I would normally agree. But when he published the petition he opened that door. People who don't know him should know who they are getting behind. You can read my argument if you read back a few pages.

 

There is no prognostication...only experience. To remove the NC now, will unnecessarily and significantly delay the process.

 

Ah, the classic "the pie is only so big" argument. Even IF you believe in the static pie model, wouldn't the retro plan front-load the contract? I'd prefer to get mine up front before the economy tanks.

 

Your well thought out response is well taken but stop getting wrapped around the axle about who posted the petition. For all I care, take it down and I'll make one. I'm just Joe Blow pilot and I'll happily put one up and the results will be the same. Don't miss the forest for the trees here. The petition is about what the group wants and that's retro pay and a financial penalty for screwing us last June without Quid, offering an insulting pay cut/high five and dragging feet in negotiations. We need a less friendly approach and this is a step in the right direction. That's all. Just a tiny step. Think of retro as our Quid if that helps

 

I signed it. Don't see any harm in it, to me it's no different than calling my reps/NC and expressing my concerns and ideas to them.

I don't know him, but someone should asked the "sponsor" directly why he put his name on this. Maybe he's more supportive of this pilot groups efforts than meets the eye. Regardless, the retro pay argument is valid, and is simply a bandaid measure for a major fault in the RLA.

 

I keep going back and re-reading this petition, and I have a lot of problems with it. Some of my concerns are relatively minor, like the wording that says the MEC "will not accept nor ratify any new agreement". Its not that I believe our union overlords are going to deny the membership the right to ratify the TA, it just seems to suggest that the author either cobbled this thing together in a hurry or didn't take the time to familiarize him or herself with the process. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but c'est la vie.

My biggest concern about this petition is that it appears to me that its intent is to lock the MEC/NC into what may be an untenable negotiating position. It seems to be demanding "don't send us a TA to vote on unless it includes 100% retro pay to 08/01/15. Regardless of what the rest of the agreement looks like." This is a corner I would rather we did not paint ourselves into. Also, this petition demands everything of the union, nothing from the company. With the hope that down line it will provide a financial disincentive for the company to continue to drag feet. I think its possible that it could have the opposite effect in the end game. Do we really believe that a mediator is going to release us into self help because we have decided that any thing less than 100% retro in unsat, regardless of the rest of the package? I have my doubts.....

By the way, if this Hanna guy is not the author of this petition, I would certainly like to know who is. My experience has been whenever someone shoves a petition under your nose to sign for an ostensibly good cause, it helps to read the fine print and know who is actually sponsoring it. "Sign this petition to stop the slaughter of puppies and kittens!" Then you read on to page two and it has a provision for a $1000 per household tax and a 3 round magazine limit for your Glock, brought to you by the National Coalition to Confiscate All Firearms Now. (This was an intentional exaggeration to make a point, also known as hyperbole.)

Sorry, but I find this petition to be extremely flawed. I want a great contract sooner rather than later, and I am willing to strike to get it, but I cannot in good conscience sign a petition that comes across to me as a no confidence vote to our union leadership.

 

I doubt the "directly attributable" part. And the NC needs to stay in place until we have a TA.
But I agree with everything else you say in this one.

 

It is flawed. As far as the source, from what Ive been told MH isn't well liked by many at this group and by few at his previous company. That says a lot.

Personal attacks aside, while Im sure the petition makes these 200+ people feel good it is a flawed way of trying to change things. It's the easy way out. It restricts the reps ability to vote on a TA that may be good for us based on a demand like this. I don't want my reps to ignore compensation, retirement, scheduling, scope, LTD etc etc based solely on retro pay. I do want our negotiators to get as much as possible from these dirtbags and spread it around the most equitable way possible. Just like I wouldn't want my reps to only care about pay rates at the expense of scheduling rules. Ive made that clear to them directly. We've had our say twice so far in pilot surveys. Its a frustrating process but I think we should see what happens this week and what happens over the next few months before making demands like this. If there isn't progress the way we want to see it or there is a turd of TA then we can react as necessary.

 

I just look at it as a way to share our collective 2 cents with the mec. I like the tough guy "demand" in the petition, but in reality it should say "hey mec, here are 250 members that would really, really like you to add this to the list." No member or group has the right to "demand" anything, short of having enough support to recall enough mec members to change policy. Let's face it, even if 1,400 pilots are willing to sign a toothless petition demanding something, most won't vote to recall their rep, and the threat of recall is all the leverage members have over their reps.

This petition is what it is... a paper tiger which may or may not show unity.

 

And... if you are going to put a comment on the petition, please proof read it. Looks like a bunch of monkeys with typewritters!
Not professionals that deserve a raise!