yeah, I read this (and other talking points like it) and tried to reduce it to it's logic. I will admit I was biased by the tone right from the beginning and tried to overcome it, but for me at least I hope that my knowledge of my bias helps keep the analysis ok.

My summary of their main gripe: Some groups disproportionally receive higher MPG initially than others, but are upset that they will receive disproportionally higher recovery margins in the future. They tried to dress this up as an atrocity.

There's more to it, but if this was part of an official dissent from C12 with names attached, I'd be way more inclined to summarize my thoughts. Instead it's got too much emotion and push than I want to spend my time reading. Sign your name or even your Avatar (that you've been using for years even if you don't post much).

I'll read anything logical, non-emotional, without agenda as much as possible, and respectful if it's not from the union reps and will gladly read any C-12/C-11 dissenting response. There's just too much agenda and half truths in so many posts being thrown around, and for my part.

Plus, no matter what, when you tell the junior group that it's actually good for them to be furloughed, it's like a rapist telling a girl she really enjoyed it. One part or not, I'd never read from this author again if they had decided to sign their name. They don't deserve that kind of attitude from their brothers.