Originally Posted by
PeezDog
Wow Nevets, I'm am speechless and out of patience trying to explain this to you. Now I know how our union guys feel working with you guys. I keep telling you what my objections are to your idea, then you repeat yourself and ask me what's the problem. You're nuts man
You tell me you object but done give a reason other than you don't want it or you say that it's obvious.
Originally Posted by
AtlCSIP
Nevets,
I believe the reason most of us keep "beating this dead horse" is because we want to pas a reasonable contract that is better for us now, as well as those coming after us. Anything that supports a continued lack of unity, such as separate PBS, is not better for us. Also, we don't want Management to agree to an unrealistic contract now as the beginning point for a bankruptcy filing, which will end up worse for everybody. Also, eliminating certain things in the current contracts and gaining other things in a unified contract is not concession, it is compromise through negotiation. Regardless of the changes if the vast majority of pilots are better compensated and have a better quality of life after the signing of any new contract it isn't concession; it's compromise. Most people here, according to my interpretation of their responses, don't believe you are open to compromise, which is why your argument breaks down. We are not going to get everything good in both existing contracts, so let's figure out the most important things and stand firm there, then make everything else as good as we can get it for now.
You keep beating this dead horse PBS issue all out of the blue though. This conversation had died a few times on this thread and it's always you guys coming back with your club.
But at least you make your points clear. The problem, as I see it, is that you want a reasonable contract. So do we, but we believe that a reasonable contract doesn't include concessions. We don't believe either pilot group should take concessions. And I wholeheartedly agree that the majority of pilots should be better compensated and better QOL. Wit that in mind and the fact that the majority of pilots operate on the better compensated and QOL contract, then we shouldn't settle for less than what's going to make the majority of pilots pay and QOL better. I don't agree that the majority of pilots should lose pay and or QOL in order to complete the merger because you think we can't do any better. After the TA failed, management said that they are no longer asking for concessions. And just two days ago, they said that the last TA was unrealistic. Now we see that MULTIPLE regionals are offering more money and QOL improvements. The tide is turning in our favor so don't sell us short. Admittedly, I would rather stay separate if the alternatives means concessions.
Also, don't do management's job for them. It's not up to us to tell management to not agree to a contract because we think it's going to cause a bankruptcy. This is another thing we take issue with. It's smells of Stockholm syndrome. Skywest inc pays MILLIONS to F&H to advice them on this. So just stop acting like we need to worry about that already.
Lastly, I honestly don't see disunity in having two separate bidding systems. We already have three separate bidding systems in the erj side and there is no disunity. Also, after integration, pilots will be able to bid to different aircraft regardless. I don't believe that this unity issue is the reason why you are fighting the PBS process agreement.
Originally Posted by
PeezDog
I'll agree that we'll agree to disagree lol. If you don't see the problem with having separate contracts in the new contact after its been explained over and over here, then you guys will never understand it. We shall see what is proposed and go from there.
I'm not talking about separate contracts. I'm talking about neither pilot group having to concede what they currently have while having a process where the erj pilots have the opportunity to try their bidding system while the CRJ side keeps theirs for the duration of the JCBA. Seems simple so what's the problem with that, especially since your MEC had already previously agreed to such an arrangement on bidding systems?