Originally Posted by
copycopy
You know just as well as anybody that the 50% language was incredibly soft and was unlikely to happen. This was negotiated during your time, wasn’t it? Or did you not join the MEC until after 15-01? I can’t remember exactly when your chicanery began, but you know, very well, why that 50% was dubious. What was the point of the 25 language, then? Walk me through the logic of that language being in there at all if the 50% was controlling. I’ll wait.
Check your PM.
Yes, the 50% was the intent. The 25 was like a shock absorber to let them adjust hiring/training to keep pace with AA demand and attrition. It wasn’t dubious, the 50% had already been arbitrated from an earlier flow agreement. If the intent was to send 25, they’d have written 25 and never mentioned 50% of all new hire positions.
There are other reasons the language is as it is, but that internal stuff doesn’t belong on the message board. Especially when litigation may be possible.
If it helps, I voted against the wording language for exactly the reasons that have come to fruition. I said then that they wouldn’t honor the 50% and would only send the 25. After much debate, and assurances from legal, the few of us were outvoted and that’s the language you got.