Originally Posted by
tsquare
You picked apart my scenario wrt to it being iron clad or not, when I was trying to make a general point.
I didn't do that to mischaracterize anything you said, because I understood you were making a general point. My response is also generally based on two principles: First is that anytime we agree to more outsourcing (no matter what the quid), we set a terrible legal precedent if/when we have to fight management in arbitration when they go after our language. Second is that management can't be trusted to maintain whatever quid we get for allowing more outsourcing.
Originally Posted by
tsquare
Sure my outline has holes in it, but I am saying that if we conceded a small point (i.e. allowing some of the 76 seaters to go to 80 seats) while simultaneously reducing the overall number allowed, I see that as a win.
I understand that t, I really do. The problem is that when it comes to scope, there is no such thing as a "small point" to concede. Scope is not like any other section where I could agree with your thesis. Allowing more outsourcing has had terrible ramifications for us...most of them NOT predicted by our bargaining agent or many of the rank and file.
Originally Posted by
tsquare
But again, the mantra of "not one more seat, one more pound.." looks good on paper, but really paints us in a corner.
If we achieve what you call a mantra, it's a loss. We have to REVERSE the outsourcing of our jobs. Even if it's a small reversal with a clear path to more reversing, we have to reverse the trajectory. Doing anything else is what will (and has) painted us into a corner.
Carl