Originally Posted by tripled (Post 3975642)

agree with ooff. A vote just means we talk more. What is the purpose of that?

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3975643)

That's the question, I think it was defined as timely coverage being the issue. That's top secret now. Our "problem" was IAs and no seniority assignments. The leverage if we had/have it is the cost which I don't think is as much of a motivator as some people think.

Originally Posted by texas1970 (Post 3975640)

im not opposed to a vote but there was absolutely no need for one. If you disagree, tell your reps. If enough people disagree, they’ll start holding (meaningless) votes. They are elected and will ultimately do what a majority of their constituents want. I strongly suspect most people don’t feel as you do, or at least not strongly enough to care, and that’s why votes don’t happen.

The MOU further codified previous settlement agreements that the company had been violating, changed the 23M7/IA process from a chaotic, seniority-abrogating mess into an orderly and efficient process, and did so without a single concession, all while also maintaining the same level 23M7 pay (which a lot of suggestions on here would’ve reduced).

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3975647)

Are you reading your own words? What does this mean? We wrote them into compliance, again. Nothing has changed. We got a pinky swear to change for the concession.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3975645)

it’s not a motivator at all unless you’re willing to reduce payroll by the amount the company is now spending. are we?

so knowing that, if we have no leverage, what would you expect instead of a “pinky swear,” as you put it?

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3975647)

Are you reading your own words? What does this mean? We wrote them into compliance, again. Nothing has changed. We got a pinky swear to change.

Originally Posted by OOfff (Post 3975650)

we didn’t write anything into compliance

Originally Posted by Rinaldi (Post 3975512)

get rid of auto accept. It’s not that hard.

Originally Posted by CX500T (Post 3975653)

Y'all keep forgetting the sick lookback gone UFN.

As much as DL likes to throttle sick usage, this pretty much means any sick call doesn't count, even if you get GFBd.

I was going to be on the 120+ lookback until at least next November. Now? I don't need a QHCP to sign off, unless they GFB me, in which case, it gets very spendy very quick.

Also, WHO can sign a QHCP form is forever changed to be more flexible. No longer has to be MD or DO. Can be DC, NP, PA and probably some others I'm forgetting.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3975657)

So what is "further codified previous settlement agreements that the company had been violating" then?