Exactly why I proposed tightening the policy manual to require a pilot vote much more often. I'm at a Teamsters shop and I can tell you NOTHING changes our CBA without a pilot vote.

The ALPA and MEC argument has always been that if they're speaking with the company and something gets thrown in, that if the company had time to reflect upon, they would not do... if we had to wait for a pilot vote we'd never get those things. Basically it allows the chairman to take something that is a no brainer win. The problem at Envoy is it gets used way too much. By the time they get done doing one little LOA at a time, you end up with an entire CBA rewrite.
Further, it relies on clear language that the lawyers then mess up. The policy manual used to say (it may still I don't have a copy) that any significant change to compensation had to be a pilot vote. Well, when you try to argue with the MEC that this LOA or that LOA must go to a pilot vote... the lawyers quickly point out that the MEC decides what "significant" means.... then they point out that the MEC decides what "compensation" means....

Having worked under both systems now, I prefer the one that requires a full pilot vote for all CBA changes. They still can still do one time LOA's, but what gets waived is the 10-30 day posting period, the pilot vote still happens.

The one time when Envoy did screw up and the MEC should have taken the grab and run, they insisted upon a pilot vote, and the company smartened up and pulled the offer.

Now, I know many of the current MEC members and officers and I think you've got a really good crew in there for the most part. Even the very few I disagree with provide valuable discussion and alternate viewpoints.

I do think they should revisit that policy though.