As of now I am not invited to the special MEC meeting. The responses I received can be summed up as: closed is closed and your turn to speak is during open mike at the regular MEC meeting. This is what I expected. Thank you to those who responded. The majority did not.

I can now only hope that the second paragraph of the letter has some impact.

"In the event that I am restricted from the closed session portion of the meeting I would like to remind you that if any vote or topic is presented that you would like to consider further you are within your right to motion to table the vote or discussion. The meeting timeline may not allow you to consider all the information presented to you fully. There is no deadline to end debate of any issue if you need to review information presented. Time alone away from the other members to reflect on the event or to consider carefully your decision is prudent and should be encouraged should any member make such a request. We have elected you because we trust your judgment and that you will take the time for due diligence on all matters that are of importance to the 12,000 plus members."

Why did I write the letter?

As evident at the council 1 meeting, there is a lack of trust in the process. Two resolutions passed that have to do with the verification of the process.

Trust but verify is the principle we adhere to.

We are asked to trust almost daily but there is no verification.

After the 2012 announcement and vote I have concerns about this stage of the process. History shows once a TA has passed the MEC the membership votes to accept it. The member ratification, while an important step to us, is really only a formality to management.

My prediction is we will get something just short of a TA. A pseudo TA or agreement in principle is not the end game. The language will be incomplete and the pay will be as leaked or a little better. Remember the TA is not a TA until the MEC votes in the affirmative. I was hoping to witness this process, now my only option is to trust without verification. An option is only an option if there is an alternative so I really have no options.

 

If the MEC really wanted your opinion, they would give it to you....

 

Management can't pay me enough to work more.

Any QOL giveback will generate a "no" from me regardless of the rate increase.

 

I'm new to looking at this contract stuff for you guys. Can you tell me what 9966 means? I've seen it a few times now.

 

James-
Good question.
Sometimes we use too much jargon and shorthand around here. Makes it tough for the new hires.

9966 are percentage increases to the Section 3 base pay rates.
In this case it means a 9% raise on the date of signing (presumably Septemberish??), another 9% on 1/1/16, 6% on 1/1/17, and 6% on 1/1/18.
Amendable again on 1/1/19.

Contract 2012 pay raises were 4833. You've probably seen that number on here also.

 

But, but, but, what if they gave us a billion dollar per hour raise to work one additional minute per year! Shirley you would vote for that! OK, now that we've established work rules are for sale, let's talk (realistic or else the evil mean NMB will park us for all eternity) price!

And so we keep allowing the discussion to be framed in their favor.

 

Can someone tell me what 15/15/6/6 means?

 

It means you're getting warmer.

 

[QUOTE=Check Essential;1893766]

OK. I will admit it. I can be bought. (except maybe on scope)


For 50%, I'd probably verify ALL my sick leave and send in a weekly stool sample for monitoring. Less than that or significant concessions and I might just do the stool sample.

 

Thank God home prices and commodities haven't gone up 250% since then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk