FIN, of your current elected Reps, which ones were elected because their goal was to keep the status quo?
You are kind of twisting my post a little.
I responded to a decertification drive suggestion. I don't think a decertification drive benefits our membership. I just pointed out some of the alternatives to carpet bombing ALPA because our frustration over scope language.
Since you asked, I will say plainly that our Reps and our Contract Negotiating Committee fail to fully appreciate the perilous position our current contract language places us in and the light will come on as this language is tested.
Fundamentally, we are flawed when we start using scope as bargaining leverage. As we erode our flying our bargaining power is reduced. Most fail to see the negative trend line that is the direct result of this policy.
Secondly, our control mechanisms are weak and fail when put under stress. Examples include our recent settlement over 76 seat jet flying where a difference in opinions on what the definition of "is" is resulted in 29 additional large RJ's while our mainline fleet is shrinking. Mark my words, we will next be tested on NWA LOA's 2006-10 and 2006-14.
I expect we will fail to protect these contract provisions since there is a pervasive thought that using scope as bargaining capital increases pay. Rather than seeing outsourcing as a threat, some see it as an opportunity.
I like my Reps and hope they will listen to my concerns. I don't think replacing the status quo with a more radical version of the status quo will help us. Instead we need to approach these scope issues smarter and more objectively.