If the Recall Succeeds
01-31-2017 | 07:56 AM
#31
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
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.
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.
Pick one. I'm pretty sure those are the only options.
01-31-2017 | 07:59 AM
#32
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
SD and SM might be 44 Chair and Vice-chair but it sounds like Johnson and Kern are the ones with all the power in that relationship.
01-31-2017 | 08:33 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
From: Representing the REAL Delta
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.
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.
They were at least transparent about it, historically Moakists were not.
The two best things to happen for DALPA this year:
1) Buzz no longer in office
2) This recall going nowhere
01-31-2017 | 08:42 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
From: Representing the REAL Delta
There are times in this world when one must draw a line and fight keep it in place. The appeasement 7 wanted to move that line in order to get a deal. "Blood alone moves the wheels of history"
01-31-2017 | 09:43 AM
#35
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 2
From: Hates Commuting
*No, I do not count vague statements of so-and-so has such-and-such emails as a "source." AT BEST, that would indicate the trending position of the vocal minority--which one need look no further than that faction at the meeting to assess their position.... That hardly equates to the "overwhelming majority" position....
01-31-2017 | 12:15 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Superficial understanding of issues combined with a know-it-all attitude usually does not end well.
01-31-2017 | 12:23 PM
#37
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
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.
Superficial understanding of issues combined with a know-it-all attitude usually does not end well.
02-01-2017 | 08:46 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
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.
02-01-2017 | 09:14 AM
#39
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
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.
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.
02-01-2017 | 12:12 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
Here's what someone wrote on this thread: "So, those who screamed that it was wrong to recall in 2015, now say it's ok because?? Their morals changed since then?"
Maybe we should acknowledge that both situations are subject to individual interpretations, and aren't a good target for blanket generalizations. So whoever wrote about "morals changing" should consider that they too practice "Yeah, but" logic depending upon their personal opinion. The alternative is the changing morals thingy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
