100LL... Again! said:
I like your post. Your thought process is rational and you are reasoning rather than attacking. Even if we disagree on some issues, that is the kind of thinking that promotes progress toward resolution of disputes. "Who's on first" is not the primary concern. In my thinking, a mutually agreed solution to our differences is far more important than the mechanics of how we get there.
I would not use the term "blackmail" for I think that is too strident. Let's just say that it was overtly made clear before the meeting that an outcome contrary to your wishes would have serious consequences for us. Not quite an ultimatum, but bordering on one.
From my perspective, both the threat of "going public" and the proffer of preferential hiring were a quid pro quo or carrot and stick approach by the DMEC that should not have been necessary or made. It came across as an offer to "buy" our cooperation with a rubber check coupled with retaliation should we decide not to "sell".
That is very, very, different from a request for assistance. It opens the meeting in a defensive bargaining atmosphere, when there should, in my opinion, have been no bargaining at all.
When you begin such a meeting with an "offer to deal, or else", it should not be surprising if the details of your offer are questioned and the other parties needs are expressed.
You came to negotiate, when in fact all you needed to do was pick up the phone and say, "we need some help". Instead what we read was ... we want something from you but its not a favor or help; this is what we'll pay you for it; you have to take a check; you can't deposit it; if you don't take the deal we're offering you we'll fry you in the political press.
When we ask you if your check will ever be funded, you tell us that perhaps it will, but only after you've paid your military buddies first. When we tell you that we have needs that we'd like you to consider, you get angry, remind us of what you'll do if we don't sell and threaten to leave. We respond by saying that we'll keep the door open if you have anything further, but you are not asked to stay. You leave in a huff and when you get home, you promptly make good on your threat.
I was not in the meeting, but I would say that we were attempting to deal. Why? Because you did not come asking for help, you came with a quid pro quo. We responded in kind. We did not like your quid pro quo and you did not like our response.
Help or favors you can get for nothing. If you come to negotiate then yes, it will take a true partnership before any agreement can be reached. We will adress your concerns but you must also address our concerns. Agreements are reached when mutual interests are placed in reasonable balance.
Favors and help are grants that come without preconditions or paybacks.
In reality the situation does not need to be judged. Judgement or demands for judgement seek to impose blame. It is fine to determine the probable cause of a failure however, if we focus on afixing blame the probable cause will remain hidden and the problem unresolved. The "accident" is likely to repeat itself.
Either we want a solution to our differences or we do not. If we do, talks should begin without preconditions. When the parties concerns are addressed to the mutual satisfaction of both an agreement will be reached. Neither party can be pressured or forced into an unsatisfactory accord.
Now that you have a new CEO of your union, we have another opportunity to resume discussions. We need to put the "bad blood" behind us, simply because it is in our best interest to do so and both will benefit.
It is difficult to reach agreement in an atmosphere of mistrust. Just look at what happened in our strike. That was totally uncalled for, yet because the Company believed it could intimidate and browbeat, negotiations collapsed. It cost the Company hundreds of millions of dollars and the alienation of thousands of employees, to save a relatively miniscule sum. If there was ever a case of being "penny wise and pound foolish" that was it. So why did it happen? Not because of money. It happened because their egos replaced their common sense. We could not come to trust each other so, instead of opting for mutual agreement, we opted for mutual destruction and came very close to achieving it.
Our pilot groups should not follow a similar course of action. The danger of mutual destruction is far too great. While detente is not the desired solution, even that is better than nuclear war. The objective should be peace.
The industry waters are full of greater danger than ever before and we are both in peril. Leaders should recognize that "united we stand, divided we fall."
Regards,
Last edited:
), but may not succeed. I'm not nearly in the category of The New Yorker, not even close to being good enough for that, I have no interest whatever in the in the likes of the National Enquirer. That sort of leaves me between the rock and the hard place on this forum. I'm useless in the cartoon category. which is why you don't see me in many threads.
