Originally Posted by
FriendlyPilot
Are you insinuating that better negotiators would have been able to overcome the current financial situation of the company, high fuel prices, war in Europe and a potentially massive recession and got the company to just give us more stuff? And if we are able to get more in the future, how much more and how long and does it make up for what we would give up by voting this down?
I’m just trying to understand the logic behind no and how that helps us. I am as upset as you are because I had higher expectations, but I am also pragmatic and trying to make a financial decision and not an emotional one.
You're not pragmatic, you're suffering from full-blown Stockholm Syndrome!
I hate to tell you this, but negotiations are not entirely financial - there are literally humans sitting across from one another reading tells and bluffs while trying to gauge resolve. The membership can push the resolve piece back to the table with authority by providing the negotiating committee with a mandate. If the NC won't show resolve, the membership can do it for them.