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