johnso29

DeadHead,

I don't know if the Reps are required to disclose their vote. I really don't. I did see the Council 66 pilots disclose their votes via publication, as well as MSP and DTW.

chuck416

[QUOTE=Herkflyr;1193786]I respect these NO voters no more--and no less--than the rest of the MEC. They did what they are supposed to do. They participated in vigorous debate, examined the details of the TA, and then asked themselves, "is this TA worthy of my yes vote to send to the membership for ratification?"

Hi Herkflyr,
I would take issue with this part of your post. The thought where "...is this TA worthy of my yes vote to send to the membership..." It appears that this is not the charge that the reps have been issued. Nor does it fall into line with what O'Malley stated, that "...we hear you loud and clear..." (maybe someone else can provide the exact context of his quote,) but the gist is/was that this representative body WOULD yield to and represent the constituency wishes as indicated in the contract survey. THAT sir, I respectfully suggest, is the question that the representatives should've asked themselves.

whaledriver1

I hope that we have stand up guys like Steve and Ron on board at the new DPA. If ALPO tries to sell us this POS T/A... the DPA cards will roll over night.

Sink r8

Here's an alternative way to look at this. These guys know eher votes are the entire time, even if positions change. It must have been obvious that the NO's wouldn't prevail. Once you know you're close to 50% YES or more, if your job is to represent the Delta pilots, there is no reason not to forward this to the membership, because it's ultimately up to US to call this one.

A lot of pople are upset about this TA once they see it, but imagine how many would be outraged we would be if we didn't get the TA to even consider?

So what on earth did those guys do last week? Ask your reps how much time they spent in constructive debate, maybe engaging the company on better terms, and how much they wasted arguing against a position that all knew wouldn't prevail, and was probably moraly indefensible.

What was the gain from the four NO's, who do they benefit, and what was the price of spending a week arguing?

gloopy

So what if we collectively vote no and the company says "OK, here's the exact same deal except the pay rates go up one penny." Do we then send almost the same thing back out for a vote? Keep in mind every time we send something for a vote, its months delay, road shows and having to start over when its rejected. In my hypothetical one penny example above, we would expect and demand that those unacceptable offers not be brought to a vote for obvious reasons.

We can't let the company control the process by forcing popular votes on anything on their terms. We need reps in there to say "no, that is not good enough" and by default that means there will be offers we never see. Otherwise its a blitzkrieg of unacceptable trial balloons until they wear us down, delay the game forever or lock us into a high water mark of never, ever getting more than 50%+1.

Sink r8

Hi Gloopy,

First paragraph makes sense, and I would add you're forgetting our own role in this. We'd have to negotiate a follow-on TA. The company doesn't just get to publish TA's if there is no agreement. Our side sets up ratification votes, not theirs. Which means there is no way in [deleted] we'd be able to poll the membership to determine exactly what else needs to be included. So it's pretty much just as the union said, the comapy said, and you proved: it's this track, or the other track. This is the best we could do in this track... so what do we want to do now?

We do need reps that can send something unsatisfactory back. We had a vote. 14:5 thought we should see it over not see it. The 14 is just as suspect as the 5, BTW, and it tells you something about MEC politics, but I agree this TA doesn't need to be hidden.

But last week we were pounding our fists demanding to see thsi thing. I think there would have been mobs with pitchforks if we didn't get to vote on this. A lot of people will be publicly hostile to this TA, many privately on the fence. But I doubt many people feel tat they shouldn't get this product to vote on.

We all just wish it was better, but that's an entirely different matter.

I do think you'll agree with me that it will be important for the MEC to at least explain how/why they thought the TA is consistent with the survey. The no-voters say it isn't. Inasmuch as I don't normally value pro-con papers, I'd like some forensic work done on this thing pronto.

expectholding

When is the vote?

I am a curious bystander here, and if I have missed it through the thousands of threads and posts by you guys, then I apologize, I can't sift through it all.

gloopy

We have a TA now no matter what. So of course its going to be voted on by us. Fine. But if we send it back with clear directions that its not nearly enough, I'd expect the second TA to be significantly better (and really better, not a bunch of cost neutral money shuffling).

If we can't get a mutual agreement, we head into mediation, way earlier than usual thanks to our current language. We head towards self help in an already accelerated process and further expidite it by minimizing the number of open items. The NMB doesn't just sit on its hands and pressure labor. The company is also pressured, especially if the number of open items is reasonable and all we're asking for is profitable LCC parity for 130 seaters and up from there and profitable LCC parity scope. Put the ball in the company's court and force them to negotiate with themselves to keep the large RJ's they have.

Xray678

What if a second TA is not better? Or it takes a year to get another 3% in pay? Was it worth it?

The large raises some guys expected were never going to happen. This TA is below what I expected, but not so much below to take a chance on voting it down.

Sink r8

That's ...not even close to what I'm hearing from reps. The agreement is non-prejudicial, so the language cannot, by definition, be re-used as the basis for another discussion. Don't want to play that fear card, but I believe Plan A is the normal track, this is Plan B, and there is no Plan C. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see us tweaking B, and turning it around in any sort of reasonable timeframe, for the logistical reasons you outlined above.

As for better TA's the second time around, there is a recent precedent for this, both at NWand DAL: the JCBA. As you may recall, we took the second deal struck with the company, because we couldn't agree on the first.

It was worse than the first.

The real disappointment is the company is willing to risk putting a super-marginal TA on the table. This may have been a dumb move. But, no matter what we try, we can't force them to voluntarily offer terms early, that they don't want to offer. Maybe they miscalculated, but they sure didn't give us an option to toy around with this, and maybe send it back, and maybe get something better, or maybe get these terms back early in the Section 6 process in case that's what we feel like. This deal comes with a window, June 30th if I read Anderson's (semi-insulting) memo correctly. Then it goes away.

That's why I said elsewhere it's beautifuly, perversely crafted to pass. That's also why our reps came out with that look on their face.