Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck
- Big push was that MEC cannot and does not selectively represent its membership. It must represent all. They will not cave to "mob rule" regardless of any poll outcomes. Giving an inch on seniority will hurt future negotiations. Union has potential to let this turn into big battle that will hurt us in future negotiations.

- Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation. Question was asked if MEC has considered any adjustments to potential loss of FO earnings/seniority/etc. Although some loss is probably guaranteed, DW refused to predict anything since there are so many unknowns and they defintely are not considering any present or future changes to help mitigate losses to junior members as this was/is an "external event".

Originally Posted by Gunter.
The statements above appear to be contradictions. When an issue is supported that is great for retirees or the most senior dudes (at the expense of junior dudes and their "peripheral" issues), they cry we must support all in the union. This is not the first time this has happened.

I have to agree - I remember a few months back when "the needs of the many didn't outweigh the needs of the few" when about 130 junior S/Os didn't get the union to go to bat for them (in fact rolled over) for passover pay, even when it seemed that was the right thing to do. As much as I would like to believe DW, and I agree that we need to be unified, I still remember...