Okay, if you want to go there. Transparency and honesty? We still don't know what part of the BLK 5 rep's letter was not factually correct, do we? We just know that the MEC feels they didn't do anything illegal by not publishing it.

The new BLK 2 rep's letter also tells us that the minutes of the MEC meeting show that the voting reps "clearly supported" the TA. Well, based on the letter from the old BLK 2 rep, that actually did vote for it... I wouldn't go as far as to say that he CLEARLY endorsed this TA. His own letter stated that he endorsed sending it to the members to vote on.

Our NC chair stated in his video(@24:30+/-), that "we like the political environment that we are bargaining in, right now". And then goes on to talk about the NMB, and how in the past 2 years they have processed some difficult cases...

Now, the new Block 2 rep's first communication tells us how the NMB's plan could take us 5 years of negotiating, to get a new CBA. Are we to assume that our NC thinks the possibility of bargaining for 5 years, is good? Even the supposed minimum of 2 years, could take us out of the good "political environment" we like, depending on the elections.

Something doesn't add up. I'm not sure what the BLK 2 rep was trying to accomplish, with his comm. But, I'm sure the company enjoys knowing that our union leaders think we will have to negotiate for 2-5 years, in this good political environment.

Not a good start for our new BLK rep, in my eyes. I'm not saying he's dishonest or not trying to be transparent...Quite the contrary, I'm sure he's honest. And, possibly transparent to a fault.

But regardless of all that, this shouldn't be about him, or any BLK rep. The TA should be voted on for it's own merits. Are we gaining more than we are giving away? I don't think so.