Originally Posted by notEnuf

Let me explain further to try to help you see my side. Writing them into compliance is a trigger phrase for ALPA because they have done it several times and now the pilots are wise to the practice. The fact that they specifically used the phrase in the engage podcast was an attempt to get out in front of these complaints by saying "no we didn't." The issue I have is that there is no change as the current cluster FUBAR shows. What we did was end this negotiation with an open ended implementation which doesn't change anything, it promises future change. That future change IMHO is going to be as problematic or more so, when and if the implantation takes place. I have no confidence there will be real change (at least not the way it is perceived as being currently promised anyway.) The fact that they combined this with the sick look back makes me think this was done to show a "win."

I share the chairman's concerns and the lack of a remedy for the problem once sect. 6 opens. This if not implemented or not implemented to the satisfaction of the MEC will allow for no recourse. Once we are in sect. 6 it will be lumped in with all the other negotiation. Why was the sick not addressed in its own stand alone MOU, and this addressed separately as it's own solution as well? They are now conflated in a hybrid solution. Not only did we write them into compliance but we bought them time which was the absolute wrong move given the history. We are talking about a grievance of a grievance after all. So back to my original point, what has changed? Is the company currently in compliance? We have ended the negotiations with an MOU which theoretically means they are in compliance. What do we have to show for it? A Promise from a known bad faith actor for some undefined future implementation ie. nothing. We have won nothing and the loss was the company needing to negotiate further and an endorsement of further delay.

I'm making this evaluation from a point of neutrality and this is my argument for "writing them into compliance." can you make a counter argument for this "not writing them into compliance" because I am willing to listen? Let's not assume either of us has a burden of proof and just argue the sides.