Tony:
Point 1 – Agree 100%
Point 2 – Agree that it was direct dealing. That's why I didn't bother reading it. I figured they can't direct deal with me if I ignore them. Same reason I didn't read any of the missives about PiBS that were posted on PFC, or any of Paul Cassell's ramblings. My Negotiating Committee speaks for me so I let them deal with all the company's garbage.
I agree also that the February 12, 2013, Negotiating Committee Update mentioned nothing about Section 25 SCHEDULING, and, in the context of Section 4 MINIMUM GUARANTEES AND OTHER PAY PROVISIONS, barely mentioned PIBS. However the December 26th, 2012 (the one two months earlier than the Feb 12, 2013 one) did mention the company's Section 25 proposal:
“Section 25 (Scheduling)
Opened by the Company in October 2012. The Company’s proposal focused on bringing preferential bidding to FedEx. We are currently working on our first counterproposal in Section 25. “
The first Neg Comm Update that I could find after Oct 2012 was the one I mentioned above from December. It mentioned PiBS and said we working on a counterprosal. No mention of things going great, the company being really open, or us working miracles that would be unimaginable in Section 6. If someone said that in a meeting or in another email I haven't found it yet but I'm still looking. Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, but it sounds like you believe the Neg Comm was misleading about when the Company proposed PiBS. “But wait, it's even worse than that. We've been led to believe that PIBS was part of The Company's Openers -- “. The update from Dec 2012 clearly states the company opened Section 25 in Oct 2012 (3 months before openers). Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
Now I wasn't in the room when the this Chap 25 proposal was given to our Negotiating team. As far as I know neither were you or any of the rest of us on this forum. I don't know what SL said to the company at the time. Maybe he did tell them it would never be ratified. Maybe he said nothing. I don't know how negotiations work. What I do know is that every comm I've read from our union since negotiations began is that PiBS is a non-starter and will not be considered for inclusion in any TA. If that's what my Negotiating Committee is saying to me, I can only assume that's what they're telling the company. At least I hope so.
I agree that setting up a Strike Center would make me feel better than bouncy houses and face painting. I agree informational picketing should have begun earlier. Do I think the company would be rushing to close this deal if we had a “real Strike Center”? I don't, unless it affected their bottom line $$. They know as well as anyone that the Feds will never let us strike as long as we're carrying US Postal freight. Again, I think informational picketing is a great way to build and show unity. Do I think the company would be rushing to close the deal if we'd began picketing a year ago? I don't, maybe you do. Doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. But I guess it would make us all feel better because our MEC would be doing something. “Perhaps the Negotiating Committee Chairman should have informed The Company right then and there that such a proposal could never be ratified by this pilot group, and warned them that including such a proposal in their openers would result in dire consequences.” What consequences are those? A Strike Center? Informational Picketing? Consequences yes, dire not so much IMO.
“I'll leave it to you to find the very first hint from the Negotiating Committee or the MEC Chairman that expressed dissatisfaction concerning either the pace or the content of our negotiations”
12/17/2013 Chairman's Update is the first one I could find . . .