Ditto. We get out smarted and out lawyered time and time again. We also have negotiators who typically start on the SIG, get used to hearing this, that or the other thing is too hard and regularly accommodating the company's "no" month after month. They bring this Stockholm syndrome to the negotiating table and here we are.
If the company is looking for ways to reduce or alleviate their pension funding responsibilities with regards to our A-plan and they succeed, we will lose. It's that simple.
We can't even enforce our current contract. There are provisions that are still not implemented 21 months after signing. Anyone had vacation with a secondary recently? We're supposed to be able to choose how many vacation hours we're paid for in our secondary. Still not implemented. Hmm....looking at the implementation schedule, it says the DEADLINES for all 4 phases are past. Aren't "deadlines" kind of inflexible by definition? These particular items are listed as "On track". Really? How accommodating of us.
I'm sure it's "programming difficulties". Computer stuff is hard.
So... if I show 4 hours late for my next trip, can I just claim that I'm "on track" because commuting is hard?.......... didn't think so.
We can't enforce what we've already agreed to with the company. We balk constantly on holding their feet to the fire and winning (or even initiating) grievances. But somehow we think we're going to improve our retirement outside of section 6 negotiations when the company's goal appears to be relieving themselves of funding what we already have in place. Oh yeah.... I'm sure this is going to work out perfectly.
