Rouge MEC Block Reps or no negotiation plan?
09-17-2024, 09:21 AM
#1
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2024
Posts: 6
Rouge MEC Block Reps or no negotiation plan?
Rouge MEC Block reps or no negotiating plan?
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
Last edited by MemphisCT757; 09-17-2024 at 09:24 AM. Reason: wordy
09-17-2024, 12:00 PM
#2
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2023
Posts: 15
Dude...who just created account today:
First...what do you mean by rouge? Are you French and describing the color of your angry emoji or are the MEC members with whom you are obviously disgruntled wearing rouge? Or do you mean "rogue"?
"This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th." [emphasis mine]
This belies your identity as one of two possibilities:
1) An angry "yes" voter approaching the regulated age who just can't get over the fact that the TA failed [note the red emphasized desscriptors with no mention of the wasted 6 months breathlessly hoping for TA 1.01] , or...
2) A management stooge trying to sow discord, or...
3) Both
First...what do you mean by rouge? Are you French and describing the color of your angry emoji or are the MEC members with whom you are obviously disgruntled wearing rouge? Or do you mean "rogue"?
"This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th." [emphasis mine]
This belies your identity as one of two possibilities:
1) An angry "yes" voter approaching the regulated age who just can't get over the fact that the TA failed [note the red emphasized desscriptors with no mention of the wasted 6 months breathlessly hoping for TA 1.01] , or...
2) A management stooge trying to sow discord, or...
3) Both
09-17-2024, 12:14 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Position: Wichita
Posts: 736
Rouge MEC Block reps or no negotiating plan?
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
09-17-2024, 12:23 PM
#5
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2023
Posts: 15
"This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th" [empahsis mine]
This belies the true identity of Mr. CT757. He is either:
1) An angry "yes" voter still so filled with rage and TDS (TA-1 Derangement Syndrome) that it actually got voted down
2) A company stooge on special projects to sow discord (like the guy who claimed the MEC wasn't being forthright about the NMB's invitation to the september dates...before the letter was signed)
3) Both
This belies the true identity of Mr. CT757. He is either:
1) An angry "yes" voter still so filled with rage and TDS (TA-1 Derangement Syndrome) that it actually got voted down
2) A company stooge on special projects to sow discord (like the guy who claimed the MEC wasn't being forthright about the NMB's invitation to the september dates...before the letter was signed)
3) Both
09-17-2024, 12:24 PM
#6
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2024
Posts: 6
Dude...please don't assume my preferred pronoun! LOL
You just joined two months ago! Settle down.
Answer: None of the above. Just stating the facts as I view them. If you dont agree, feel free to provide me an alternative view.
You just joined two months ago! Settle down.
Answer: None of the above. Just stating the facts as I view them. If you dont agree, feel free to provide me an alternative view.
09-17-2024, 12:31 PM
#7
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2023
Posts: 15
1) The pronoun issue is another clue that you've received management sensitivity training. Sorry. Please replace "dude" with non-decsript "person"
2) Joined 14 months ago, not that it matters, but seems odd to have such informed and strong opinions that just burst forth today in an effort to cast dispersion on the MEC.
3) The goals haven't changed...as in,..."an industry-leading contract?"
2) Joined 14 months ago, not that it matters, but seems odd to have such informed and strong opinions that just burst forth today in an effort to cast dispersion on the MEC.
3) The goals haven't changed...as in,..."an industry-leading contract?"
09-17-2024, 12:37 PM
#8
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 18
Dude...who just created account today:
First...what do you mean by rouge? Are you French and describing the color of your angry emoji or are the MEC members with whom you are obviously disgruntled wearing rouge? Or do you mean "rogue"?
"This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th." [emphasis mine]
This belies your identity as one of two possibilities:
1) An angry "yes" voter approaching the regulated age who just can't get over the fact that the TA failed [note the red emphasized desscriptors with no mention of the wasted 6 months breathlessly hoping for TA 1.01] , or...
2) A management stooge trying to sow discord, or...
3) Both
First...what do you mean by rouge? Are you French and describing the color of your angry emoji or are the MEC members with whom you are obviously disgruntled wearing rouge? Or do you mean "rogue"?
"This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th." [emphasis mine]
This belies your identity as one of two possibilities:
1) An angry "yes" voter approaching the regulated age who just can't get over the fact that the TA failed [note the red emphasized desscriptors with no mention of the wasted 6 months breathlessly hoping for TA 1.01] , or...
2) A management stooge trying to sow discord, or...
3) Both
09-17-2024, 12:48 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,338
I kinda figured when they chose a NC Chairman and Committee that indicated confidence in him...didn't know it needed a resolution where they could whip out their "Where-as"....
Symbolism over substance.....
These guys misread the room when they walked out before seeing the companies offer....I don't care how bad it was going to be. It was churlish!
You do know that AL will be joining the NC...you know the one you incorrectly vilified as selling out our scope and being a tool for the other side. Call your block Rep and ask....
Symbolism over substance.....
These guys misread the room when they walked out before seeing the companies offer....I don't care how bad it was going to be. It was churlish!
You do know that AL will be joining the NC...you know the one you incorrectly vilified as selling out our scope and being a tool for the other side. Call your block Rep and ask....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
