NATCA Nominations for President/Vice President

[Dontbotherme]

Well since Paul and Trish are a “political team,” now we can have Z and Ham as a team.

 

[GulfCharlie]

Well since Paul and Trish are a “political team,” now we can have Z and Ham as a team.

I’ve been wondering the same thing

 

[Snow]

I didn’t realise a convention was the appropriate forum to attack members. Funny, you’d think they would be open to a town hall with round robin questions.

Using this opportunity is quite advantageous, although agree that it may not be the most appropriate setting. If you were in the incumbent position though and people started discussing other options as viable choices wouldn't you want to get a hold of it as soon as possible?

 

[GulfCharlie]

There is logic in this I cannot deny it but to use the convention as ground to attack, without a chance for discussion or rebuttal instead of holding a proper forum is contemptible.

 

[GulfCharlie]

Isn’t the grand experient called democracy about choice? Give everyone a fair amount of time and platform to talk.

 

[Snow]

There is logic in this I cannot deny it but to use the convention as ground to attack, without a chance for discussion or rebuttal instead of holding a proper forum is contemptible.

I do find it interesting. Especially using video from the past. With Brian's video and revelations I think it offered good reason on why a change of mind is possible. I will have to check out what they said in retaliation to the accusations, any cliff notes from anyone about that?

 

[Maintainvfr]

Honestly, if you thought that was a personal attack.... Are they supposed to not address things spread about them? Someone put information up regarding them "misleading the membership" and they addressed it. That is their right, if not their duty, as our leadership.

If you didn't attend, watch the video before you comment. Their view isn't the most common view because of some "koolaid" we're drinking, it's because they genuinely have the best interest of our brothers and sisters at heart. I'm not saying Zilonis is a bad guy, but the Trish and Paul are shady campaign is just unfounded.

 

[vectorwagon]

Trish and Paul have been shady for a long time, maybe the “campaign” about it is because there is actually an alternative available, one that seems to be at least considering the massive wave of dissent, unlike the past years while we’ve been told to shut up we don’t know what’s good for us.

 

[Move78]

Trish and Paul have been shady for a long time, maybe the “campaign” about it is because there is actually an alternative available, one that seems to be at least considering the massive wave of dissent, unlike the past years while we’ve been told to shut up we don’t know what’s good for us.

Shady how.

 

[GulfCharlie]

Shady how.

My personal opinion, again I stress my personal opinion and this is only one thing that bothers me, is the fact they refuse to allow the vote of privatisation be put to the membership as a whole. When some one says "We don't need to put this to vote before the membership because it is too expensive," that makes me extremely angry. From my perspective, they have bush whacked, and convinced the membership that they do not need to vote for it and it should be left up to them.

How can a legislative body not put such an important issue to the vote of the membership? How can they believe that they know better than the membership? They use the fact of their election as a mandate to make important decisions, but this decision, even with their election, is a major issue that needs to be put before the membership that no small legislative body should make.

If I am going to be damned for wanting to put this issue before the ENTIRE membership as a vote, then let me be damned, but hell will freeze over for me personally before someone says "We don't need to put this to a vote." I've heard instances of this situation before from my grandfather, he called them Fascists and Communists.

 

[Maintainvfr]

Trish and Paul have been shady for a long time, maybe the “campaign” about it is because there is actually an alternative available, one that seems to be at least considering the massive wave of dissent, unlike the past years while we’ve been told to shut up we don’t know what’s good for us.

I mean, I'll throw out the personal opinion disclaimer too, but any compaign that uses Robert Poole's testimony as the main (only?) piece of support is suspect. A palm reader once showed me an anti-vaxxing document from the 308th page of a Google search, I was about as impressed with that.

My personal opinion, again I stress my personal opinion and this is only one thing that bothers me, is the fact they refuse to allow the vote of privatisation be put to the membership as a whole. When some one says "We don't need to put this to vote before the membership because it is too expensive," that makes me extremely angry. From my perspective, they have bush whacked, and convinced the membership that they do not need to vote for it and it should be left up to them.

How can a legislative body not put such an important issue to the vote of the membership? How can they believe that they know better than the membership? They use the fact of their election as a mandate to make important decisions, but this decision, even with their election, is a major issue that needs to be put before the membership that no small legislative body should make.

If I am going to be damned for wanting to put this issue before the ENTIRE membership as a vote, then let me be damned, but hell will freeze over for me personally before someone says "We don't need to put this to a vote." I've heard instances of this situation before from my grandfather, he called them Fascists and Communists.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the full membership vote that was proposed to be held before supporting each piece of privatization legislation, but that's just not feasible. I'm assuming you mean more of a one time vote so I'm not really going to get into the amendment.

As to a one time vote, I'm fairly certain that's what the convention is for. I wouldn't be opposed to trying to do a full body vote, but how? Our membership had abysmal turnout for the contract vote, which I think we would agree is incredibly important and impacts us every day.

Also privatization isn't exactly right. We are open to restructuring if it is in line with our valued and mission.

 

[GulfCharlie]

I mean, I'll throw out the personal opinion disclaimer too, but any compaign that uses Robert Poole's testimony as the main (only?) piece of support is suspect. A palm reader once showed me an anti-vaxxing document from the 308th page of a Google search, I was about as impressed with that.



I'm not sure if you're referring to the full membership vote that was proposed to be held before supporting each piece of privatization legislation, but that's just not feasible. I'm assuming you mean more of a one time vote so I'm not really going to get into the amendment.

As to a one time vote, I'm fairly certain that's what the convention is for. I wouldn't be opposed to trying to do a full body vote, but how? Our membership had abysmal turnout for the contract vote, which I think we would agree is incredibly important and impacts us every day.

Also privatization isn't exactly right. We are open to restructuring if it is in line with our valued and mission.

The smallest piece of testimony shines but a partial light on what really happened. We will never know what truly happened behind the scenes but we can only speculate with the pieces we are shown.

As for the vote, there are other amendments within the constitution that allow votes to take place to replace members (don't quote my memory, I have a physical copy around here and I will have to verify again), this is something feasible in my opinion to make possible. Just like we vote for the contract and the candidates, one could be held for this issue. As far as turn out, I think one would break all records for this issue alone.

Regardless of your stance, view, or position on many things the Union does, WE have to inform the membership. WE have to drive the turn out, increase activism, and being transparent will do many of things on its own. As you increase the activism you will also increase the amount of reasons a decision will be questioned. In its self this is nothing to fear due to the fact it will provide a natural checks and balances against what many perceive to be the "We know what is best for the membership" attitude.

Not opening the floor to discussion, bullying (personal opinion) members into pushing one thing is definitely not the way to go. There is something shady go on here, there are too many coincidences for everything to work out perfectly.

Another issue is the legislation in its form would have allowed the contract to be good for 7 years (Off the top of my head), what happens after the 7 year expire? What private entity in its right mind would even consider having half the things we have now in the contract?

 

[Maintainvfr]

I agree with driving transparency, driving activism, and informing the union. I agree with almost all of your points. However, if everything points one way but that document points the other.... I think taking the testimony of one anti-NATCA, anti-union, anti-EverythingWeStandFor as a crucial piece of evidence is dangerous.

I think there's a reason that the people that are actively involved in NATCA are almost exclusively pro Paul and Trish. I'm not at all trying to say nobody else should run or there's no other good candidates or don't consider your options. My stance is obviously three more years, but the reason I'm involved in this thread is to point out that this shady platform is unfounded.

As for the vote, yes we could call one. We can't make people participate. That's why we send delegates to the convention who get a vote for each member, who did vote on this issue, and who voted for where we are right now. If you think your delegates voted wrong for you, elect new ones or get elected.

Let the issue stand for itself. The smearing of our leadership is unfounded and unnecessary, NATCA is much stronger and in a much better place than it was 9 years ago.

 

[Dontbotherme]

I disagree with the above last paragraph... I think the union was far stronger as a collective nine years ago (coming out of the White Book days) than we are now. We had Congressional support (Reps Young and DeFazio immediately come to mind), we were gaining even more support, in D.C., as everything we stated about the agency and NexGen was found to be true (even as the agency denied it), we had far more local activism than we do now (again from what I’ve witnessed so other places might be different), complacency was almost none existent especially compared to now, etc. People now just pay their dues, may or may not vote in an election where the ballot is sent to your house with an already paid for postage stamp, want their military time counted for BUE time as they have no understanding of what NATCA or labor unions in general have done for them, and they think the agency won’t look to screw them over again. Complacency is going to bite us in the ass!

 

[Move78]

I disagree with the above last paragraph... I think the union was far stronger as a collective nine years ago (coming out of the White Book days) than we are now. We had Congressional support (Reps Young and DeFazio immediately come to mind), we were gaining even more support, in D.C., as everything we stated about the agency and NexGen was found to be true (even as the agency denied it), we had far more local activism than we do now (again from what I’ve witnessed so other places might be different), complacency was almost none existent especially compared to now, etc. People now just pay their dues, may or may not vote in an election where the ballot is sent to your house with an already paid for postage stamp, want their military time counted for BUE time as they have no understanding of what NATCA or labor unions in general have done for them, and they think the agency won’t look to screw them over again. Complacency is going to bite us in the ass!

Can't this be attributed to how effective our current leadership has been and how the dreaded 'collaboration' has worked?

 

[Maintainvfr]

I agree with a lot facilities I've been to having complacency, but I think that it's easy to feel like you don't have to be involved when your union is strong. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Also, sorry to everyone if my train of thought wanders in some of these posts, trying to listen to these panels and reply.

 

[breakaway2000]

I'll be the first to admit, I don't like politics, but having just come back from convention, I'd like to clear a few things up and this will be all that I'll say on the matter.

Union Dollars Cannot Be Used in a Political Campaign
1. For anyone wondering, this is why Ham or Bryan did not speak on their campaign while at the microphones this past week and why there was no open forum or debate while at the convention. This is also why the NATCA PAC exists. Our Union cannot use any union dues for political use.
2. Also, for anyone wondering, the way Trish shot down every point on privatization with hard evidence and videos was like watching Nik Wallenda walk a tight rope. It had to be done without mentioning a campaign, an opponent, etc. She simply stated due to social media rumblings and then launched into the history of privatization talks.

The Remaining 8 RVP's Unanimously Support Paul and Trish
1. For those who are just getting in the agency and don't know the structure. We have 10 regions. Each region has an RVP. Ham and Bryan are two of the RVP's. The remaining 8 support Paul and Trish.

Ham and Bryan Do Not Stand A Chance Separately
1. Lets be honest, even together it's a long shot, but Ham has not accepted a nomination yet. If both of their platforms are identical (against privatization being the main dividing factor), if he accepts the nomination for President, they will simply split votes.
2. If they want to make it interesting, Ham would need to accept the nomination for VP and they run on a ticket.

Why I Don't Like Politics
1. They divide our union. Paul and Trish have done incredible things for our union, more then most of us will ever know. Bryan and Ham have career long resumes of NATCA activism and all of their accomplishments have helped drive our union forward as well. There's a reason Paul and Trish have served for 3 consecutive terms just like there's a reason Bryan and Ham have continued to be re-elected for RVP of their respective regions. You don't get to that point and you certainly don't get re-elected multiple times without a hard work ethic and the respect and admiration of your peers.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to this election cycle coming to a close.

 

[Snow]

Why I Don't Like Politics
1. They divide our union. Paul and Trish have done incredible things for our union, more then most of us will ever know. Bryan and Ham have career long resumes of NATCA activism and all of their accomplishments have helped drive our union forward as well. There's a reason Paul and Trish have served for 3 consecutive terms just like there's a reason Bryan and Ham have continued to be re-elected for RVP of their respective regions. You don't get to that point and you certainly don't get re-elected multiple times without a hard work ethic and the respect and admiration of your peers.

I'm not pushing my support one side or the other on this post, but your post has me thinking that once elected and you do well, you should remain that job until you resign and only then someone else with new ideas can come up. We should welcome new ideas, while respecting what already has been done as well as the current path, and make decisions based on solid arguments for either side. Politics may be divisive at times, but necessary especially as our leadership is elected. All parties involved are hard working and have admiration. Although previous acts accomplished do not equate to the future vision of the Union. Paul and Trish have one view, and Brian and Ham appear to have another. It's important to hear both sides and their arguments, and allow a more educated membership decide. Not about dividing, but becoming more knowledgeable about the process of privatization, something that has a lot of people skeptical. If anything, I see this as strengthening our understanding and could lead to more support for one side or the other (for those like myself who are on the fence about the idea due to what I currently know and don't know about it).

 

[GulfCharlie]

I'm not pushing my support one side or the other on this post, but your post has me thinking that once elected and you do well, you should remain that job until you resign and only then someone else with new ideas can come up. We should welcome new ideas, while respecting what already has been done as well as the current path, and make decisions based on solid arguments for either side. Politics may be divisive at times, but necessary especially as our leadership is elected. All parties involved are hard working and have admiration. Although previous acts accomplished do not equate to the future vision of the Union. Paul and Trish have one view, and Brian and Ham appear to have another. It's important to hear both sides and their arguments, and allow a more educated membership decide. Not about dividing, but becoming more knowledgeable about the process of privatization, something that has a lot of people skeptical. If anything, I see this as strengthening our understanding and could lead to more support for one side or the other (for those like myself who are on the fence about the idea due to what I currently know and don't know about it).

I couldn’t have worded this better.