pinseeker

And that is the problem!!!

There is no "sort of agreeing." The MEC reps are the only individuals who are elected by the membership. The MEC reps are suppose to represent their blocks. If there is overwhelming support for a position, that rep should support that position regardless of how they feel. This idea that the rep knows what is best and can do whatever they want is one of the problems. This is only further perpetuated by the difficulty in getting a recall on the ballot. Once elected, whether it be by 100 votes or 600 votes, it is almost impossible to recall a rep who isn't doing their job.

The second problem is this idea that the MEC officers, MEC reps, and NC chairman must agree. The MEC sets our goals and positions. It is the job of the MEC chairman to guide the different committees to accomplish those goals and to lead the pilot group in supporting those goals. The NC chairman is charged with negotiating those goals. Whether the MEC votes 15-0 for a position or 8-7 for a position, it is the duty of the MEC chair to follow that position and the job of the NC chairman to negotiate that position to the best of their ability, PERIOD!!! It is not the job of the NC chairman to set goals or tell the MEC what they will support when it comes to negotiations. Either the NC chairman attempts to accomplish the stated goals of the MEC or they don't. If that individual doesn't agree with the MEC, then they can either get on board, or they can resign or be fired.

Right now, we have the NC chairman with his hand on the rudder, telling the MEC where they want to go. The MEC is complicit, willing to allow this to happen and unwilling to ask a plain and simple question, how do the members want us to improve retirement? Yes, there are a lot of opinions on that topic, but shouldn't the majority rule? If there is no majority, then it is the duty of the MEC and MEC chairman to lead us down the path they think is best, telling us what they are doing and why they think that is best, not giving the NC chairman carte blanche to do as they please on a subject. Presently, we have an MEC that is hiding behind executive session and NDA's. They won't answer questions about retirement, yet can laud the new ability to sell back all of your vacation. This, at a time when it seems the company can't hire pilots fast enough. So, what is more expensive to the company, buying back vacation, or hiring another pilot to fill the gap? That new pilot gets vacation, retirement, health care, and sick time and is another cost for the company while that pilot that they bought all of the vacation from doesn't incur any additional benefit costs, those are already set. This isn't a cost neutral benefit for the company, this is a cost savings for the company that is being sold as an improvement for us, you can work more at straight time and collect your money at the end of the year.

So, to wrap this up, Tuck, I don't think it is the system that is the problem, I think that it's that the system isn't being run as intended. The tail is wagging the dog.