I’m looking forward to reading this TA, but I feel we’re already getting more of a push than a preview from the union. I expect we’ll get a lot more of “guys who left will wish they hadn’t “ and there’s “no reason to leave except for widebodies” rhetoric, etc.

Just state the facts and let the document speak for itself.

The argument against it is every time they say they had to compromise on something. There is no compromise in this environment and any compromise is a mark in the No column.

 

Get ready for a few in the no column.

 

So if you were the chair of our NC, you would approach the company with the attitude of ZERO negotiations - you're here to only listen to our demands. Is that about right?

 

Id make it clear to the company that the ball is clearly in our court and nothing is off the table.

I appreciate that we got everything the majority wanted in polling, but some things changed and more priorities developed such as hotel/fa issues.

 

And how would you do that?

 

don’t know, I’m not in the nc but there wouldn’t be comments like “this wasn’t worth bringing up”.

 

So you'd disregard the polling data and go off on your own because a few loudmouths want to address their crisis d'jour? Do you think that's smart? And do you think there should be no such thing as negotiations, but only listening-to-our-demands sessions? How long do you think it would take to secure a contract using your tactic?

 

Futhermore we are in mediation which comes with pros and cons.

Being intransigent isn't likely to endear you to the mediator.

 

I respectfully disagree that the large amount of HR complaints from one certain workgroup is a crisis d'jour.

That is something that started while 'negotiations' were underway. And yes, you're correct. We haven't seen a single AIP yet, so we don't know for certain if the concerns have been addressed. My talking with a rep has me believe that nothing will change. Per the rep, the company will just give whatever we have to the other group.

Hard language for separate lodging/transportation would have prevented the ability for the company to 'metoo' our gains for their union.

 

Yes, except it didn't poll as important enough.

You know, I'm all for the clause in our contract that says "No Pilot on Southwest Airlines Pilot Master Seniority List shall be bothered by any other employee group butthurtedness. Hurt feelings shall never be the cause for any discipline of any Pilot." But that's about as realistic as renaming the negotiations sessions into DEMAND sessions and renaming our Negotiations Committee into Demands Committee.

This gets fixed via lawsuits. Proven false claim against the pilot? Lawsuit against the individual and against the company because they threaten termination for "retaliation." A few cases where they pay millions, maybe they'll get the point. Until there are consequences for making false accusations, not much can be done, and even less so if the polling data doesn't support it.