Originally Posted by
D Mantooth
I was on the call as well. Your version of the events is incorrect. I don't have to prove it; I wasn't the one who made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
this was in response to your last post on this topic. Still valid.
Originally Posted by
Fly4hire
And you sir are perhaps having some selective and contextual memory lapses as well while still being factual
. To wit a conference call does not constitute a meeting for parliamentary process, and "direction" can only be given in a meeting. The majority "opinion" during the call was do not trade profit sharing for pay. Why was it done? Because the MEC Ch and Negs danced around "direction" - the Reps didn't direct them not to because they couldn't because it wasn't a meeting. I recall a special meeting was proposed over the issue and the admin was adamant it was not necessary - in retrospect likely because direction might have been given contrary to where they wanted to go with PS for pay.
76 seaters were in the discussion *after* the 717 proposal was pitched by the company. That was not in the beginning of negotiations.
Of course my memory might be faulty also
