FDX TA-An opposing view
02-24-2011 | 12:44 PM
#71
Thread Starter
On Reserve
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
To me, the majority of your arguements are speculative at best. Also, it seems that you are just playing the devils advocate, which is a good thing. But, your arguments are not very persuasive. At least to me.
I dont know the total number of our pilots who read ths board, but I would argue that some of your rational would push a person towards a yes vote. JMO!
Last edited by Opposing View; 02-24-2011 at 01:20 PM.
02-24-2011 | 12:55 PM
#73
Thread Starter
On Reserve
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Wrong.
A no vote sends a the message that the negotiating committee and the MEC do not know the minds of the pilot group, and therefore have no place negotiating a contract in the first place. Whether this is true or whether this due to a failure of communication won't matter.
For any meaningful neg to go forward would probably require an new neg committee and possibly MEC...tick..tock..tick...tock no leverage just wasted time, and time is money.
I know many of the righteous and angry folk on here will jump on the first line as being exactly the message they want. Still doesn't make it a smart or prudent choice. Putting your mad before money.
A no vote sends a the message that the negotiating committee and the MEC do not know the minds of the pilot group, and therefore have no place negotiating a contract in the first place. Whether this is true or whether this due to a failure of communication won't matter.
For any meaningful neg to go forward would probably require an new neg committee and possibly MEC...tick..tock..tick...tock no leverage just wasted time, and time is money.
I know many of the righteous and angry folk on here will jump on the first line as being exactly the message they want. Still doesn't make it a smart or prudent choice. Putting your mad before money.
The job of the NC and MEC is to know and/or find out what we want, so they can negotiate what we want! If it is the case that we vote no, and it shows that the NC is not in touch with us and, a new NC is brought in, so be it. To argue that voting no shows no support for the NC, therefore we shouldnt vote no, is screwy logic. Pardon me!
The objective here is to get an agreement that the membership wants, period. All the other angles to justify otherwise is just ancillary nonsense. Whatever needs to be done should be done; forgeting the politics to do so.
02-24-2011 | 12:56 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
P9
Consider this, if there is one area that the nprm will impact greatly it is the SIBA operations. Maybe that is the company's real motivation to get this done sooner rather than later. Maybe it would be to our advantage to wait 4 months.
Consider this, if there is one area that the nprm will impact greatly it is the SIBA operations. Maybe that is the company's real motivation to get this done sooner rather than later. Maybe it would be to our advantage to wait 4 months.
02-24-2011 | 01:12 PM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,717
Likes: 0
From: Retired
Fdxlag,
I thought that I'd kept up with the varying aspects of the TA, and how guys feel about it and why they feel the way they feel. As well, for the most part, I've kept my opinions about how I plan to vote, to myself, because, quite frankly, it's no one's business but mine. Anyway, after reading your above post, I'm wondering exactly what you meant by "Maybe it would be to our advantage to wait 4 months." Are you suggesting that because the NPRM rules are due out then, that we should turn down the TA and in 4 months, we'll have either another TA to look at, or a full contract? Again, I'm not trying to sway anyone, but am interested in the reasoning that guys are using to either like or dislike the TA.
JJ
I thought that I'd kept up with the varying aspects of the TA, and how guys feel about it and why they feel the way they feel. As well, for the most part, I've kept my opinions about how I plan to vote, to myself, because, quite frankly, it's no one's business but mine. Anyway, after reading your above post, I'm wondering exactly what you meant by "Maybe it would be to our advantage to wait 4 months." Are you suggesting that because the NPRM rules are due out then, that we should turn down the TA and in 4 months, we'll have either another TA to look at, or a full contract? Again, I'm not trying to sway anyone, but am interested in the reasoning that guys are using to either like or dislike the TA.
JJ
02-24-2011 | 01:18 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Likes: 0
Search these threads you will find plenty of guys that think we have to wait until 2013 to see how the nprm effects us. I think we only have to wait 4 months. You and the Mec think we need to wait 12-24 months.
Did you read the 1st NC update. The FDA LOA was agreed to. The Union thought no way it would pass because of the 4A2b bad taste. They thought they needed to get a little love for everyone. Sounds like 3% to me. Unless you think we were all clamoring for Sec 18.
I admit I am trying to sway, Gunter is the one that thinks this is evil. The MEC is within their rights to say they arent going to push this right before they push this TA. But dont expect me to ignore it.
Did you read the 1st NC update. The FDA LOA was agreed to. The Union thought no way it would pass because of the 4A2b bad taste. They thought they needed to get a little love for everyone. Sounds like 3% to me. Unless you think we were all clamoring for Sec 18.
I admit I am trying to sway, Gunter is the one that thinks this is evil. The MEC is within their rights to say they arent going to push this right before they push this TA. But dont expect me to ignore it.
I also wouldn't call 3% buying votes.
I agree with Gunter
02-24-2011 | 01:27 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
You said the MEC and the company thought we needed to wait until Aug 2013, not posters on APC and 12-24 months doesn't quite make Aug 2013. Also, where did I say I thought it would be 12-24 months until we could figure out the effects, I just stated the length of the TA.
I also wouldn't call 3% buying votes.
I agree with Gunter
I also wouldn't call 3% buying votes.
I agree with Gunter
What would you call it?
That makes 2 of you.
02-24-2011 | 01:29 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Fdxlag,
I thought that I'd kept up with the varying aspects of the TA, and how guys feel about it and why they feel the way they feel. As well, for the most part, I've kept my opinions about how I plan to vote, to myself, because, quite frankly, it's no one's business but mine. Anyway, after reading your above post, I'm wondering exactly what you meant by "Maybe it would be to our advantage to wait 4 months." Are you suggesting that because the NPRM rules are due out then, that we should turn down the TA and in 4 months, we'll have either another TA to look at, or a full contract? Again, I'm not trying to sway anyone, but am interested in the reasoning that guys are using to either like or dislike the TA.
JJ
I thought that I'd kept up with the varying aspects of the TA, and how guys feel about it and why they feel the way they feel. As well, for the most part, I've kept my opinions about how I plan to vote, to myself, because, quite frankly, it's no one's business but mine. Anyway, after reading your above post, I'm wondering exactly what you meant by "Maybe it would be to our advantage to wait 4 months." Are you suggesting that because the NPRM rules are due out then, that we should turn down the TA and in 4 months, we'll have either another TA to look at, or a full contract? Again, I'm not trying to sway anyone, but am interested in the reasoning that guys are using to either like or dislike the TA.
JJ
02-24-2011 | 02:08 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Likes: 0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
