Originally Posted by beernutt

At the risk of this being labeled a ‘rant’, I’ll give my opinion.

Years ago, when SILs were historically 55 hours, the company proposed they be reduced to 40 hours. The company informed our MEC scheduling chairman of this. He proceeded to tell the MEC chairman this, as was his duty - ‘the scheduling committee chairman ‘acts at the direction of the MEC’. No direction was given. The MEC chairman did nothing, and made no attempt to renegotiate the amount. When the information was made public some time later it caused an uproar, and the MEC chairman, desperate to deflect the criticism of inaction, promptly fired the scheduling chairman, ie shot the messenger. This behavior caused a mass walkout by some 12 SMEs, and a lot of red faces in the MEC.
Fast forward to the VB debacle. These were pulled down by the Association, some say punitively, in retaliation for the SIL embarrassment.

We arrive at the latest SIL deal/no deal, withdrawn by the company, I believe punitively, for actions by the MEC including the VB pulldown.

Neither side is innocent, but I believe our Association fired the first shot, and has since maintained a confrontational, pugnacious and largely ineffectual stance, discouraging the company from attempting any dialog. Our MEC chooses to produce newsletters bemoaning the lack of cooperation by the company in lieu of getting results.

You asked how I think the company handled it. I think they handled it badly, stooping to the tit-for-tat pettiness that is the hallmark of this MEC administration. They’re better than that (and we are too) and I was and am disappointed.
My opinion, however the lack of progress is a fact.