Their answer doesn't mean $h!t!!! How many times has that been proven? All that matters is the English on the paper, and at times even that doesn't matter. WE CANNOT BE THIS SLOW TO COMPREHEND!!!

Pipe

 

Well, I do believe you're right. I wonder with many of the Q and A's, is there some secret document besides the TA that explains things a little further? Because if it's not specifically written down, and exactly specified, we know that it will be interpreted to the companies advantage. I think we've all experienced that. So how, exactly, can things be further explained when it is not actually in the TA. I wonder how the negotiating committee can explain intent, if it's not specifically in contractual language. Do they have additional documents that we aren't looking at?

I tend to jump to the worst possible scenario, but that may be on the extreme side.

 

Stockholm syndrome. Our NC spends an inordinate amount of time with the Company NC and probably has grown to respect the guys on the other side of the table. After a while, they start believing these guys have integrity and can be taken for their word.

Trust, but verify.

 

We asked for more control over our VTOs. We get more control over our VTOs. But the NC has stockholm syndrome? Read the SLR workgroup letter, I am not sure what else we could have asked for. In the end if we dont like it we can say no keep what we got.

 

I'll tell you what we can ask for. Language in the contract. Not language in letters, not language in meeting minutes, not language in an arbitration hearing -- language in the contract. I'd submit that 10% could be added to the YES vote by leaving the TA as-is but going back and adding agreed upon intent clauses throughout the document.

We have been arguing for weeks about what the TA really says. What does that say about the work done in the authorship of the document?

If you reach an understanding about intent during the negotiation, write an intent paragraph into the contract adjacent to contract clause. History shows that to be the only path to success with FDX. I am no longer interested in voting for what people "think" they agreed to. Those are nothing more than opinions. Trust is a thing of the past here.

Pipe

 

How is it that the SLR programming with its language, preferences, penalties, was not developed during the last 4 years??? Why do we have to sign up for software, that seriously affects our QOL, when we have no idea on how it will be implemented? That's insane. Why does our MEC not have a say in the IMPLEMENTATION of the SLR? You should know the answer. This is PBS by another name. After 4 years of distraction with PBS across the board, this is what we got, the opening door to PBS with 20% of R-days system wide, added to it.

If the company's negotiators had instead used the 4 years to source a vendor for a replacement of the VTO (PBS 1.0) system, and had developed language, software, metrics, penalties, etc... during that time, instead of stalling and distracting, while CRS continued to creatively re-interpret un-optimized sections of our current CBA, we would be in a different position. And if the company had then began implementing a modern, working PBS 2.0 on the VTO lines, and we had a 4 year contract duration to further explore how it affects VTO lines, this would be a non-issue.

But, that's not the case. Instead, the company used PBS as a stalling tactic. They did not source PBS vendors for VTO lines, nor wrote language, nor limitations. Instead, they asked for 20% of R days added to VTO's, with zero language to date, and they are asking for YOUR TRUST, that the implementation of said PBS, I mean SLR, with zero MEC input in the implementation phase, will be a good thing for us as they use it to enhance productivity. Unfortunately, due to CRS efficiencies in the last few years, trust is lacking.

 

I think it's worse than that ... during one of our previous contract negotiations (FPA maybe?), the union Negotiating Committee and the Management negotiators actually met at a church so that they could pray for a mutually agreeable agreement!*?

Are you ef-ing kidding me?

 

Hey, maybe that was good thinking. Perhaps then they could declare that God makes the final decision on the PBS software. And it was a "good faith agreement".