Originally Posted by
Whoopsmybad
Didn’t the scheduling committee chair actually recommend the settlement?
My understanding is that, given the binary choice of a take-it-or-leave-it offer, he recommended "take it", to solve the rampant IA out-of-seniority problem. It was not his idea, per se.
That said, he is running for C44 rep, and though I strongly disagree with this one thing, will enthusiastically vote for him for Rep. I don't need to agree with every position to recognize a strong candidate and support them.
Originally Posted by
ancman
...
Management knew that #2 was about to crumble, due in large part to automated enforcement software that was on the way. Our newly-signed contract gave ALPA direct API access to our scheduling system. A vendor was already under contract by ALPA to develop software that would utilize that access. Eventually, the software would find and report every 23.M.7 violation, eliminating the company’s ability to evade paying 300% for most premium trips. Management pressured ALPA for a rushed solution, knowing full well that this debacle was about to become far more expensive for the company.
...
Bingo. And that programming was all done and ready to go, and had been briefed to the reps as such. In fact, the reroute auto-id was unused for a year, and they turned it "on" in thier last two weeks of the contract to prove it.
...We received absolutely nothing of value in return. Our most significant negotiating leverage in years was blown by ALPA overnight.
And this is why so many folks were upset abou it, right here.