Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1650350)

That is false. My reps gave no such direction to the NC to pursue this in the 117 negotiations. In all the voluminous and constant emails from my council and the MEC over the last year, not a word about pursuing CDO's. Not a word.

Originally Posted by Starcheck102 (Post 1650322)

A willingness to rumble (whatever that means in 2014) was worth $100 or $200 at NWA, maybe a year after the fact.

Originally Posted by Starcheck102 (Post 1650322)

Our way makes you whole. Think about that when you cash the check. That is cold hard cash, returned to you, in defense of your contract. There is no substitute for that.

Originally Posted by Starcheck102 (Post 1650322)

Intransigence, cognitive dissonance, and faux populism just cost us all a few million bucks. Widen your focus.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1650340)

Let's look at this whole process from management's perspective.

Today, they had a hotwash with their union buster to critique the test run of their C15 strategy. It's called "Divide and Conquer."

Here's how it works:

- the union buster writes a memo that totally ignores the contract. SD signs it.

- DALPA hems, haws and fails to provide decisive leadership, implicitly condoning the memo

- the company takes hostages by monetarily and psychologically penalizing those who stand up for the contract

- DALPA doesn't do jack **** to assist the hostages

- the guys who step up despise DALPA for a lack of backbone

- guys who aren't personally affected see DALPA rolling over; disunity ensues

- several months or years later, DALPA produces an inadequate TA and MD writes a "victory lap" memo

- yada yada yada (the closest description I can manage to describe what just happened)

- we get our asses handed to us a la C12

Bar, you preach "unity" but blindly fail to recognize that DALPA's actions (or inactions) are largely at fault.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1650367)

What absolutely intemperate pablum.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1650350)

If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1650339)

I'm pleased with the final product, but far from thrilled with the official comm during this process. Only because I stayed in constant contact with my rep, APC, and other online avenues did I have any reasonable amount of information and details. I'm 100% behind my rep in this and how he handled things, but whoever was running the communication blew it.

It's pretty poor that they didn't provide the working language to us during the process. In fact, completely unsat.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1650395)

I gotta tell you Clamp, it appeared to me that you got duped into being a mouthpiece for a certain ATL rep that posts here occasionally. You originally touted this agreement as a huge positive and many other superlatives. It looked to me like an attempt to pre-shape the debate on APC so as to eliminate criticism from those APC miscreants.

The way this blew up showed how wrong his info to you was. We all make mistakes, but I wouldn't just repeat info like this again without you trying to independently verify.

Carl

Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 1650366)

According to the comments during the open parts of the meeting this week, CDO's were there from the beginning. Maybe CE or the others that have reported on the meeting could chime in here.

Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 1650237)

You realize that the product Donatelli and the negotiators put in front of the MEC was what they asked for?

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1650369)

I personally do no think that this needs to go to MEMRAT but Carl makes some good points. Just because many think it is good seems like kind of an odd criteria for deciding on MEMRAT.

Then again the union has to be realistic about how and when to have a full blown vote. It would be nice to have some hard and fast guidelines - either something triggers a MEMRAT or not, but perceived popularity seems like an odd discriminator. Especially perceived popularity without recent polling.

Finally if something in the future is not going to MEMRAT it would be nice to have some standard procedures for MEC ratification. Perhaps final language published and e-mailed to all 12,000 of us for review followed by a minimum comment period of 2 weeks to a month seems reasonable for most situations. And I would really like to see the "PRO/CON" papers re-instituted.

Scoop

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1650383)

This one is going to come back to haunt you. You reps are so out of touch that they missed the multiple re-directs of the NC on this point? You really stand by what you said?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1650383)

What's your explanation for this TA? The NC going rogue, and throwing CDO's in at the last session?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1650383)

Did you read CE's reports frim the meeting?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1650383)

Are you calling him misguided, or just a liar, when he said it was obvious the MEC was prepared for extensive questions on CDo's?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1650383)

You're really slipping.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1650400)

It was my understanding that the CDOs were more restricted in the beginning. Perhaps too much of an assumption on my part. I asked questions and got answers. I consider the final product a huge positive certainly.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1650233)

Would you have preferred to leave it at 10 hours notice for short call with the 2-hour commute?