Originally Posted by
Check Essential
We need to think about that.
Bringing "constructive engagement" to the national level is a big departure from the traditional form of labor relations in this country. The problem is that it relies so heavily on management being a good faith partner.
Wave of the future or lambs to the slaughter?
I do not equate "constructive engagement" to bending over. I take it as a dialogue between two parties that is two way and is rational. Rational does not mean accepting less, but it does mean being realistic and not irrational for the sake thereof.
Engaging does not mean compromising or to settle. It means to look at multiple paths to an end goal that all pilots desire. It means hearing the other side (management etc) out and then fact checking their position. To me it is amazing what happens when one just listens even if they know the position is totally wrong!
We can say that about restoration, work rules, retirement, lobbying that benefits our labor group etc.
What constructive engagement does is allows us the option to opt out at any given time. The void of this engagement will not go unnoticed. It forces both sides to be rational in their approach because both sides will be harmed in the end without it.
FWIW, this is not support of a person or candidate, this is support of the idea.