Which means that you want to go directly into "real" negotiations and if they do not agree based on their assessment of the current economic times they must be only "falling in line"?

I think what the vote shows is that the majority of people in that block also support the direction the MEC chairman has taken.

I voted for the new guys but do not support the direction the MEC has taken and I did not vote yes for the last TA.

However, I firmly believe we need to take our 3% now that we have it coming to us, or the money will be lost forever.

[QUOTE=ptarmigan;1083625]Which means that you want to go directly into "real" negotiations and if they do not agree based on their assessment of the current economic times they must be only "falling in line"?
QUOTE]

What are you talking about dude?

I've made no comments regarding the upcoming decision about the "relief valve" option in our current contract, so don't put words in my mouth and say that I want to go directly into anything. FYI - the newly elected reps won't even take office until after the decision has long since been made about whether or not we take the 3% raise or return to, as you call it, "real" negotiations. We should hear something regarding the relief valve option some time during the first week of January. How do I know? P2P call this past week. Not a P2P rep. Just thought it was important enough to listen in on....

As for your other comments, I still don't have a clue what you are saying...

In my opinion, a block rep has the responsibilitiy to determine what the majority of his block feels about an impending vote or issue, and then represent that majority, regardless of what other blocks are saying or doing. If he or she determines that they are going to vote "their heart", and not what their block majority wants, then they are failing at their job. If your block rep votes the party line as all of the other block reps are voting, when he or she clearly knows that the members of their block want something else then YES, they are "falling in line".

Why do I fear this type of behavior and statements of support one way or another? I have it on good authority that during this past election, phone call were made to certain candidates and it was "explained to them" that if they did get into office, they had a "responsibility and obligation to vote the same way as the rest of their LEC did". If they couldn't commit to doing so, regardless of the issue, they would be campaigned against. Not voted against, CAMPAIGNED AGAINST. Never mind what their block wanted...they were going to be expected to stick together as an LEC on EVERY issue, no matter what it was . I know one candidate was even told that he had to vote with his LEC because the by-laws said he had to. What kind of crap is that? If the block rep stands up for their block's interests, they'll never go wrong, regardless of how they vote.

I hope my newly LEC reps prove me wrong; only time will tell. Nobody can seriously believe that we are all going to agree on every issue. The senior guys have certain things that they covet. The junior guys have things that help make or break their quality of life. The instructor block has things that they hold near and dear to their heart. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be a crime for a block rep to stand up for what the folks in their block want, and I for one expect my block rep to do so.

Herk

I misunderstood your previous post. I agree with what you wrote here.

Some past MEC officers and block reps believe they were (are) representatives of a republic. That it was their responsibility to do what was good for you (them), not what you wanted.

Many of those are out. DW, DM, WR, DR. TC and BM are back.

I don't know how you got that their replacements are doing the same thing. Sounds like effective marketing by the group that wants back in.

If it's true then it might just be systemic.

However, if the majority of your block (or pilot group) wants one thing and you want another......saying you are doing "the right thing" provides you cover. A least that's what the former regime used, to legitimize going against the wishes of the majority. If the current group is "status quo" vis-a-vis the last gang........I'll take the status quo. Maybe there's something better on the horizon, but re-cycling the last bunch isn't it.

Amen to that!

Representatives should do what their constituents want, but they also have a duty to educate the constituents so that the constituents are basing their desires based on actual facts and not rumor and wishful thinking. Usually only a small percentage takes the time to do this. Surveys are useless without true education first.

And surveys are useless when the questions are designed to elicit a certain response or avoid other responses.

Results with out publishing the actual questions and actual responses are nothing but propaganda.