Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Show me one time where I say "cost neutral". Having a cost and cost neutral are two different things. Pay attention.
"Cost neutral" is my extremely accurate distillation of your thought process in negotiations. It is proven by the many statements you make like this one:
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
If you want to make reserve better, there will be a cost. So what. Maybe the MEC decides that cost is worthwhile for the pilot group or maybe they don't, that's democracy in action. If they decide it is worthwhile, then it will impact gains in other sections of the contract.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I fully expect that the next contract will increase costs, significantly.
That's good. You're careful to never make a statement like this until you're confronted as being a management stooge.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
It is just there is a limit to everything.
Nobody has said or inferred anything to the contrary.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
You went on strike and did not get unlimited pay.
We of course never asked for unlimited pay, thus never struck for unlimited pay.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Once you agree that there is a limit then at some point you make tradeoffs.
This is the heart of your problem and why you really are a cost neutral guy in your core...you just have to deny it once confronted. Nobody disagrees that there are limits. Nobody has EVER said they want unlimited anything. Thus there is no need for trade offs within our contract unless you are a cost neutral kind of guy. There is only a need to decide what you are willing to fight for, then properly confront management with it...and laugh at them when they say: "What are you willing to trade off for it?"
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Pay attention.
Can't you come up with your own stuff instead of copying mine?
Carl