Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Here's where you Moak disciples go off the rails. This "pattern of abuse" was obviously shown to the administration during negotiations. You guys accept it as fact and then offer fixes to management. I would have done the following:
1. Remind management that this is Section 6 negotiations
2. As such, your charts and data are meaningless BS
3. Remind management that the sick leave section you now hate was instituted at YOUR DEMAND during C2012
4. As such, we're not interested in changing something in which you've shown yourself to be so fickle
5. If it goes to the NMB, show the NMB point 3 and 4
6. If management tries to exhibit as evidence to the NMB increased sick leave usage to be abuse, show data on number of pilots terminated for sick leave abuse
NEXT!
Carl
Originally Posted by
RockyMtMadDog
While#6 may have some limited merit, #1-#5 may be the most ridiculous logic path I have seen, especially #1 and #2, which can be summarized as "When you are shown the facts, tell them that facts don't matter." And #5 assumes that the NMB gives a damn about #3 and #4. Other than that . . .
Again, totally off the rails. You do NOT bring facts figures and graphs to negotiations. Period. If you do that you're the loser because you're showing the weakness of your position. You exchange opening positions and then work hard to see if you can agree on anything. If you can't, the NMB comes in. If they think one side is being unreasonable, they may ask for data to support the unreasonable position. That's the only time supporting data comes into play. If at that point the company tried to show sick leave abuse data, we would simply show the NMB the number of pilots terminated for sick leave abuse.
This is how negotiations should go. But under the Moak doctrine, we use company supplied data to empathize with management, instead of telling them to stick their "data" back in their briefcases. We look terribly weak and amateurish. Hopefully we can have grown ups in negotiations this time.
Carl