Do we have a ta on the way?
08-22-2015, 10:17 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by Full pull
We need to make it cleared to management and membership that if any hostages are taken, no matter how stupid, no agreement until all hostages are returnd.
08-22-2015, 10:20 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Couch Potato
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Rock
Isn't that exactly what the company would want?
MG2
08-22-2015, 11:00 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by TonyC
The vote was in open session, and recorded, so it's far from secret. I'm told the Anchorage Rep was a bit confused about what exactly was being voted on and would have voted No had he understood. That would have made it 8 to 6. Understand, the vote was not to approve a TA, or send it to the membership for ratification. The vote was to have the Negotiating Committee convert the concepts they had achieved into actual CBA language that could be reviewed and then approved or disapproved as a TA.
Despite the fact that the MEC Chairman has informed the media we have a TA, that decision is up to the MEC, and it will be made next Wednesday. Then it will be up to them to decide how to use their vote. Will they approve of the deal only if they feel it's worthy of their full support and membership ratification? Will they "approve" of the process to send it to the membership to decide? The process has already been approved of -- the questions should be about the TA. (Many have done this in the past in an attempt to wipe their hands of the responsibility of tough decisions. "I don't know, even though I have access to more information than the line pilot, so I'll just toss it to them to decide.") Or will they "approve" the TA out of fear of threatened alternatives, which could include a "Pause" from the NMB Mediator? We cannot control what the Mediator decides -- we can only control what WE do, and we shouldn't rush into inferior deals out of fear of possibilities. We've come too far and waited too long to mess this thing up in the last 0.3 miles of the 26.3 mile marathon.
I'm of the opinion that the MEC should not pass to the membership for ratification any deal they cannot wholeheartedly support and defend. Don't become a tool of The Company to test the waters and "see if it will pass" by a slight margin. We deserve better, and we don't need to waste our time and resources playing that game.
Yepp. And LCAs, and SCAs, etc.
.
Despite the fact that the MEC Chairman has informed the media we have a TA, that decision is up to the MEC, and it will be made next Wednesday. Then it will be up to them to decide how to use their vote. Will they approve of the deal only if they feel it's worthy of their full support and membership ratification? Will they "approve" of the process to send it to the membership to decide? The process has already been approved of -- the questions should be about the TA. (Many have done this in the past in an attempt to wipe their hands of the responsibility of tough decisions. "I don't know, even though I have access to more information than the line pilot, so I'll just toss it to them to decide.") Or will they "approve" the TA out of fear of threatened alternatives, which could include a "Pause" from the NMB Mediator? We cannot control what the Mediator decides -- we can only control what WE do, and we shouldn't rush into inferior deals out of fear of possibilities. We've come too far and waited too long to mess this thing up in the last 0.3 miles of the 26.3 mile marathon.
I'm of the opinion that the MEC should not pass to the membership for ratification any deal they cannot wholeheartedly support and defend. Don't become a tool of The Company to test the waters and "see if it will pass" by a slight margin. We deserve better, and we don't need to waste our time and resources playing that game.
Yepp. And LCAs, and SCAs, etc.
.
08-22-2015, 11:19 AM
#54
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Thanks quoting the oversized picture. It will screw up my scrolling for another 40 posts.
I actually thought about that, but didn't see a way around it.Here's another contribution towards 80 ...
.
08-22-2015, 11:33 AM
#56
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by The Walrus
You can change the number of posts per page and get rid of it quicker.
Wish there was a choice to leave it at 5 until 10 would do, then automatically increment up until 40 works again.
Or we could just create filler posts to make it moot -- until somebody else quotes the picture again ...
I need the rain to stop and the grass to dry so I can mow the lawn and stay out of trouble here.
.
08-22-2015, 12:31 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
9 - 5?
Pretty close to our ratification numbers, lately.
64% - 36%
A "timeout" from the NMB? Boy, I sure am glad that interim agreement negotiating protocol BS provided us with such a great relationship with the NMB.
Tony...Please tell me you were joking about the ANC rep not knowing what he was voting on. Good grief!! That's troubling.
Pretty close to our ratification numbers, lately.
64% - 36%
A "timeout" from the NMB? Boy, I sure am glad that interim agreement negotiating protocol BS provided us with such a great relationship with the NMB.
Tony...Please tell me you were joking about the ANC rep not knowing what he was voting on. Good grief!! That's troubling.
08-22-2015, 12:40 PM
#58
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Busboy
Tony...Please tell me you were joking about the ANC rep not knowing what he was voting on. Good grief!! That's troubling.
.
08-22-2015, 12:43 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
If that is accurate about who voted for/against putting the language into TA format, I wonder if it is specifically because of whom they are representing. For example, blocks 1 and 2 might turn down almost anything without an A fund increase, as they are representing people who could be retiring very soon, and that is the one thing that affects them the most. Instructor and HKG blocks may have very specific interests that do not affect the other blocks, in general (unless they are still attempting to replace line pilot instructors, which affects us all). No clue about block 6.
I'm not making commentary on how people should/should not vote, since obviously the rest of us have no idea of what they are looking at. I am just speculating on why some blocks might vote against when then others voted for. Different blocks=different interests.
I'm not making commentary on how people should/should not vote, since obviously the rest of us have no idea of what they are looking at. I am just speculating on why some blocks might vote against when then others voted for. Different blocks=different interests.
