Sorry Raj, that's wishful thinking. They're just keeping it on the down-low with excuses like "it's different than Section 6...we could tell you but then we'd have to kill you."
It will land in our laps as a package. "HERE IT IS, ISN'T IT GREAT?" Then the real sell job will begin and there...
I agree. We'll be told by the usual suspects that the IBI is this wonderful thing, don't pay any attention to the language of the agreement, we know better than you, shut up and toe the line, you had better vote yes, etc. etc.
The apologists keep saying "if it isn't any good, just vote it...
I place the blame squarely where it belongs: The NC and especially the chairman of same.
When numerous members questioned the language of certain contract sections on the message board, they were basically told "you silly peasants, don't pay attention to what it says, pay attention to what WE...
And now, it turns out our vaunted Negotiating Committee got TOTALLY TAKEN on the language in at least a couple of sections of the last contract and had to give up past practice that will cost members THOUSANDS over the life of the contract.
Yeah, I want to trust these schmucks again...
They would have actually had a chance to really improve things if the union leadership had said "NO" when first approached with the phrase "cost neutral." The company would have been back pretty quickly with a better offer. I'm massively angry at my union for THAT. Among other things...
And the worst part is, WE KNOW IT'S COMING AND CAN'T STOP THE TRAIN!
We KNOW it will include an extension in the term.
We KNOW it will do little or nothing to improve QOL on the road.
We KNOW the leadership and their browbeating surrogates will sell the crap out of it (they have already...
" Heck, one guy even accused our union leadership of being corrupt!"
If the shoe fits....
The fact that such a foul person is STILL running the negotiating committee is enough for me to wash my hands of this union leadership.
In my view, he disqualified himself years ago when he was...
How can it possibly be a "fair" deal when the ENTIRE process is predicated on the phrase "cost neutral"? THAT is the operative phrase that should have IMMEDIATELY resulted in the E Board saying "uh, yeah, we're good with the contract as is." The company clearly needs relief desperately enough...
Since ML is negotiating it, and the usual suspects are ALREADY selling it, yup, I'm a NO vote. And something WILL come to a vote. To think otherwise is truly naive.
The only question that remains is which subsection of the membership gets hosed this time.
Given the fact that the usual shills are ALREADY wallpapering the union board, BOHICA boys and girls.
Just spitballing here but I'm guessing I'll be voting NO.
Again.
The legal hurdles for ANY company trying to impose a mandatory retirement age on their own are just too high.
Exxon succeeded because the age had ALWAYS been company policy. It was originally age 60 to reflect Part 121 requirements and then modified to 65 when the Fed raised the age.
The Fed...
Yea! So it can be replaced with a power-hungry, membership-hating cabal of arrogant pricks including the return of one of the most vile people to ever draw a union stipend. Awesome!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.