11-12-2022Quote:
As far as my opinion, if I were the NC chairman and I got the authority to TA a table position at a special MEC meeting, then did just that, and later am asked to go back and re-negotiate, I would resign. So I think that part is pretty certain. I also think the MEC would have zero credibility with the company. The new NC would therefore have a tough time convincing the company negotiators that they indeed have the authority to TA. The natural conclusion is that it is the MEC who is driving the NC and ultimately empowered with ability to accept a TA at the table. After balking once, why would the company believe the same divided MEC could ever in good faith TA.
Ok then, if we take your logic to the next point, why do we even have an MEC vote or a member ratification vote? The company is never going "believe" us again. By your logic we should just sign the deal now because that's what the NC came up with. No thank you.
Then you have the issue of precedent. Would the company ever open that can of worms? Would they reward the fickle behavior of the MEC with a superior contract? What kind of message does that send? What happens next time? I think history is a guide and can satisfactorilly answer that. What group has ever rejected a TA and then been rewarded with a significantly improved version? I can't think of a single one? Does anyone have an example of this tactic providing good results?
Well, as far as I'm concerned, if half the rumors are true, contract 2012 is potentially a better contract than 2015. We will see
For these reasons, I think the horse has left the barn when the NC achieves a TA. It was a big issue last time for me. As it turns out, I liked C2012 and had no problem voting for it. But, I wondered if that had not been the case, what exactly was the path to a significantly superior agreement, assuming we failed to ratify the TA they accepted? The only scenario I came up with that made any sense considering the above, was to recall enough reps to significantly change the MEC. In this way the credibility issue with the company would not necessarily pose such a problem. In this scenario it's the MEC's fault and we pilots recognize and correct the problem. We then re-engage the company with a completely new MEC and NC. This is what the APA did more than once. That process takes time and the TVM eats up gains. History says that isn't a good bet.
See above
So in a way, I think failed membership ratification is easier to deal with than TA that was authorized by the MEC, then rejected during the review. In the former, you can remedy the situation by forming a new MEC. What can you do with a MEC that rejects their own TA?
Uhhhhh like you just said, form a new MEC if that's what it takes.
I suspect if we have the same drama this time with a split MEC, I do think that is the case BTW, somehow they achieved a majority consensus when they authorized the NC to TA. If I was in the minority on that particular vote, I would emphasize to the MEC as a whole that the horse is about to leave the barn. Are we certain we want to do this? There appears to be little or no future for a significantly superior outcome if the slim majority collapses and the TA is rejected. Perhaps asking for a 2/3 majority instead of 1 vote majority. At any rate, as a minority opinion I would be under no illusions that I owned the TA for no better reason than it would be virtually impossible to go forward and achieve superior results.
For that reason, I was quite amazed with so many NO votes last time. What possible benefit? Perhaps the NO voters knew they didn't have the final tally to reject and therefore there wasn't really any risk. Basically a symbolic and political move to speak to their members? Probably, but just maybe they really saw no risk in rejecting the TA. The latter possibility concerns me. A vision of monkeys, gas cans, and matches comes to mind. Saw that in technicolor over at the APA and USAPA.
Word is the TA will be revealed in its entirety on Tuesday in open session. I'll be there for sure. This was a real spectacle last time and it should be quite something to see this time. I've been chided here for suggesting we have a divided MEC. I challenge anyone who says I'm wrong to come and watch Tuesday and Wednesday. If I'm wrong, I will admit it right here.
BTW, I'm serious and want to see some scenarios as to how this could work out if the TA is rejected by the MEC. Need something to think about until Tuesday.
1. The MEC sends the NC back in and says get a better deal we don't care how long it takes.Originally Posted by SharpestTool
As far as my opinion, if I were the NC chairman and I got the authority to TA a table position at a special MEC meeting, then did just that, and later am asked to go back and re-negotiate, I would resign. So I think that part is pretty certain. I also think the MEC would have zero credibility with the company. The new NC would therefore have a tough time convincing the company negotiators that they indeed have the authority to TA. The natural conclusion is that it is the MEC who is driving the NC and ultimately empowered with ability to accept a TA at the table. After balking once, why would the company believe the same divided MEC could ever in good faith TA.
Ok then, if we take your logic to the next point, why do we even have an MEC vote or a member ratification vote? The company is never going "believe" us again. By your logic we should just sign the deal now because that's what the NC came up with. No thank you.
Then you have the issue of precedent. Would the company ever open that can of worms? Would they reward the fickle behavior of the MEC with a superior contract? What kind of message does that send? What happens next time? I think history is a guide and can satisfactorilly answer that. What group has ever rejected a TA and then been rewarded with a significantly improved version? I can't think of a single one? Does anyone have an example of this tactic providing good results?
Well, as far as I'm concerned, if half the rumors are true, contract 2012 is potentially a better contract than 2015. We will see
For these reasons, I think the horse has left the barn when the NC achieves a TA. It was a big issue last time for me. As it turns out, I liked C2012 and had no problem voting for it. But, I wondered if that had not been the case, what exactly was the path to a significantly superior agreement, assuming we failed to ratify the TA they accepted? The only scenario I came up with that made any sense considering the above, was to recall enough reps to significantly change the MEC. In this way the credibility issue with the company would not necessarily pose such a problem. In this scenario it's the MEC's fault and we pilots recognize and correct the problem. We then re-engage the company with a completely new MEC and NC. This is what the APA did more than once. That process takes time and the TVM eats up gains. History says that isn't a good bet.
See above
So in a way, I think failed membership ratification is easier to deal with than TA that was authorized by the MEC, then rejected during the review. In the former, you can remedy the situation by forming a new MEC. What can you do with a MEC that rejects their own TA?
Uhhhhh like you just said, form a new MEC if that's what it takes.
I suspect if we have the same drama this time with a split MEC, I do think that is the case BTW, somehow they achieved a majority consensus when they authorized the NC to TA. If I was in the minority on that particular vote, I would emphasize to the MEC as a whole that the horse is about to leave the barn. Are we certain we want to do this? There appears to be little or no future for a significantly superior outcome if the slim majority collapses and the TA is rejected. Perhaps asking for a 2/3 majority instead of 1 vote majority. At any rate, as a minority opinion I would be under no illusions that I owned the TA for no better reason than it would be virtually impossible to go forward and achieve superior results.
For that reason, I was quite amazed with so many NO votes last time. What possible benefit? Perhaps the NO voters knew they didn't have the final tally to reject and therefore there wasn't really any risk. Basically a symbolic and political move to speak to their members? Probably, but just maybe they really saw no risk in rejecting the TA. The latter possibility concerns me. A vision of monkeys, gas cans, and matches comes to mind. Saw that in technicolor over at the APA and USAPA.
Word is the TA will be revealed in its entirety on Tuesday in open session. I'll be there for sure. This was a real spectacle last time and it should be quite something to see this time. I've been chided here for suggesting we have a divided MEC. I challenge anyone who says I'm wrong to come and watch Tuesday and Wednesday. If I'm wrong, I will admit it right here.
BTW, I'm serious and want to see some scenarios as to how this could work out if the TA is rejected by the MEC. Need something to think about until Tuesday.
2. The NC is fired/resigns and a new NC is sent back in to get a better deal.
3. The MEC admin and NC are fired/resign and new ones are elected and sent back in.
What is wrong with any of these scenarios? Time is on our side. Why settle for a mediocre agreement in this negotiating environment? Why can we not follow the footprint of Contract 2001 negotiations? It was a great negotiating environment too.
Denny
PS. I wasn't going to start getting involved in the contract questions until Tuesday but by then it will be too late to respond.
Today