Originally Posted by
kenfoggo
NC, the membership have ALREADY exercised their democratic right on this subject. The vote was for the fallback position. We should already be being rostered to that RP.
But because the vote was not what the GC or the company wanted, the GC extended the current rostering deal WITHOUT reference to the membership. How democratic is that?
How insulting to the membership?
Dear KEN
It is stretching the facts a little that the membership voted for the fallback. The fact that 250 members entitled to a vote did not take the time or effort to vote meant that the RP vote needed 67% of those whom voted, to pass. If they (the 250) had voted in the same ratio then the motion would have passed as over 50% of the membership voted FOR the proposal. The way it turned out a CLEAR MINORITY of 43% by default would have taken us to a position that many crew did not fully understand. Given the fact that the AOA received plenty of feedback from both YES and NO voters I think it was a sensible decision to attempt to fix the areas of concern.
I also understand the cynacism of those regarding the D&G procedures and how they have been handled, however apart from the 49ers they have followed the COS procedure and not everbody has been sacked.
Having the basic numbers of your rostering system in your COS is a positive for you and it is a lot easier and quicker to defend than a vague D&G that the court has already pre decided!
Again on balance RP07 whilst far from perfect,it is far better than the alternatives and I have yet to hear any logical unemotive argument that makes me think that the interim fallback is going to make the company come cap in hand and offer a better deal.