Good solid advice, much appreciated. Thank you!.

No worries, stay frosty you’ll do fine. They hired you to fly and when they see effort on your part, they will put extra effort in as well. Granted, You seem very driven so I suspect you won’t need it.

Atlas is like a box of chocolates, you never know what your going to get as I sit here at the “Incheon Airport Transit Hotel.”
Normally its the Oakwood (much nicer), but there was a slight immigration glitch which lent itself to being possibly quarantined for 14 days; therefore, I chose a safer outcome. No fault on company or nation, things became it bit sketchy in translation.

Never in the U.S. Navy, but their slogan “It’s not just a job it’s an adventure” reigns true. Keeps me frosty and employed.
Employed is good. Flew into Narita from Guam yesterday then here. The UA flight from Guam to Narita - 17 Pax, 208 seat capable 737...

Stewards get elected by the general membership, but they can be removed and replaced without any checks by the executive board. Did I read that right? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of electing stewards?

Did I misread that?

Again I'm latching onto the the things that strike me as problems, but there's a lot in here that's good.

Is this the place we’re supposed to discuss this ?
*points around

Stewards are administrative not political entities inside a union. We vote for them but it's hardly on the same level as voting for executive members that actually dictate policy inside the organization. If you read the language it does require a formal vote to remove/replace a steward so the accountability in in the executive member's voting record just like everything else. If you don't like it vote the bums out. But while stewards are incredibly important in any union they are also not supposed to be political. I think if the union execs expend the political capital to oust a steward it's going to be for a very good reason.

I think a lot of people are just looking for conspiracy where there is none.

Thanks. I'm not worried about today, but I'm a little concerned about tomorrow.

I'd be a little happier if we specified that the executive council/board has to remove a steward through a referendum or survey of some sort submitted to the general membership. That might walk the middle path between mob-rule and faux representation.

It feels weird, true. I think this is a good place to talk about this stuff, though. They're out for debate and input. The more we talk about and hash these things out the harder it will be for anyone to say the facts got filtered or these were put in place without the membership's knowledge/input.

So, yeah, it feels weird, but I think this is a good part of building a lasting 2750.

There's a right to fairness in the way the union handles members' during charges and trials, but there's no duty of fairness in any of the officers' responsibilities. There's also no right to equal treatment in general union business in the members' rights.

I don't think anyone is trying to abuse this today, but what do you all think about adding language like that to stop things from going amiss tomorrow? My idea would be to prevent favoritism. What are the risks of saying we have a duty to treat all dues-paying members fairly? Is there something I'm not considering?

This feels like concern trolling.

You're trying to come up with extreme and unlikely scenarios just to fit a narrative. Again, stewards are not political posts the voting is barely a formality as there is almost always as many steward positions as there are nominations. They have zero sway on union policy and are simply there to assist the membership in union matters. If the ExCo/EBoard is willing to actually vote by majority to remove a Steward its probably for a damn good reason. Why make this any harder than it already is?

Frankly if a majority of the executive members have shady intents and vote accordingly the stewards are the absolute least of your concerns.