Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 2291797)

Thanks. That clears it up. I was concerned that personal perspectives about the process of ratification, or the merits of the two TA's was clouding the issue. Some seem to be letting it do just that.

If it was ok to recall reps in 2015 for their vote, then it's ok to recall reps this year for their vote.

There are indications the votes themselves were not the sole reasons for seeking recall in C44.

Originally Posted by Tanker1497 (Post 2291783)

The 44 Captain reps have made it crystal clear that they can't work with the FO reps by way of their written words. If the recall doesn't happen, certainly the honorable thing to do for SD and SM would be to resign, no?

Originally Posted by Dharma (Post 2291754)

While it might be antithesis to most of the political positions I've expressed here, I don't think the C44 FOs should be recalled for how they voted on any issue.

The reason they should be recalled is because they refuse to engage and debate within the expectations of our democratic organization. Every rep should be willing to engage and debate up to the minute before a decision (vote) is taken. Maybe something said would change their minds, improve an LOA, make a better product for the pilot group. When you have a closed mind, make secret deals, and come back to the MEC with a "take it or leave it" ultimatum without being willing to discuss issues, it will eventually give us a worse future.

That's why Jimmy and Chris need to be recalled.

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 2291779)

If the Captain reps state a contract was achieved in spite of the FO reps, maybe they should state what they accomplished in the new TA instead of publishing letters of support from random C44 line pilots.

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 2291628)

they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want.

Originally Posted by cornbeef007 (Post 2291837)

Whats the difference between what they did and establishing a consensus the night prior at the bar?

Originally Posted by Dharma (Post 2291998)

For me the difference is the unwillingness to talk to fellow representatives. They've made up their mind (or someone has made their mind up for them), and they won't talk about the issue. It's the same old complaint you read over and over about anyone in office: arrogant, know-it-alls, but in this case, they don't have much experience with the issues, the position, or from what I can tell much of anything associated with leadership positions.

Superficial understanding of issues combined with a know-it-all attitude usually does not end well.

Originally Posted by Wuzatforus (Post 2291809)

So, those who screamed that it was wrong to recall in 2015, now say it's ok because?? Their morals changed since then? Two wrongs make a right? Or, they were just pretending to have morals?

Pick one. I'm pretty sure those are the only options.

Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 2292546)

If they justify one, but not the other, then they're being weasels.

Do you know anyone who tries to justify the recalls in 2015, but not these?

My personal opinion is both are wrong if they are based solely upon votes for/against a TA or a chairman. There needs to be some failure of representation to trigger a recall.

Originally Posted by Wuzatforus (Post 2292566)

TA1 almost cost us $1B or more. This Chairman election doesn't appear to be costing anyone (except the pro-recalls some FPL).