Originally Posted by
iarapilot
Seems pretty elementary to me Watson. Put everything in writing via side letter or LOA or whatever. Simple enough. I would like to see some enforceable paperwork signed by our representatives and the Company. Aint that the way it is supposed to work?
If the MEC cant see how unilateral deals could, and will, lead to divide and conquer, they must be smoking crack or something! But, they have let it go on so far.
I'll agree. This should be in writing with the details worked out. However, I can still see the merits of an ability to work out solutions to unforeseen problems with the opening of new FDA's without the long drawn out LOA process. A side letter may be the solution for these "solved problems" vice just a FCIF.
Originally Posted by
Falconjet
If you were there then you voted against the motion, as I was only one who voted in favor. So it appears that you did say that we shouldn't go hardline, and the majority agreed. Fair enough.
All I wanted was for the LEC to recommend that the MEC reject the enhancement, to make the MEC aware that some of the membership has a problem with the company adding enhancements to the LOA during a bid. We couldn't even vote to let the MEC know that we have some concerns.
That is the problem with the process, we are so afraid of offending somebody that we won't even tell the king that his fly is open, let alone that he has no clothes.
I'll say this again. Rental deposits were asked for during the negotiation of the LOA. The company turned it down. This is not some "problem or issue" that popped up out of the blue that the company is stepping in to smooth over to allow the FDAs to function. Its not an administrative issue that couldn't have been foreseen.
FJ
I won't argue your point that the MEC/NC knew of this issue before they sent us this POS LOA. However, I was at the meeting, listened to ALL the discussion and comments, and agreed that at this time not to reject this enhancement. I may be totally screwed up with my view of this situation at this time (and my vote) but the majority of members who ALSO heard all the discussion voted the same way. You're wrong if you think the process is broken because we're afraid to OFFEND somebody. The process is broken because of the bylaws and how they say things must work, a totally outdated means of communication, and a meeting process that limits input to basically only LOCAL members.