Originally Posted by
FangsF15
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.
And this is why so many folks were upset abou it, right here.
Except that the choice wasn’t really binary — there were plenty of options. They could take the deal, reject the deal, make a suitable counter-offer, or wait on it while building up enforcement resources (making the problem more costly for the company). Every option except the one that the MEC took was a better option.
Instead, the used car salesman convinced them that he was offering the lowest price they would EVER find a Miata for. If they left the dealership that day, the price would never be available to them again. A slim MEC majority fell for that - hook, line, and sinker.
SK knows the PWA, particularly section 23, probably better than anyone else here. He’s a pilot advocate. I trust his character more than many other current MEC members. But as a candidate, I think he needs to answer some tough questions regarding that settlement and its timing. He may be a PWA expert, but that doesn’t automatically make him a negotiating expert. I honestly think he was best suited in his former role.