Originally Posted by
gloopy
So what if we collectively vote no and the company says "OK, here's the exact same deal except the pay rates go up one penny." Do we then send almost the same thing back out for a vote? Keep in mind every time we send something for a vote, its months delay, road shows and having to start over when its rejected. In my hypothetical one penny example above, we would expect and demand that those unacceptable offers not be brought to a vote for obvious reasons.
We can't let the company control the process by forcing popular votes on anything on their terms. We need reps in there to say "no, that is not good enough" and by default that means there will be offers we never see. Otherwise its a blitzkrieg of unacceptable trial balloons until they wear us down, delay the game forever or lock us into a high water mark of never, ever getting more than 50%+1.
Hi Gloopy,
First paragraph makes sense, and I would add you're forgetting our own role in this. We'd have to negotiate a follow-on TA. The company doesn't just get to publish TA's if there is no agreement. Our side sets up ratification votes, not theirs. Which means there is no way in [deleted] we'd be able to poll the membership to determine exactly what else needs to be included. So it's pretty much just as the union said, the comapy said, and you proved: it's this track, or the other track. This is the best we could do in this track... so what do we want to do now?
We
do need reps that can send something unsatisfactory back. We had a vote. 14:5 thought we should see it over not see it. The 14 is just as suspect as the 5, BTW, and it tells you something about MEC politics, but I agree this TA doesn't need to be hidden.
But last week we were pounding our fists demanding to see thsi thing. I think there would have been mobs with pitchforks if we didn't get to vote on this. A lot of people will be publicly hostile to this TA, many privately on the fence.
But I doubt many people feel tat they shouldn't get this product to vote on.
We all just
wish it was better, but that's an entirely different matter.
I do think you'll agree with me that it will be important for the MEC to at least explain how/why they thought the TA is consistent with the survey. The no-voters say it isn't. Inasmuch as I don't normally value pro-con papers, I'd like some forensic work done on this thing pronto.