Originally Posted by
MaydayMark
DLax85,
Although I generally agree with your confrontational approach with the company, I'm pretty good at reading between the lines when it comes to the NC saying one thing (because they are legally required to) but really wanting us to do another thing ...
The NC and the MEC have said that they believe that if this LOA is voted down, that the company will:
a. Open the FDA in accordance with section 6 of the CBA
b. Put out a bid and include with it the terms of the LOA. in fact, BC said he wished the company had done that because he thinks we have bigger fish to fry (i.e. the condition of the latest bid pack lines) and are wasting major resources dealing with the LOA.
c. It is obvious that BC is taking criticism about the LOA VERY PERSONALLY. IF he really wanted it to be voted down, I don't believe he would be as invested in this thing as he is.
My experience with this company is that they make a weak offer to the union in hopes that we'll bite (read: Postal Contract LOA). If we don't, they've already planned a way to accomplish what they need in accordance with the CBA. Even if it costs them significanly more that the LOA would have!
I believe that is the case here ... don't get me wrong, I believe that this LOA is hugely inadequate. I'm just not so sure that the company will come crawling back with a better offer? I hope I'm wrong. I'm still voting NO!
Regards,
Mark
I hope would hope my approach is not considered "confrontational" --- rather part of the accepted process by which we come to agreement on work rules/compensation etc.
I also hope BC doesn't take things personally --- need alot thicker skin when you are in such a difficult leadership role.
I am also a bit dismayed with all the talk of "last offer'..."no more money"...."no bid until LOA"....this is all "brinksmanship" --- not negogiations.
We can wait a few weeks/months to sit back down an negogiate a "silver" or "bronze" LOA --- in fact, the timeline is actually in our favor --- not the companies, who are retrofitting 757s with cargo doors as we speak.
Also, please educate me on the ramifications of the Union saying "NO" to the Postal LOA.
It's my understanding that LOA was "concessionary" (i.e. FEDEX wanted 2-3 less "min days off" per month), and when the union said "No" they were forced to ask for "volunteers" and "draft" to cover the manning shortfall (...and of course, eventually hire more pilots).
Yes, in the end the some pilots got more $$ by flying extra hours of volunteer and draft, while others didn't --- but all had an equal chance and no-one was non-vol'd to fly.
The company can certainly continue SIBA in CDG and open SIBA in HKG, but that is exactly what they are already trying to avoid.
The bean counters know they can afford to sweeten this deal a bit and we need to politely ask them to come back to the table to address some of the inadequacies of this particular LOA.