Details on Delta TA
05-28-2015, 08:49 PM
#5031
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
You should do some talking to your reps. The kerfluffle was caused by the angry minority.
05-28-2015, 09:17 PM
#5036
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
All indications are that C1 is in the majority this time.
Sorry that your autonomous snap/salute parade can't march forth defying direction this time around.
Sorry that your autonomous snap/salute parade can't march forth defying direction this time around.
I've read some confusion here and I think it's about terminology. The MEC is all of our reps led (in process) by the MEC chairman. The MEC administration is a different animal. The MEC administration includes some really bad actors like Harwood on the strategic planning committee, the negotiating Committe and other Committee members. The MEC administration is mostly made up of unelected bureaucrats who work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. Sometimes you can get lucky and they're great guys, sometimes you can get unlucky like now with Harwood having so much influence on appointing the bureaucrats.
In this latest incident, a majority of the MEC (our elected reps) are very concerned about their direction being ignored by the MEC administration (mostly unelected bureaucrats). That's a problem and Council 1 is highlighting it. That's why these latest posters like Professor, pilotstats, rube, Chuck Essential (which is really irritating given what a cool guy Check Essential is) and the others are here. They're here to rail against our elected reps keeping us informed. Very typical of an MEC administration using these guys to patrol social media to attempt message control.
Bottom line is that this is good stuff. The MEC administration is desperately trying to get a 10-9 vote out to the members because they know memory rat will pass. The MEC is telling the MEC administration that ain't happening. So will the MEC administration sign a TA that is against the specific direction of the MEC like they did in C2012 and dare the MEC to vote it down? Or will this shot across the bow to the MEC administration make that administration go back to the table and explicitly follow MEC direction. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Spackler; 05-28-2015 at 09:33 PM.
05-28-2015, 09:45 PM
#5037
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
How do we remove Harwood from his position?
Carl
05-28-2015, 09:52 PM
#5038
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by slowplay
The NC member resigned of his own volition and was not removed (the MEC chair or NC chair can't do that, only the MEC can). You'll have to ask him why. I agree he did very good work on C2012.
So with the facts, where's "politics at it's worst"? Again, shoot outside the circle, please.
So with the facts, where's "politics at it's worst"? Again, shoot outside the circle, please.
And for the new people here, Slowplay was one of the MEC administrators that was fired after C2012 because of his really bad actions during the sales job. Harwood got back in, but Slowplay is still out. Just for context.
Carl
05-28-2015, 10:02 PM
#5039
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Schwanker
Who exactly is "the Union?" I did not see any signatures. Who exactly wrote this. The Council 01 update was clear we know who it came from. I have no idea who "the Union" is.
Best I can tell it is MEC insiders who have an agenda to bypass the LECs and membership desires (survey) to pass something of their choosing. The negotiating committee is not even transparent to the LECs. Why???
Oh, who is "the Union" you quote?
Best I can tell it is MEC insiders who have an agenda to bypass the LECs and membership desires (survey) to pass something of their choosing. The negotiating committee is not even transparent to the LECs. Why???
Oh, who is "the Union" you quote?
Carl
05-28-2015, 10:14 PM
#5040
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Clamp is right on this. It's the majority of LEC reps that are refusing to accept what the negotiating committee (at the direction of certain MEC administrators) are trying to cram down.
I've read some confusion here and I think it's about terminology. The MEC is all of our reps led (in process) by the MEC chairman. The MEC administration is a different animal. The MEC administration includes some really bad actors like Harwood on the strategic planning committee, the negotiating Committe and other Committee members. The MEC administration is mostly made up of unelected bureaucrats who work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. Sometimes you can get lucky and they're great guys, sometimes you can get unlucky like now with Harwood having so much influence on appointing the bureaucrats.
In this latest incident, a majority of the MEC (our elected reps) are very concerned about their direction being ignored by the MEC administration (mostly unelected bureaucrats). That's a problem and Council 1 is highlighting it. That's why these latest posters like Professor, pilotstats, rube, Chuck Essential (which is really irritating given what a cool guy Check Essential is) and the others are here. They're here to rail against our elected reps keeping us informed. Very typical of an MEC administration using these guys to patrol social media to attempt message control.
Bottom line is that this is good stuff. The MEC administration is desperately trying to get a 10-9 vote out to the members because they know memory rat will pass. The MEC is telling the MEC administration that ain't happening. So will the MEC administration sign a TA that is against the specific direction of the MEC like they did in C2012 and dare the MEC to vote it down? Or will this shot across the bow to the MEC administration make that administration go back to the table and explicitly follow MEC direction. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Carl
I've read some confusion here and I think it's about terminology. The MEC is all of our reps led (in process) by the MEC chairman. The MEC administration is a different animal. The MEC administration includes some really bad actors like Harwood on the strategic planning committee, the negotiating Committe and other Committee members. The MEC administration is mostly made up of unelected bureaucrats who work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. Sometimes you can get lucky and they're great guys, sometimes you can get unlucky like now with Harwood having so much influence on appointing the bureaucrats.
In this latest incident, a majority of the MEC (our elected reps) are very concerned about their direction being ignored by the MEC administration (mostly unelected bureaucrats). That's a problem and Council 1 is highlighting it. That's why these latest posters like Professor, pilotstats, rube, Chuck Essential (which is really irritating given what a cool guy Check Essential is) and the others are here. They're here to rail against our elected reps keeping us informed. Very typical of an MEC administration using these guys to patrol social media to attempt message control.
Bottom line is that this is good stuff. The MEC administration is desperately trying to get a 10-9 vote out to the members because they know memory rat will pass. The MEC is telling the MEC administration that ain't happening. So will the MEC administration sign a TA that is against the specific direction of the MEC like they did in C2012 and dare the MEC to vote it down? Or will this shot across the bow to the MEC administration make that administration go back to the table and explicitly follow MEC direction. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Carl
"What is the motive for Harwood's and the unelected MEC administrations meddling in the negotiating process"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
