Originally Posted by
CheapTrick
Incedulous, credibility suffering, duplicitous, et al. I get it. You didn't care for my opinion. And you think I'm carrying water for the company or DALPA or someone. In truth, none of that is close to true. I thought it was super strange that RA mention FO's staying home as an area the company wanted reflief from. How would he know or care about that? He knew that the contract was going to be asked about in Q and A - and he chose to mention that. I don't see it as "off the cuff". I truly don't get that. And because the thread was wading around in this area - I commented. Sorry you don't like my perspective.
We actually agree on sick leave.
Let's set Sick aside. Both issues really are best served by the negotiators doing their thing, but I'm OK to leave Sick where it is. If they find a solution that targets egregious behavior, then they find one.
As far as the other issue, my beef was with the fact you're constantly pushing this issue to the forefront, alone. Which made me think "LCA completely going off the reservation", and overplaying his hand. I hadn't considered something else, like perhaps In-Command, so maybe you were innocently taken aback, and you're just sincerely sounding the alarm. Over and over.
That still doesn't explain the downplaying of the negatives, or the strange defeatism over the outcome, just because RA "mentioned it". The company would prefer less inefficiencies: we all understand that. We prefer advancement and money. They understand that. How about we just let the negotiators negotiate, and not get our unmentionables in a wad over "things RA has mentioned" in some undefined context?