The union's mass email's trying very very hard to sell this incredibly weak TA does not give me a warm and fuzzy at all. Is the MEC starting to wake up and realize from the polling that the overall membership is NOT on board? The MEC is quick to point out what they think are positives but in reality there is much more for the company to gain and a 3% COLA adjustment (please don't even try to tell me its a raise) just doesn't cut it.

No matter how big or small this "Hybrid" TA is the language and intent MUST BE ROCK SOLID and that my friends is why you should vote NO!

*** Solidify 4.A.2.b now, not later! Specific entry and exit language MUST exist. The economy is improving but I am more concerned with the expiration of the postal contract and possible impact on staffing.

There needs to be specific line building percentages between published schedules, secondaries and reserve lines.

Example...3 years ago the bid pack was 65% lines, 20% secondaries and 15% reserves. Along comes 4.A.2.b and what does the company do???? Lets just spread the hours out and dilute the schedules below BLG. The company could have easily exited 4.A.2.b but instead they build 78% line, 15% secondaries and about 7% reserves lines.

There are many other items that need to be addressed but unless 4A2b is completely resolved I'll have to pass on the FDA and compensation improvements because in reality the company can just wash those gains out as well.

 

They can, they have, and they WILL!

 

[QUOTE=PurpleTail;

*** Solidify 4.A.2.b now, not later! Specific entry and exit language MUST exist. The economy is improving but I am more concerned with the expiration of the postal contract and possible impact

There are many other items that need to be addressed but unless 4A2b is completely resolved I'll have to pass on the FDA and compensation improvements because in reality the company can just wash those gains out as well.[/QUOTE]

+1 purple tail. This TA only "gels" or "slushes" 4a2b. It makes it better but not nearly good enough to be permanent. The NC says we'll continue to work on it but I'm not willing to bet on it. I think if we accept this version of 4a2b that it will be the last version we ever see.

 

Yes, they said they wouldn't try "to sell" this TA, but it's already started.

Read the latest e-mail from the NC.

It's clear they are closely tracking all the debate going on (...which in itself is not a bad thing).

Just hoping we don't get a fury of e-mails in a month reminding us "there is still time to vote".

That was a sad legacy of the first FDA LOA vote in 2007...they had to push very hard to sell that one.

 

I don't think it's selling so much as responding to the misinformation being spread here. Agendas are seriously tainting the information flow.

You ever see someone (metaphorically) cut their nose off despite their face? I think we're going to see that with the TA vote. Unresolved anger is rising to the surface.

 

When you, and a few others, say "they" do you know who you're talking about? Specific people that is. Do you actually think it's the same "they" that disappointed in 2007? Almost the entire leadership has changed.

If you don't these folks I'm sure it's tough to try and figure out their intentions.

 

Clearly, the first "they" = current MEC & NC.

Last "they" = previous MEC & NC.

I agree, "they" are much different groups (...though not completely), but if "they" both end up trying to sell their respective LOAs and TA you cannot deny those who see a striking similarity in tactics and are concerned there will be similar outcomes.

 

267 votes out of 5956 views?!

 

I respectfully disagree. I am fully willing to accept and support the current MEC's approach to a "Hybrid" TA. I think it makes a lot of sense with the limbo of new FTDT coming this fall. Won't I do not agree with is more loosely worded contract language that is vague and has multiple interpretations. TIME TO TIE UP ALL THE LOOPHOLES NOW. When has the company EVER acted in "good faith" later? Uhhhh, NEVER!

I seek NO retribution for 4.A.2.b. We voted on the previous CBA with it in there, we grieved it and lost. So be it, the process is the process and the company won, end of story. I have no doubt that the company was justified initially in entering 4.A.2.b, and proud to say that nobody was furloughed, but also have no doubt we remained in 4.A.2.b for a good 6-9 months longer than necessary.

I am not sure what "TIMELINE" the union is trying to meet but unless the TA is properly written and worded it our duty to vote NO and send it back. We can not change the past but only learn from our mistakes. I have forgiven but certainly NOT forgotten.

 

Bold talk what misinformation do you speak of. You mean like we might be giving up the only leverage we have?