Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
We were right. Why did we concede?
Where in that comm is the fact that ALL Scheduling Chairman, ALL MEC Chairman and ALL Negotiating Committee Chairmen and even the company initially agreed that this was an abuse of 23 M. 7.?
Have you seen the current scheduling committee chairman say it was a violation? His name was not on the original letter.
Also, not saying I agree, but the company would probably differentiate the original mass 23.M.7. event from the more “ad-hoc” usage they have had recently.