View Single Post
Old 04-15-2012 | 11:21 AM
  #95767  
76drvr
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
This is a great illustration of what I also discussed with these three reps. After they gave me their current positions on how they would vote for a TA that contained such provisions, I asked them about how they would handle the pressure from the MEC administrators if they voted NO. They each relayed specific and personal examples of it in their careers in DALPA. One was exactly what 76drvr states here. It was: "If you vote NO on this, you'll be showing disunity amongst the MEC and that will damage us in the eyes of management. They will exploit any weakness that is perceived amongst the MEC. Plus, how can you turn your back on the negotiators after you voted each and every one of them in?" The MEC bureaucrats and 76drvr believe that a rep must back the negotiators.

Another example was one of having the "big arm" put around you. Example: LEC rep of a small base that is constantly under threat of being closed is told, "Don't worry man. Show us some unity here on the MEC and we'll make sure your guys (and you) are well taken care of when the company decides to pull the trigger and close your base." This rep told me that he replied: "I'll demand you do everything for my guys regardless of how I vote on anything."

Sorry for being too wordy, but it's just so illustrative of the different pressures our LEC reps are under. They have the pressure from us members, then there's the pressure from the MEC bureaucrats as so well stated by 76drvr.

Carl
Carl, that's a lot of conspiracy theorizing. It's really quite simple. Some reps made a big fuss about their desire not to have a negotiator election. They were on the forum and in their own council communiques politicking against having a negotiator election. That wasn't the administration, that was a few councils. They wanted these guys bad and vouched for them. They even called for a special MEC meeting, which we all had to pay for, in order to thwart any attempt to hold elections. It's really just a side bar issue. I'm curious to see if the same reps who vouched for our negotiators will support what the negotiators produce.