Originally Posted by
HIFLYR
I agree except for the last statement. A LOA is vetted by vote just like the contract and this would be the only issue to look at and that provides limited distractions. I however do not believe there is any incentive for the company to do anything.
I voted no for the current contract since retirement was not enhanced and there were virtually no fixes to the scheduling part of the contract.
I am willing to listen to the MEC and see what FACTS they have and how it effect us, knowing in the end I have a vote.
Funny many on here voted for the current contract because healthcare cost really do not matter to them, they have tricare. Also, retirement was ok since they had earned one elsewhere. Believe me they earned both of the above and deserve it!!!!
They are now however railing about people who have 25 yrs and a high five and might be looking for enhancements. In the end this should have been fixed before a contract was ratified.
Don't you think negotiation outside of the normal contract gives up a tremendous amount of leverage and makes our negotiating position extremely weak?
The bargain being struck here must be one where the company sees a benefit to agreeing solely in the merits of the proposal. Side letters are supposed to be to remedy unforeseen changes that fall out of the scope of the current contract.
As one brother to another you're accepting a poor precedent that I truly don't believe is in our interests.
This is the proverbial camels nose getting into the tent. Best believe the rest of the camel will follow behind shortly.