Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
Okay. To sum up your argument. It's all about leverage. Past precedent, doing the right thing, valuing employees as an asset rather than just a cost item to be minimized... those are all things that are irrelevant. It's ALL about the leverage.
Sorry... I don't mean to be dense, but I don't understand how you could see it that way. You're a big supporter of the way DALPA has handled things the past 10 years, right? In other words, you're a big supporter of proactive engagement. The premise of proactive engagement is a good, respectful, working relationship between labor and management. So.... if we have this good, respectful, working relationship then why would it be that the only way we can get anything is by using leverage against management? Leverage is something you use against an adversary. The very definition of proactive engagement is non-confrontational... the opposite of adversarial.
The way I see things is that proactive engagement is exactly the way things should work. But in order to have true proactive engagement, both parties have to demonstrate respect to each other. It can't be a one-way street. It has to be mutually respectful. We're currently being compensated at a level comparable to the way we were being compensated after we were strong-armed with the threat of bankruptcy into a 32.5% pay cut. I just don't see that as being respectful of us in any way.
So, yeah. If we have a confrontational relationship with management... if management is the enemy, then your leverage idea is pretty much all there can be to it. But if we have proactive engagement (real proactive engagement, not window dressing) in a mutually respectful partnership with our management... it sure seems to me like there's a lot more to it than just leverage.
You can't have it both ways, Oberon... so which is it?
And I still think you're confusing objective with techniques. Leverage is one technique that can be used to achieve an objective. It's not an objective in and of itself. But if you don't have a clearly defined objective, then you don't know what technique is appropriate to be used. What do you think DALPA's objective should be? (Be sure and show your work.)
Leverage is not the same thing as a threat. Leverage is a general term to describe ways to extract what you want. A strike vote is an example of a threat which is also leverage. Presenting financial information to support your opener is leverage without a threat.
I wouldn't say I'm a "big supporter" of the way DALPA has operated in the past decade. I thought it was pretty crappy that they threw Compass out of the MEC while claiming we would somehow be better on our own.
It's too late to write any more...