Originally Posted by
FXLAX
... MEC reps probably are in constant communication with the NC, which includes the MEC chairman for the purposes of information. So the reps’ communication with the MEC chairman would also inform the reps in current direction of negotiations. Meaning that there is probably a lot of information flowing amongst the reps, MEC chairman, and the NC in order to get a pulse of the matter and decide to do go in a new direction.
The MEC was informed about the outcome of the 1 Sep negotiations session (no TA) and the decision to add more meeting dates at the same time and by the same method as the membership, that is by reading the update published 2 days later. There were not 15 individual conversations between the reps and the MEC Chair or the NC Chair, nor was there a single conference call or meeting for them to be informed and choose the next steps. They read about it exactly the same way all of us read about it.
Originally Posted by
FXLAX
All to say that the characterization that they are passive observers is almost impossible to believe.
Even though you don't believe it is so, it seems we both agree it would be bad.
.