what the MEC isn’t telling us
03-08-2024, 07:51 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 616
what the MEC isn’t telling us
The MEC chair’s comm dated today, 8 mar 2024.
1) If the company’s counter offer, due on the 18th, were deemed incremental or unacceptable (subjective) the MEC would have “personally declared an impasse.”
What parameters are used in defining incremental and/or unacceptable? 5 percent off the mark? 10 percent? or would he base this on sense and gut instinct?
side note: the go-around analogy he used in the comm is now tired, overused, and in my opinion, unacceptable.
2) he then goes on a speculative and paranoid discussion regarding his recall, others control and power, and how the reps are pushing this TA further down the road.
well, maybe he should be recalled, supporting PM when PM failed us miserably the first time around and from all other comms appears to be failing us again.
why does the MEC feel that power and control should be centralized to his position? this mentality got us where we are now. Our previous MEC was all about it, as was PM, who is now somewhat contrite, same thing with our scheduling rep, who’s doing podcasts ad nauseam to what, save his job? given that he too was pushing hard for a yes vote on the failed TA, threatening furlough and the like, withdrawing those threats as soon as the TA failed.
keeping PM on task was nothing but kicking a ratifiable TA down the road. period. to think otherwise is foolish and, quite frankly, lazy. getting a new team us to speed takes effort, which the MEC wasn’t willing to do. so yeah, maybe recalling the MEC would best for us, collectively speaking.
3) he discusses possibilities with the NMB. some speculative.
ok. so we go down that road, don’t be scared. yes it is unfamiliar and full of cobwebs, but the road we’re on is a dead end - the signs are all there, he just doesn’t want to see them, or perhaps he is task-overloaded trying to remember his go-around procedures.
4) he closes with how adult he is in trying to maintain credibility with the NMB, in moving us forward from the “folly” of declaring an impasse, and how he wishes to regroup and refocus.
some would argue, perhaps 57 percent of the seniority group, that the folly was keeping PM on task when he clearly lied to us, when PM championed the company’s talking points, threatened us with furlough if we didn’t vote his way, divided the group by destroying QOL for junior members so that senior members could get a bump in retirement that doesn’t keep up with inflation or come close to IRS limits, and on and on, we all know why it failed. but the MEC kept the cook in the kitchen, and anything that comes out of that kitchen is going to be sent back because the chef sucks.
the MEC brought us here. he failed to lead, to make the hard decision in firing PM. obviously, he can’t lead the block reps, either, who are not only tired of this nonsense, but ready to commandeer the ship and steer it in the right direction.
he is right though, a go-around isn’t a good idea, and not because of the weather, but because the dangerous goods (mostly subclass PM) are noticeably toxic. don our masks and land this disaster the best we can, declaring it a total loss. lets get another jet, better pilots, and a sweet destination. it can be done. hard things require not only effort, but tough leadership.
all my opinion.
1) If the company’s counter offer, due on the 18th, were deemed incremental or unacceptable (subjective) the MEC would have “personally declared an impasse.”
What parameters are used in defining incremental and/or unacceptable? 5 percent off the mark? 10 percent? or would he base this on sense and gut instinct?
side note: the go-around analogy he used in the comm is now tired, overused, and in my opinion, unacceptable.
2) he then goes on a speculative and paranoid discussion regarding his recall, others control and power, and how the reps are pushing this TA further down the road.
well, maybe he should be recalled, supporting PM when PM failed us miserably the first time around and from all other comms appears to be failing us again.
why does the MEC feel that power and control should be centralized to his position? this mentality got us where we are now. Our previous MEC was all about it, as was PM, who is now somewhat contrite, same thing with our scheduling rep, who’s doing podcasts ad nauseam to what, save his job? given that he too was pushing hard for a yes vote on the failed TA, threatening furlough and the like, withdrawing those threats as soon as the TA failed.
keeping PM on task was nothing but kicking a ratifiable TA down the road. period. to think otherwise is foolish and, quite frankly, lazy. getting a new team us to speed takes effort, which the MEC wasn’t willing to do. so yeah, maybe recalling the MEC would best for us, collectively speaking.
3) he discusses possibilities with the NMB. some speculative.
ok. so we go down that road, don’t be scared. yes it is unfamiliar and full of cobwebs, but the road we’re on is a dead end - the signs are all there, he just doesn’t want to see them, or perhaps he is task-overloaded trying to remember his go-around procedures.
4) he closes with how adult he is in trying to maintain credibility with the NMB, in moving us forward from the “folly” of declaring an impasse, and how he wishes to regroup and refocus.
some would argue, perhaps 57 percent of the seniority group, that the folly was keeping PM on task when he clearly lied to us, when PM championed the company’s talking points, threatened us with furlough if we didn’t vote his way, divided the group by destroying QOL for junior members so that senior members could get a bump in retirement that doesn’t keep up with inflation or come close to IRS limits, and on and on, we all know why it failed. but the MEC kept the cook in the kitchen, and anything that comes out of that kitchen is going to be sent back because the chef sucks.
the MEC brought us here. he failed to lead, to make the hard decision in firing PM. obviously, he can’t lead the block reps, either, who are not only tired of this nonsense, but ready to commandeer the ship and steer it in the right direction.
he is right though, a go-around isn’t a good idea, and not because of the weather, but because the dangerous goods (mostly subclass PM) are noticeably toxic. don our masks and land this disaster the best we can, declaring it a total loss. lets get another jet, better pilots, and a sweet destination. it can be done. hard things require not only effort, but tough leadership.
all my opinion.
03-08-2024, 08:06 AM
#2
New Hire
Joined APC: Jul 2023
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Anthrax
The MEC chair’s comm dated today, 8 mar 2024.
1) If the company’s counter offer, due on the 18th, were deemed incremental or unacceptable (subjective) the MEC would have “personally declared an impasse.”
What parameters are used in defining incremental and/or unacceptable? 5 percent off the mark? 10 percent? or would he base this on sense and gut instinct?
side note: the go-around analogy he used in the comm is now tired, overused, and in my opinion, unacceptable.
2) he then goes on a speculative and paranoid discussion regarding his recall, others control and power, and how the reps are pushing this TA further down the road.
well, maybe he should be recalled, supporting PM when PM failed us miserably the first time around and from all other comms appears to be failing us again.
why does the MEC feel that power and control should be centralized to his position? this mentality got us where we are now. Our previous MEC was all about it, as was PM, who is now somewhat contrite, same thing with our scheduling rep, who’s doing podcasts ad nauseam to what, save his job? given that he too was pushing hard for a yes vote on the failed TA, threatening furlough and the like, withdrawing those threats as soon as the TA failed.
keeping PM on task was nothing but kicking a ratifiable TA down the road. period. to think otherwise is foolish and, quite frankly, lazy. getting a new team us to speed takes effort, which the MEC wasn’t willing to do. so yeah, maybe recalling the MEC would best for us, collectively speaking.
3) he discusses possibilities with the NMB. some speculative.
ok. so we go down that road, don’t be scared. yes it is unfamiliar and full of cobwebs, but the road we’re on is a dead end - the signs are all there, he just doesn’t want to see them, or perhaps he is task-overloaded trying to remember his go-around procedures.
4) he closes with how adult he is in trying to maintain credibility with the NMB, in moving us forward from the “folly” of declaring an impasse, and how he wishes to regroup and refocus.
some would argue, perhaps 57 percent of the seniority group, that the folly was keeping PM on task when he clearly lied to us, when PM championed the company’s talking points, threatened us with furlough if we didn’t vote his way, divided the group by destroying QOL for junior members so that senior members could get a bump in retirement that doesn’t keep up with inflation or come close to IRS limits, and on and on, we all know why it failed. but the MEC kept the cook in the kitchen, and anything that comes out of that kitchen is going to be sent back because the chef sucks.
the MEC brought us here. he failed to lead, to make the hard decision in firing PM. obviously, he can’t lead the block reps, either, who are not only tired of this nonsense, but ready to commandeer the ship and steer it in the right direction.
he is right though, a go-around isn’t a good idea, and not because of the weather, but because the dangerous goods (mostly subclass PM) are noticeably toxic. don our masks and land this disaster the best we can, declaring it a total loss. lets get another jet, better pilots, and a sweet destination. it can be done. hard things require not only effort, but tough leadership.
all my opinion.
1) If the company’s counter offer, due on the 18th, were deemed incremental or unacceptable (subjective) the MEC would have “personally declared an impasse.”
What parameters are used in defining incremental and/or unacceptable? 5 percent off the mark? 10 percent? or would he base this on sense and gut instinct?
side note: the go-around analogy he used in the comm is now tired, overused, and in my opinion, unacceptable.
2) he then goes on a speculative and paranoid discussion regarding his recall, others control and power, and how the reps are pushing this TA further down the road.
well, maybe he should be recalled, supporting PM when PM failed us miserably the first time around and from all other comms appears to be failing us again.
why does the MEC feel that power and control should be centralized to his position? this mentality got us where we are now. Our previous MEC was all about it, as was PM, who is now somewhat contrite, same thing with our scheduling rep, who’s doing podcasts ad nauseam to what, save his job? given that he too was pushing hard for a yes vote on the failed TA, threatening furlough and the like, withdrawing those threats as soon as the TA failed.
keeping PM on task was nothing but kicking a ratifiable TA down the road. period. to think otherwise is foolish and, quite frankly, lazy. getting a new team us to speed takes effort, which the MEC wasn’t willing to do. so yeah, maybe recalling the MEC would best for us, collectively speaking.
3) he discusses possibilities with the NMB. some speculative.
ok. so we go down that road, don’t be scared. yes it is unfamiliar and full of cobwebs, but the road we’re on is a dead end - the signs are all there, he just doesn’t want to see them, or perhaps he is task-overloaded trying to remember his go-around procedures.
4) he closes with how adult he is in trying to maintain credibility with the NMB, in moving us forward from the “folly” of declaring an impasse, and how he wishes to regroup and refocus.
some would argue, perhaps 57 percent of the seniority group, that the folly was keeping PM on task when he clearly lied to us, when PM championed the company’s talking points, threatened us with furlough if we didn’t vote his way, divided the group by destroying QOL for junior members so that senior members could get a bump in retirement that doesn’t keep up with inflation or come close to IRS limits, and on and on, we all know why it failed. but the MEC kept the cook in the kitchen, and anything that comes out of that kitchen is going to be sent back because the chef sucks.
the MEC brought us here. he failed to lead, to make the hard decision in firing PM. obviously, he can’t lead the block reps, either, who are not only tired of this nonsense, but ready to commandeer the ship and steer it in the right direction.
he is right though, a go-around isn’t a good idea, and not because of the weather, but because the dangerous goods (mostly subclass PM) are noticeably toxic. don our masks and land this disaster the best we can, declaring it a total loss. lets get another jet, better pilots, and a sweet destination. it can be done. hard things require not only effort, but tough leadership.
all my opinion.
03-08-2024, 08:24 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,380
He bemoaned the fact that the MEC didn't get to listen to the latest NC update.
Well, there is nothing stopping them from sending one out. If it is overwhelmingly positive, then the 8 jumped the gun. (I doubt it.)
If it is negative, then the 8 are correct, and saved us 2 weeks of dithering.
I recall a recent update where the company was "shocked" or words to that effect, by our ask, and the NC went running back to the MEC to, IMHO, lower the ask.
Of course, we heard they talked for 3 hours, but we have not heard what was decided. So much for transparency.
So, it sounds like the MEC Chair wants us all to contact our Reps and tell them they were wrong.
Why doesn't he release the NC update that was scheduled for the meeting, in the name of transparency, and let us make our own, informed, decision?
If the update was positive, he's got nothing to hide.
I won't be holding my breath.
Well, there is nothing stopping them from sending one out. If it is overwhelmingly positive, then the 8 jumped the gun. (I doubt it.)
If it is negative, then the 8 are correct, and saved us 2 weeks of dithering.
I recall a recent update where the company was "shocked" or words to that effect, by our ask, and the NC went running back to the MEC to, IMHO, lower the ask.
Of course, we heard they talked for 3 hours, but we have not heard what was decided. So much for transparency.
So, it sounds like the MEC Chair wants us all to contact our Reps and tell them they were wrong.
Why doesn't he release the NC update that was scheduled for the meeting, in the name of transparency, and let us make our own, informed, decision?
If the update was positive, he's got nothing to hide.
I won't be holding my breath.
03-08-2024, 10:56 AM
#6
On Reserve
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Maddog64
Well it took the NMB just over 2 hrs to put us on ice.
03-08-2024, 11:24 AM
#7
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2024
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Mikey Donuts
“And Jesus sayeth unto the masses: ‘If thou lack a spine, let those who do carry you forth to the promised land. Fear not my children’” - Corinthians 10:13
03-08-2024, 11:56 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,380
Originally Posted by Maddog64
Well it took the NMB just over 2 hrs to put us on ice.
What is your source? I see nothing in the union comms about this.
03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: 777
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Anthrax
The MEC chair’s comm dated today, 8 mar 2024.
1) If the company’s counter offer, due on the 18th, were deemed incremental or unacceptable (subjective) the MEC chair would have “personally declared an impasse.”
why does the MEC chair feel that power and control should be centralized to his position? this mentality got us where we are now. Our previous MEC chair was all about it, as was which the MEC wasn’t willing to do. so yeah, maybe recalling the MEC chair would best for us, collectively speaking.
the MEC chair brought us here. he failed to lead, to make the hard decision in firing PM. obviously, he can’t lead the block reps, either, who are not only tired of this nonsense, but ready to commandeer the ship and steer it in the right direction.
all my opinion.
1) If the company’s counter offer, due on the 18th, were deemed incremental or unacceptable (subjective) the MEC chair would have “personally declared an impasse.”
why does the MEC chair feel that power and control should be centralized to his position? this mentality got us where we are now. Our previous MEC chair was all about it, as was which the MEC wasn’t willing to do. so yeah, maybe recalling the MEC chair would best for us, collectively speaking.
the MEC chair brought us here. he failed to lead, to make the hard decision in firing PM. obviously, he can’t lead the block reps, either, who are not only tired of this nonsense, but ready to commandeer the ship and steer it in the right direction.
all my opinion.
This whole thing is an abolute abortion. I thought UAL's post-TA rejection antics were bad, but this is downright embarrassing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
