fdxflyer

So the side letter has been looked at by the MEC and approved 7-4.

That is obviously down from 11-1. Is one to conclude that 3 people are opposed to STV being 1 bid month rather than up to 3?

FOR FUN ONLY -- I will throw some possible voting changes. One would expect that the MEC will give us the real reasons and names later (at their usual poorly communicated pace)- along with the text of the side letter.

10. I better look opposed to this thing somehow!

9. Nobody looks at the vote anyway.

8. I look independent.

7. DW looked at me funny.

6. I will have to do another hub turn meeting and stay up at night.

5. OR might be at the hub turn meeting.

4. BC will be ticked if we change anything.

3. Is hand up yea or nea?

2. I thought they were asking who had to go to the bathroom!

and the #1 reason
Inversing one month at a time might actually mean they get to me!!!


Ok, sorry. I will let Letterman do the top tens from now on.

jdec141

I think you hit the nail on the head here. BC continued to say that the LOA was not capable of being changed that was all we were gonna get. This makes him sound a little deceiving don't you think? I wonder what he thought of the housing he supposedly saw in hong kong from the airport terminal.

Busboy

Which BC is #4 referring to?

jdec141

the one that stood up in front of us and said "he/we saw the housing in Hong Kong" when he only checked it out in CAN according to EI's letter. And talked about how his 28 years with the company made him know better than the rest of us.

a300fr8dog

Which BC? Does it matter?

Busboy

I know which side, the one BC is on.

The other one....I think he means well. Just burned out. I hope.

a300fr8dog

hehe.
chuckle, chuckle.

Micro

I've read the FCIF, message lines and now the resolution (I haven't seen the wording the company supposedly sent the union). I think this move by the company is to try and insure the 50%+1 vote for this LOA after listening to all the negative feedback from the crewforce. While the MEC hasn't shared the reason for the now 7-4 vote I suspect that it has to do with the wording that if we accept the one bid period, then no other changes can be made to this LOA. This wording is unacceptable!!! If we agree to this it can never go back to the table to be reworked and fixed. It doesn't mention a timeframe it says no other changes period. I can't believe the MEC passed this along also. I hope they tell us why the 4 NO votes. I'm still voting NO!

fdxflyer

i agree micro - just trying to have some fun with it.
this loa stinks regardless of stv.

Micro

I really think you should try out for letterman's job......nah, better keep your night job