![]() |
Originally Posted by Tanker1497
(Post 2194322)
You love to keep referring to the present, when you won't answer any questions about how the former MEC handled business?
If you want to start a thread about the previous MEC, go ahead. Maybe I'll participate, maybe I won't. I'm not their historian. Being a volunteer a few weeks doesn't require me to explain their actions in perpetuity. Team No won, and I've conceded that multiple times. As long as that leads to a better outcome, I'm quite OK with the whole thing. If you are interested in the past, in the context of the original topic, I will say this: I came back to APC with a thread about input, after lurking for rumors of a deal. I noticed that posters were actively, maybe even a little desperately, soliciting input to the reps. I noticed they weren't exactly asking for any input, but input that validates the prejudices of one small part of the bell-curve (the part that will never be happy with any deal). After talking to a number of sources (including two of the 12), I came to realize there is a big disconnect between where people place the group, and where people on APC are trying to place the group. Then the reps started doing it: majority this, majority that, overwhelming majority, large majority, etc. It became obvious that there is a problem between the 19, over methodology. Essentially, I think the 7 are with the group this time, and the 12 are ignoring valid data, just because it doesn't fit their narrative. I'd be OK with that, if it didn't jeopardize a vote. There is a vote there that the pilots want, because there is clearly a deal between the company position and the top end of a reasonable negotiating range, that the pilots will want. But maybe I'm wrong, and maybe they won't want it. I'm happy to be wrong again. For every deal we've had, whatever website you followed was always "majority-against". I don't think I've ever seen a deal that wasn't an abomination online, so frankly, while everyone here wants to debate the specifics of the AIP's, I think they mean nothing without the rest of the TA, and the whole discussion means nothing to the outside world. I think many guys on these forums are terrified that they're not going to be right this time, are trying to lead opinion for a specific outcome. In other words, guys that say they're the majority don't want the majority's will to be tested through a vote. Get a deal done, let us vote. It's that simple. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 2194365)
You're starting to get it!
If you want to start a thread about the previous MEC, go ahead. Maybe I'll participate, maybe I won't. I'm not their historian. Being a volunteer a few weeks doesn't require me to explain their actions in perpetuity. Team No won, and I've conceded that multiple times. As long as that leads to a better outcome, I'm quite OK with the whole thing. If you are interested in the past, in the context of the original topic, I will say this: I came back to APC with a thread about input, after lurking for rumors of a deal. I noticed that posters were actively, maybe even a little desperately, soliciting input to the reps. I noticed they weren't exactly asking for any input, but input that validates the prejudices of one small part of the bell-curve (the part that will never be happy with any deal). After talking to a number of sources (including two of the 12), I came to realize there is a big disconnect between where people place the group, and where people on APC are trying to place the group. Then the reps started doing it: majority this, majority that, overwhelming majority, large majority, etc. It became obvious that there is a problem between the 19, over methodology. Essentially, I think the 7 are with the group this time, and the 12 are ignoring valid data, just because it doesn't fit their narrative. I'd be OK with that, if it didn't jeopardize a vote. There is a vote there that the pilots want, because there is clearly a deal between the company position and the top end of a reasonable negotiating range, that the pilots will want. But maybe I'm wrong, and maybe they won't want it. I'm happy to be wrong again. For every deal we've had, whatever website you followed was always "majority-against". I don't think I've ever seen a deal that wasn't an abomination online, so frankly, while everyone here wants to debate the specifics of the AIP's, I think they mean nothing without the rest of the TA, and the whole discussion means nothing to the outside world. I think many guys on these forums are terrified that they're not going to be right this time, are trying to lead opinion for a specific outcome. In other words, guys that say they're the majority don't want the majority's will to be tested through a vote. Get a deal done, let us vote. It's that simple. |
You're assuming that the fluid majority of a set of 19 people elected some time ago, and that do not trust polling or measurable input, somehow represents the will of the group in real time.
What happens next week, if some of the 12 decide to let the NC finish the MEC's work, and the majority on the MEC flips? Will that change the will of the group? Not in the least. Nothing beats the pilot group driving the union. "Bottom-up", right? Happy Labor Day to you! |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 2194389)
You're assuming that the fluid majority of a set of 19 people elected some time ago, and that do not trust polling or measurable input, somehow represents the will of the group in real time.
What happens next week, if some of the 12 decide to let the NC finish the MEC's work, and the majority on the MEC flips? Will that change the will of the group? Not in the least. Nothing beats the pilot group driving the union. "Bottom-up", right? Happy Labor Day to you! Happy Labor Day to you and yours as well! |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 2194389)
You're assuming that the fluid majority of a set of 19 people elected some time ago, and that do not trust polling or measurable input, somehow represents the will of the group in real time.
What happens next week, if some of the 12 decide to let the NC finish the MEC's work, and the majority on the MEC flips? Will that change the will of the group? Not in the least. Nothing beats the pilot group driving the union. "Bottom-up", right? Happy Labor Day to you! |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2194732)
Your hurry to get A deal is foolish.
|
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2194733)
That is a complete mis-characterization by the "I have lots of time to wait, so **** what you need" crowd.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2194744)
Not sure who's needs are greater. The majority needs to strengthen our contract during this opportunity, not erode the foundation with these AIPs during record profitability. The pay rates are a given now with the industry coalescing around a market rate.
Hmmmm let's see. Guys with 30 years to recover are all bent out of shape about having to get a note from a doctor can wait on pay rates until they get THE deal. Guys that had their retirement stolen and have around 10 years to go... Oh, but that's right, in APC land time has no value whatsoever. |
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2194749)
You are deflecting from what I said about your previous post. But here, for your edification: The "**** you, just say no" crowd acts like anybody that isn't in that camp is desperate to get a deal. ANY deal. That is simply not true. And I am using a hyperbolic term above to illustrate what I am talking about. What is interesting in this post you just wrote is that you wonder whose needs are greater.
Hmmmm let's see. Guys with 30 years to recover are all bent out of shape about having to get a note from a doctor can wait on pay rates until they get THE deal. Guys that had their retirement stolen and have around 10 years to go... Oh, but that's right, in APC land time has no value whatsoever. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 2193881)
An interesting twist of logic you're making there: letting the majority affirm itself is shirking your duties, but usurping our voices is doing your job?
I you think the MEC's job is to negotiate agreements that improve our conditions, and let us decide for ourselves whether the results are goid enough, then no, this MEC hasn't done their job. If you think being the majority OF THE MEC that managed the negotiating process, including the AIP's, requires taking ownership of your own work, then no, they haven't done their job. If you think their job is to make decisions after debate and discussion with all other councils via their rep then no, they haven't done their job. If you think their job is to present a credible, unified group in negotiations, with clear objectives, and clear authority, then no, they haven't done their job. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:40 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands