Originally Posted by
kwri10s
This section with Mr Reardon is where I cannot for the life of me follow where he got from point A to point B. I understand the simple math he is using to get to his solution, but I don't think he is either explaining this correctly or there's a huge leap of faith somewhere.
Wow! So the guy from Cheiron, who the union pays monthly, and has spent close to a million dollars of our union dues can't explain the plan they are trying to negotiate correctly?
If you really believe that, or think that there is a huge leap of faith involved, is this really a plan that you want.
It makes sense though, we pay lawyers who can't create language to protect first class deadhead banks or define "known R days."
I think it speaks volumes that the company is willing to listen to this outside of section 6 when the last contract took 4 years to negotiate. 2 years of good faith meetings under the bridge contract and a little over 2 years after that until a TA. 4 years to get us to give up items for a less than 3% a year pay raise. They must be laughing all the way to the board room.