Originally Posted by
13n144e
Unfortunately for Dexim, yourself, and that segment of L-UAL pilots you speak of, Pierce is not the UAL MEC Chairman. You don't get a vote. Whether you like his methods or not, it is certain he is looking out for his constituency - and that doesn't include you or Dexim. We get it - you hate Pierce. Heard about absolutely nothing else on this forum for the last month. But all of Dexim's irate little tantrums won't change a thing and after a while only serve to create further division. Kinda like a lot of things involved with this merger, Pierce is not going away and ultimately your just going to have to live with that. Cue Dexim with some sort of irrelevant, incoherent nonsense...
Wow. Your post is really telling.
Earlier in this thread (and others) there was the fact posted that the UAL MEC, after threats from CALMEC members to firebomb the JCBA, decided that it would BENEFICIAL to the JCBA process to agree to the pay banding.
As I understand, the UA pilots wanted and were working toward getting rid of their pay banding under their own section 6 negotiations.
So, correct me if I'm wrong. The UA MEC COULD HAVE said NO, not now not ever, to pay banding. Where would you all be right now then? Would that disagreement STILL be at a standstill? How many more months would the JCBA process be delayed and thus do you think you would have gotten your PS right now if this hadn't been resolved when it was?
And for their trouble (caving on the pay banding) what did the UA MEC/Pilots get in return?
-No signed letter from CAL MEC that the JCBA (PAYBANDING) would not be introduced in the SLI
-CAL MEC requesting UA W-2's (ostensibly for SLI purposes)
-pierce siding with Mgmt on the SOC training issue.
Seems atrociously obvious (by anyone who has followed these threads) from your post, that you (and most likely the majority of your whole group?) are takers and not team players. Sorry, my observation.
Then, you have the unmitigated audacity to accuse someone who makes these points of "creating further division"?
I am truly speechless.
There is no conceivable way for both parties involved in this type of process to get everything they want. There has to be give and take to accomplish the final goal which ultimately benefits EVERYONE. Again, my apologies, but I haven't seen what the CAL side acquiesced on to further the process.
Please, convince me how my conclusions are wrong and unfair.