Originally Posted by
orvil
In my opinion, this was another problem with CDO's. What happens with one when no one wants it? It goes to a reserve. It's not right to dump this on a reserve who has no say about it. For some of us, reserve is not a choice.
I'm still a strong no. If a reserve can refuse the assignment with no penalty, that would be an improvement.
I spoke with a LEC rep, not mine. He said that the reason the CDO question was even on the survey was to mollify a small, vocal group that was in favor of them. DALPA was hoping for a strong no response. If the got they got a strong no response, they could tell the vocal group to pound sand. He said the Company didn't want them, but would take them it they could get them.
I told the rep that we had already risen up and spoken against them with a roar. If this information is true, this minority lobbying for CDO's needs to go away.
You might want to question this Reps motives. This MEC works on majority rule. The minority has been reminded numerous times if they want their position to prevail to convince and win consensus, or otherwise respect the will of the majority.
Now suddenly the majority decides to mollify the minority by putting a controversial issue in the survey? Doesn't pass the sniff test. Sounds more like scapegoating someone else's position.
I have a copy of an email from a C20 member to the MEC Chair over the original CDO language and the Chairman's response that it did not originate with C20, yet now it's in the survey because of a noisy minority?
Here's a clue - it likely was a noisy minority - of appointed long time Moak associates who still work in the inner circle of the MEC who don't need no stinkin' Democracy. Clearly not the will of elected voting majority, or minority.
One of the anointed will be in DTW tomorrow for the C2015 roadshows maybe someone should ask him and the Chairman, and one of the negotiators directly and publicly how the language needed up in the survey.
Maybe they were just honoring the will of the Company?