Another must read
Ron Morrell—Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective
Just as a reminder, when elected in October 2010 to serve as the secretary-treasurer for the Seattle pilots, I specifically told the pilots who nominated me that I would be their voice, regardless of the fact that I did not have a vote within this body. I also stated that I would give you my honest perspective on the actions of the MEC and my opinion of how they were representing the will of the pilots. Even though I did not have a vote in whether or not this TA would be sent to the pilots for ratification, I attended every meeting, was involved in every MEC-level conversation, and was not shy about making my opinion known. This is my perspective of where we are and how we got here. I will also give you the reasons behind why I will vote no on this TA.
Where are we?
Everyone has had the opportunity to see the e-mails from the chairman and the negotiators. There will be plenty more communication pieces from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I recommend you read all of them! Just keep in mind that these communications come from the MEC Administration and the negotiators that brought this TA to the MEC with an enthusiastic “. . . fulfilled the fundamental aspirations of the 12,000 Delta line pilots that we represent.” I have no problem with them touting the accomplishments of an unprecedented early TA. I also understand the contention that this is the best deal management would give us from those who negotiated the transaction. No negotiators I have ever met would ever tell their constituents that the “best deal possible” may be improved if you say no! Our negotiators and the MEC Administration are fully invested in the agreement they brought to the MEC for consideration. You also need to consider that there are many members of the MEC that stated during deliberations that this agreement must stand on its own without any “selling” to the pilots . . . it should stand on its own! This will be a difficult standard to meet when the MEC Administration and the negotiators have staked their reputations and credibility on their statement that this was the best deal they could bring to the MEC! I hope there is no “selling” involved.
The rest of “where are we,” has to do with the guts of this agreement. This would be a long soliloquy if I went line-by-line or section-by-section, so I will let you judge for yourself. You will be given all that is fit to print by the MEC Administration and the negotiators. After reading this TA and listening to the negotiators and the other “experts” that were involved, I consider this agreement an improvement over our present contract. But, the MEC was not tasked with bringing you “an improvement;” they are tasked with bringing you the best agreement. My conclusion is that the present opportunity, as directed by management, should have resulted in a much better agreement. You must make your own decision by comparing what you put in the contract survey with the results! We are not in bankruptcy or the middle of a merger which each has their own unique time pressures; the only time pressure we have now is the one artificially created by management. It is a fact that, in accordance with the pilot survey, e-mails, phone calls, and other input I have received, the direction of the pilots’ number-one priority was NOT met! I could have felt comfortable supporting this agreement if even 80 percent of the number-one concern and request of our pilots was met! This was not the case.
How did we get here?This past January, the MEC was floated a huge “trial balloon” concerning a business plan direction that the management team wanted to pursue. The MEC, in conjunction with the MEC Administration and the Negotiating Committee developed an opening position based on a full Section 6 contract opener with the intention to extract the best, most comprehensive and expedited agreement possible. Two months later, the MEC was handed a TA. Unfortunately for me, something is missing.
At this point, I believe the pilots must vote based on the content of the TA as you see it. There are no other alternatives except yes or no. I consider this a mistake due to the fact that the MEC was not given the opportunity to give further direction to the negotiators before they made a final decision. With the support of the MEC Administration, the negotiators announced a Tentative Agreement without meeting the direction of the MEC on the number-one priority, as stated by our pilots. The MEC had only one meeting and two conference calls during the duration of this negotiation. Conference calls are not official MEC meetings, and thus the MEC members are not in a position to give official direction to the MEC Administration or to the negotiators. There was never any request for further direction.
To quote our MEC chairman, who also stated that he was in full support of this agreement, “The TA should not be judged compared to the pilots’ aspirations as reflected in the contract survey . . . there is no context to their wishes.” I found this rather pretentious and out of touch with the direction that our pilots gave to our MEC. To be fair, the negotiators and the MEC Administration who declared to the MEC that this was the best deal possible must defend their decision—that is their only political choice. I have already heard a common phrase bantered about, which is used by some to justify just this type of situation, “I voted yes in order to let the pilots have a chance to vote on this agreement.” The problem with this is that your representatives were not elected to “pass the buck;” they are supposed to do the job of representing your direction and to get you the best possible agreement, then vote to send the agreement to you. I consider that statement a copout from those looking for political cover.
My final synopsis: I want our pilots to have the best possible background in order to consider this TA in context. The pilots gave the MEC their direction through a comprehensive survey, e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face discussions; the MEC gave the negotiators their direction; and the TA does not meet these directions (with no convening redirection requested). After careful consideration, I would have voted against sending this TA to the pilots; I do not believe it meets the direction that the pilots gave us, nor do I believe it is the best product in this negotiating environment. I will back up that opinion by voting no when the polls open.
Epilogue
You and I will be receiving a great deal of information from the MEC Administration and the negotiators over the next 40 days. I encourage you to read, listen, and attend a road show if possible. Keep an open mind and create your own balance sheet to help you decide which way to vote. Remember, a vote against this TA will create a delay but the risk may be worth the reward. You will see very little “balanced” information that points out the downsides to the agreement or possible alternate paths if this is voted down. You will only hear about worst case scenarios. You need to ask yourself a pertinent question—does the management team want a long summer with an open contract and the financial uncertainty it creates over the next year when they are looking to “leap ahead of the competition”? Maybe the worst case scenario of three years of wrangling is not in their best interests.
I look forward to talking to as many of you as possible in the SEATAC pilot lounge over the next weeks. Feel free to call me for more in depth discussions. Whatever your decision—vote!
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 05-25-2012 at 08:22 PM.
Reason: Big font makes you look like you have to yell to get your point across. Not a good start.