I see how you view that. However, the same logic can be applied to the time spent once PM entered the lame duck period (post TA1 rejection). It was said no one wanted the job or it would take substantial time to get a new NC trained. The NC nomination list was 10 person long, well qualified and the new NC team training was short (<2 months). I have hope for the new NC in the same way I had for PM and team prior to TA1. Time will tell.

One correction, it is our cabal. Whether you like it or not, they speak for all of us this negotiating cycle.

 

They speak for some of us. Why do you think TC is being recalled all the time. The majority of Block 2 isn't represented by him.

 

You are incorrectly paraphrasing. Union does not control the timing. And block reps are very aware of that.

JG stated a few weeks ago at AOC meeting that the negotiation goals are limited to what we started with 3 years ago. So we are not pursuing a major rewrite of CBA.

 

I didn't say that the union controls the timing. When asked in March about delays in future negotiations after asking for a profer of arbitration so that we could be released, they said that this shouldn't delay negotiations. They pointed to SW and said that there was little delay and that negotiations could resume quickly. So, if there was a plan, why weren't we asking the NMB for a status meeting at the end of April or beginning of May?

In Apr, PM published what had already been agreed to. He also published our latest offers along with the last company offer. Those had been approved by a majority of THIS MEC. Do you think the NMB will offer more negotiation dates if the MEC says those positions are no longer on the table? Do you think the company will tell the NMB, "see, they don't really want to negotiate in good faith. Don't waste our time until they are?"

 

Yeah that's not even close to an accurate representation of the situation. It only takes a single member of a council to put a recall on the agenda. I was at the last LEC22 meeting. Out of 100+ attendees, there was only a single member that wanted to recall TC. The motion to recall didn't get seconded and we all got to leave early.

My TC cabal speaks speaks for me. First time in my FedEx career that I can confidently stand behind our union leadership.

 

PM had an expiration date in May. The delay in negotiations is his unwillingness to resign.

 

So the question is, at what point, time or event, is THIS MEC/NC responsbile for not getting us a TA to vote on?

1 year from now will it still be PM/old guard/silent majority's fault?

2 years?

3 years from now, will we still be saying, "dang PM, its his fault that we don't have a TA!"

 

In three years, the two NCs will be equally responsible for any delays. I don't expect it to go nearly that long.

 

No, the new negotiating committee was selected by April 19 and took over April 29. So, I'll ask again, why couldn't the MEC send a request for a status meeting at the end of April or beginning of May if they had a plan?

In January, when the MEC approved the path forward, 10 of the 14 current MEC members were in place. That majority could have fired PM, but they didn't.

 

It was actually late December and that “agreement” was sprung on a few of them. Did you forget the majority tried to get rid of PM in November? Unfortunately the pro TA1 reps refusing to represent the will of the majority also refused to show up for the meeting and a quarum could not be met.