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time.
2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions.
4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer.
Here are some quick takeaways:
• It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third.
• Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority.
Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws:
“..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.”
The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy.
The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..”
Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity.
The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance.
Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true.
The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority.
Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too!
08-06-2016 | 04:54 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
The IRS was correctly going after both of the above. Some instructors ended up paying hefty back taxes, and instead of accepting responsibility for their own crime of tax evasion tried to shift the blame to ALPA.
08-06-2016 | 04:59 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Why don't you give us your opinion of why the details of the DPA Constitution are such a good idea? How will it allow us to make progress and move forward?
08-06-2016 | 05:07 AM
#7
Thread Starter
Snake
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
After reading the transcript, "clowns" seems a propos:
MR. PUCKETT: Not to object here, are we
doing openers? This is just argument, and it's not
even -- it's argument on some other topic. Is he
giving his opening statement, or is he just giving a
soliloquy to the board? I don't understand what he's
doing.
MR. PUCKETT: Not to object here, are we
doing openers? This is just argument, and it's not
even -- it's argument on some other topic. Is he
giving his opening statement, or is he just giving a
soliloquy to the board? I don't understand what he's
doing.
08-06-2016 | 05:36 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
1. From Article XI, Section 1., in order to start negotiations on any subject, LOA, Section 6, etc, even if a simple majority of representatives want it, 1/3 can prevent it.
2. "Only the President, with the Two-Thirds (2/3) Majority approval of the Executive Board, may declare a Tentative Agreement has been reached with the Company."
Wow, that's some god-like power. Even Lee Moak didn't have that power. And if we go by what Rube wrote in the initial post, he can't be removed if 1/3 want to keep him. This isn't democracy, this is a tyranny of the minority or worse, we create demigods that are very difficult to remove. And the ability to get a TA, with it possible to be blocked if 1/3 don't get their special interest item means little to no progress.
Forget the personalities we all have difficulty with. The DPA is proposing a structural change that guarantees failure and stagnation. It makes me think the goal of TC is union destruction, plain and simple.
Your thoughts Viking? Why is this a good idea?
08-06-2016 | 05:56 AM
#9
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 852
Likes: 1
Viking, let me help you get started on why the DPA Constitution is such a good idea. Just as an FYI, I'm referencing page 32 of the DPA Constitution and By-Laws:
1. From Article XI, Section 1., in order to start negotiations on any subject, LOA, Section 6, etc, even if a simple majority of representatives want it, 1/3 can prevent it.
2. "Only the President, with the Two-Thirds (2/3) Majority approval of the Executive Board, may declare a Tentative Agreement has been reached with the Company."
Wow, that's some god-like power. Even Lee Moak didn't have that power. And if we go by what Rube wrote in the initial post, he can't be removed if 1/3 want to keep him. This isn't democracy, this is a tyranny of the minority or worse, we create demigods that are very difficult to remove. And the ability to get a TA, with it possible to be blocked if 1/3 don't get their special interest item means little to no progress.
Forget the personalities we all have difficulty with. The DPA is proposing a structural change that guarantees failure and stagnation. It makes me think the goal of TC is union destruction, plain and simple.
Your thoughts Viking? Why is this a good idea?
1. From Article XI, Section 1., in order to start negotiations on any subject, LOA, Section 6, etc, even if a simple majority of representatives want it, 1/3 can prevent it.
2. "Only the President, with the Two-Thirds (2/3) Majority approval of the Executive Board, may declare a Tentative Agreement has been reached with the Company."
Wow, that's some god-like power. Even Lee Moak didn't have that power. And if we go by what Rube wrote in the initial post, he can't be removed if 1/3 want to keep him. This isn't democracy, this is a tyranny of the minority or worse, we create demigods that are very difficult to remove. And the ability to get a TA, with it possible to be blocked if 1/3 don't get their special interest item means little to no progress.
Forget the personalities we all have difficulty with. The DPA is proposing a structural change that guarantees failure and stagnation. It makes me think the goal of TC is union destruction, plain and simple.
Your thoughts Viking? Why is this a good idea?
08-06-2016 | 06:04 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
You need to read my post again. Nowhere did I say anything was either a good, or a bad, idea. I merely stated that DPA must be gaining momentum if the usual DALPA shrills are out in force this morning to bash DPA... Were marching orders put out last night to start bashing DPA? No one wastes their time beating up on an organization that is insignificant. Let alone write a short mystery novel as rube did to open this thread.... DPA must be gaining momentum.... Simply stating my observation...
My apologies.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
