MMB meeting
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 277
I'm glad your cabal speaks for you. Your cabal never once put up a motion to remove PM. So in the year since the failed TA your cabal never tried to remove PM and as soon as they could, 2 days after our union voted to send a new supposal to the conpany, they threw a bomb on the table askin to be released from mediation causing a 6 month stall.
One correction, it is our cabal. Whether you like it or not, they speak for all of us this negotiating cycle.
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2023
Posts: 129
I see how you view that. However, the same logic can be applied to the time spent once PM entered the lame duck period (post TA1 rejection). It was said no one wanted the job or it would take substantial time to get a new NC trained. The NC nomination list was 10 person long, well qualified and the new NC team training was short (<2 months). I have hope for the new NC in the same way I had for PM and team prior to TA1. Time will tell.
One correction, it is our cabal. Whether you like it or not, they speak for all of us this negotiating cycle.
One correction, it is our cabal. Whether you like it or not, they speak for all of us this negotiating cycle.
#33
In March, the current block reps said that negotiations could resume with little delay. That isn't happening. Why?
The MEC now must convince the NMB that they aren't wasting their time with mediated negotiations. Do you think the NMB will be on board with a massive new direction to what has already been accepted by this MEC?
JG stated a few weeks ago at AOC meeting that the negotiation goals are limited to what we started with 3 years ago. So we are not pursuing a major rewrite of CBA.
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2023
Posts: 417
You are incorrectly paraphrasing. Union does not control the timing. And block reps are very aware of that.
JG stated a few weeks ago at AOC meeting that the negotiation goals are limited to what we started with 3 years ago. So we are not pursuing a major rewrite of CBA.
JG stated a few weeks ago at AOC meeting that the negotiation goals are limited to what we started with 3 years ago. So we are not pursuing a major rewrite of CBA.
In Apr, PM published what had already been agreed to. He also published our latest offers along with the last company offer. Those had been approved by a majority of THIS MEC. Do you think the NMB will offer more negotiation dates if the MEC says those positions are no longer on the table? Do you think the company will tell the NMB, "see, they don't really want to negotiate in good faith. Don't waste our time until they are?"
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 158
My TC cabal speaks speaks for me. First time in my FedEx career that I can confidently stand behind our union leadership.
#36
I didn't say that the union controls the timing. When asked in March about delays in future negotiations after asking for a profer of arbitration so that we could be released, they said that this shouldn't delay negotiations. They pointed to SW and said that there was little delay and that negotiations could resume quickly. So, if there was a plan, why weren't we asking the NMB for a status meeting at the end of April or beginning of May?
In Apr, PM published what had already been agreed to. He also published our latest offers along with the last company offer. Those had been approved by a majority of THIS MEC. Do you think the NMB will offer more negotiation dates if the MEC says those positions are no longer on the table? Do you think the company will tell the NMB, "see, they don't really want to negotiate in good faith. Don't waste our time until they are?"
In Apr, PM published what had already been agreed to. He also published our latest offers along with the last company offer. Those had been approved by a majority of THIS MEC. Do you think the NMB will offer more negotiation dates if the MEC says those positions are no longer on the table? Do you think the company will tell the NMB, "see, they don't really want to negotiate in good faith. Don't waste our time until they are?"
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 101
So the question is, at what point, time or event, is THIS MEC/NC responsbile for not getting us a TA to vote on?
1 year from now will it still be PM/old guard/silent majority's fault?
2 years?
3 years from now, will we still be saying, "dang PM, its his fault that we don't have a TA!"
1 year from now will it still be PM/old guard/silent majority's fault?
2 years?
3 years from now, will we still be saying, "dang PM, its his fault that we don't have a TA!"
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 158
So the question is, at what point, time or event, is THIS MEC/NC responsbile for not getting us a TA to vote on?
1 year from now will it still be PM/old guard/silent majority's fault?
2 years?
3 years from now, will we still be saying, "dang PM, its his fault that we don't have a TA!"
1 year from now will it still be PM/old guard/silent majority's fault?
2 years?
3 years from now, will we still be saying, "dang PM, its his fault that we don't have a TA!"
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2023
Posts: 417
In January, when the MEC approved the path forward, 10 of the 14 current MEC members were in place. That majority could have fired PM, but they didn't.
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 181
No, the new negotiating committee was selected by April 19 and took over April 29. So, I'll ask again, why couldn't the MEC send a request for a status meeting at the end of April or beginning of May if they had a plan?
In January, when the MEC approved the path forward, 10 of the 14 current MEC members were in place. That majority could have fired PM, but they didn't.
In January, when the MEC approved the path forward, 10 of the 14 current MEC members were in place. That majority could have fired PM, but they didn't.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Boeing Aviator
=> United Contract 2022
4
09-17-2022 12:45 PM