Originally Posted by
Cyio
There is a history of the minority being wrong as well. We can go round and round on this, group think can go wrong, isolated thinking can go wrong. Just because we have done something in the past that turned out to be not great (I wasnt here for the last vote), doesnt automatically mean we are going to be wrong again simply because the numbers look the same (voter turnout etc).
For me at the end of the day, it comes down to the simple question of if I thikn stalling (voting no) will drastically improve anyting over the time it will take to get said improvement, in addition my risk/reward tolerance over that same period. In my eyes, its not worth it both in time lost, risk/reward or potential gains. I could be totally wrong, but I could also be totally right and nobody on this forum knows the right answer.
Unfortunately, the history with SWAPA and this pilot group is one of putting forth and voting in problematic contracts.
As I said in another post, the main players in SWAPA today who created the TA are almost entirely the same main players that gave us our current contract. That's not a great history.
In the current cycle, this SWAPA team bungled our leverage from the beginning by waiting far too long to file for mediation despite us in the minority calling for them to do so and explaining the rationale for it long before they actually did. Yet, SWAPA at the time said, as rg16 pointed out, that they "were happy with the pace of negotiations." Now, they've owned up to the error. What other errors have they made that aren't widely recognized at this point?
The point is there is a history with the current team at SWAPA and with this pilot group of making the wrong call.