Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Not when it comes to the corruption of our governance Shiznit. That needs to turn outwards toward the members that can make the appropriate changes. .....This is exactly what's happening in our MEC administration. Our reps are letting us know. A very good thing.
Wrong, flat out wrong. They don't even admit as much in the op-ed. they use words like "for whatever reason" and "seems". No mention of any "corruption of governance" or like statements. There is a clear mechanism to remedy corruption, and there is a ethical and legal responsibility to take appropriate action to address such activity. Sending an op-ed that throws your NC and MEC under the bus doesn't fit that bill.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Showing a united face to management that we're happy with concessions does EVERYTHING to get us a PWA with concessions. That's the point shiznit.
Not at all, no one is happy with concessions. Undermining the negotiators doesn't help undo concessions.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
It is the ONLY thing that will get us more money and more time off. This is throwing a huge wrench into the gears of a union relationship that RA was certain he had in the bag. RA and Campbell are extremely unhappy about this.
This is the best possible thing for Delta pilots.
Carl
It's not the ONLY thing, and save the pilot anger for when it can be leveraged.. The AA pilots were disgruntled all the time and the media, stock market, their own management just ignored them because it was part of the everyday existence. The leverage that the Delta pilots get to exert is that Richard has said "labor risk is off the table", remember? The ability to promise labor risk is a tool for the MEC and NC to use, but they don't get multiple shots once unleashed. It's use should be strategically placed on the table when needed, not thrown around by some local council missive and flushed down the drain.
The timing of it definitely couldn't be worse, right before direct negotiations enter the compensation discussions. If the opposition (management) already knows you are against whatever the NC brings forward, why bother offering anything? When in a business deal, there has to be an expectation that a deal can be reached. Walking in and saying, "No, I won't agree to or listen to anything you say" is not rational or reasonable.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
With you shiznit, it's hard to know whether you really believe anything this naive or whether you're just carrying the water for the MEC administration...again.
Not naive, just willing to let the guys who helped pave the way for C2K do their thing now that it's their turn.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
There is absolutely zero chance that our negotiators are trying to go above our survey demands. None.
To use a "Carlism":
You have no way of knowing that. None. You're just a line pilot like the rest of us.
Oddly enough I agree and it applies to you too!
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Translation: Profit sharing is bad and risky. We need to give it up for higher pay rates.
Translation: Profit sharing is bad and Completely wrong. The worst thing we could possibly show is a unified face of willingness to accept whatever we're told to accept by our unelected bureaucrats. When we show the face of refusal like we're showing now, that disorients management. That concerns them because labor risk was supposed to be completely off the table.
You are so bad at translation Carl. You don't have that right with me.
I think we have an absolutely spectacularly successful PS plan. (hatched and negotiated by the oft reviled Moak, O'Malley, Pinho, etc.) All it shows is that "winding the clock" isn't as economically advantageous as it may seem on the surface.
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Except I'm the one working hard to undermine that effort shiznit. I need to rethink what I'm doing here. Fast.
Carl
fyp