FDXLAG

Too Bad we got rid of Saddam, his plans were always endorsed 378-0. The good news is Fidal is still kicking if you want unanimity.

Nitefrater

"My Negotiating Committee Speaks for Me" does NOT mean that we rubberstamp everything the NC brings forth. It means that the company doesn't get to direct deal. It means "Don't send me, as an individual pilot, FCIFs, emails, or Red Letters. Instead, talk to my Negotiating Committee."
I don't deal with Fred, and he doesn't deal with me. Our respective negotiators deal with each other.

Now, the NC goes to the table with some expectation from all parties that they're in tune with what the rank and file will accept, and what they won't accept. The company's negotiators come to the table with the expectation from all concerned that they have some idea of what Fred will accept. When the NC comes back with an agreement that indicates they AREN'T in touch, then that creates a credibility issue. But the solution isn't to blindly agree with the NC so that they have credibility next time, the solution is to get the NC more in tune with the rank and file. If that means that a rejected LOA or TA constitutes a vote of no confidence, and the NC gets replaced, then so be it. If the disconnect is sufficiently minor, then the same NC might be able to return to the table (maybe on this issue, maybe the next issue) after some further education.

This disconnect might be sufficiently large to require a new NC/MEC. Maybe not... Time and LEC meetings will tell. But you DON'T pretend the disconnect isn't there just to show an image to the company.

magic rat

Now, Saddam HAD a Union!

RedeyeAV8r

I am not sure I get your point.

Using your Logic since it was an 11-1 vote then the only desenter was the SFS Rep and according to your logic is obviously not a team player.

I personally don't take that view. Different opinions and stances on issues are a good thing. Would it have made you feel better if The SFS guy would also have voted to Endorse the LOA.? You would of had your 12-0. Would it really have made much diffeence if it was 7-5 in favor? It still would have been endorsed by the MEC by Majority.Have you ever attended an MEC meeting and watched?

When an issue is brought before the MEC, each member gets to speak and voice his her viewpoints. The discussion usally goes round and around allowing each member to speak twice (sometimes thrice) before they vote.

These are Pilots we are talking about! They are all strong TYPE A's with even stronger opinions! They argue and raise their voices at each other. At other properties I have even seen fists fly.
But they vote and when it is over the correct thing to do is live by the democratc process. In other words they stand united behind the MEC's final decsion, even if they were in the minority.

Lets take the SFS REP. He voted against endorsing the LOA. That is certainly his right. He wrote his minority opinion. That is a good thing.

I have never met or spoken with him. Yes he voted against endorsing the LOA. Yes it is his opinion that we will get more. Unfortuately he was in the minority.But I am also willing to bet he supports the process. In other words, even though nobody else on the MEC sided with him, he can live with the process. Thats democracy.

Now whether you agree with it or not, The LOA was endorsed by the MEC and we all get to vote on it. Thats democracy. Pass or fail we will live with the outcome.

DLax85

Amen!

I don't see how the "Yes" voters can see "scope" that isn't there, but not see the "upside" of standing up and saying "No" --- especially when they admit the LOA is substandard and we know the company is so profitable.

Under what conditions would they ever vote "No"?

iarapilot

It looks like divide and conquer from with, created by a POS offered from the outside.