ConnerP

Spot on! These 2 have their own agenda and only their agenda matters. Period. End of story!

I responded to them since I am in 7 after their last hypocritical missive. I got a form letter filled with baloney back which addressed none of my concerns. I am thankful that we have 1 LEC rep with a brain. Glad he is my rep. LB is a stand up guy. He has refused to sign both of the letters by B and H. Too bad H's last name doesn't start with S because then it would be more appropriate.

The problem is the apathy of the group as a whole in that these 2 ever got elected in the first place.

PicklePausePull

All these issues and a lot more will be tabled once again for a small 3% pay raise if we elect to take the 3% this year. How much more money can we gain by starting negotiations now instead of delaying another year, not to mention all the quality of life issues we talk about on here daily?

3% is a pittance. Negotiations take years. There will be no pay increase next year or the year after that. Would it not be more advantageous to get the ball rolling again now, while the company is returning record profits and the global economy is slowly recovering?

On going negotiations are non-binding as they fall outside of section six of the RLA. The company has the legal right to re-negotiate every provision we currently have "negotiated."

Pakagecheck

Tabled? I guess the big difference between what you believe and what 70% of the crew force believes is that the negotiating committee is still negotiating and gaining ground. 3% is still 3% that will have to be re-negotiated if we turn this down. And as you said, there will be no raise next year or the year after that, especially if we go into section 6. Negotiations are non binding outside of section 6 but even if we are in section 6, the company can always request to reopen a section if it has been closed. But, until the entire document has been settled upon, it is not binding.

meatloaf

Idiots. When you give something up (the FDA's) in exchange for $ (the 3%) you don't give the cash back after the other side has what they want.

Why go back and re-negotiate what you've already gotten?

livindadream

I Agree...

The same people that griped about getting only 6% for the FDA Agreement are now wanting to get only 3% for it. Great Idea!!!

I voted against the agreement for many reasons, but there is no way in hell I'll support giving up a negotiated pay raise and make a crappy deal even worse.

FLMD11CAPT

Shack +10.......... write/call/ jump up and down on the desks of your Reps folks.......if not, its on you.

P.S. And why are the results of the 3% question via the NC survey still sequestered? Please MEC, explain this, specifically TH, TC, CB and CK.......

Tuck

How exactly do you define "progress" by the NC? Beer and a slap on the back after a discussion or pen to paper? Which one do they have?

Pakagecheck

Just because something isn't TA'd doesn't mean progress hasn't taken place. The fact of the matter here is simple, A rep has a responsibility to vote the way his or her constituents have directed them to! Not to try and justify why they want to vote their own view. As stated previously, possibly informative but totally irrelevant!

PicklePausePull

Well, if I am the company, here is what I see. The NC comes to me in 2010 and says that there are issues in the current contract that we need to modify through the collective bargaining process. The company says, OK, but we are uncomfortable with the potential new rules on crew rest, so will you take a 3% pay raise and put it off until the FAA has issued its ruling? The NC says OK. One year later, after the FAA puts its rule out in favor of the company, the NC comes back and says that we're really not that serious about the issues in the contract because we'd rather take another 3% raise than address the scheduling, training, and other pay issues. The company, of course is pleased, because they can now put off addressing any costly modifications for another year while continuing to negotiate in non binding "discussions" those issues that don't cost them anything. All for a predictable 3% which they have budgeted for last year.

The message sent loud and clear: Throw them a bone and they'll walk away. They're not very serious about the truly costly items in the contract or they'd fight for them now, realizing the future value of money involved in scheduling, crew rest, training, etc.

As a side note, I spend more than the 3% pay increase just in commuting to/from work because we cannot keep bank money from one month to the next. That issue alone, assuming it can be negotiated, would save me more than this pay raise. So would the pay for training program we are currently under. So the 3% is a net loss to me as long as these other issues remain unaddressed.

PicklePausePull

I disagree. If it has not been TA'd, it really doesn't exist. It is just preliminary discussion. When the NC starts addressing those issues that cost real money, the company will have every motivation to revisit these issues to seek concessions, if nothing else, as a bargaining chip to see how serious we are about the costly issues.