SFO NEB Meeting Minutes and Nick Daniels Motion to Extend the Contract

LennyA21 said:
There is nothing nick can say now, no fancy videos, no double talk. The motion to extend by Ortiz was taken back and Nick himself came in with the motion to extend. This is the end of the road for team NDJH.
Click to expand...
Yup.
We've got to get JD in there - he has said he wants to negotiate a new contract.
jdatc2024.org

Justin Dailey for NATCA President

An Average Controller running for NATCA President in 2024
jdatc2024.org jdatc2024.org
 
LennyA21 said:
There is nothing nick can say now, no fancy videos, no double talk. The motion to extend by Ortiz was taken back and Nick himself came in with the motion to extend. This is the end of the road for team NDJH.
Click to expand...
You aren’t technically incorrect but you’re leaving out important stuff in between that really matter.

1) Ortiz makes the motion to extend but gives a union-only option in ‘26 to reopen if the political climate is good for us.

2) Santa says that’s a no go (obviously, why would the FAA ever agree to that?)

3) Ortiz amends the motion removing the union-only option and making it by mutual consent.

4) After lengthy debate, the NEB unanimously agree to Ortiz tabling the motion UNTIL a political discussion is had on the 2024 election.

5) Ortiz then moves to delay a decision on slate book negotiations until NATCA gets briefed from NATCA staff and consultants on the 2024 election outlook which is approved by the NEB.

6) Nick then moves that if delaying is not an option anymore (step 5), Santa will pursue extending the contract until ‘29 with the ability to reopen in ‘26 by mutual consent (which is the same motion as step 3 by Ortiz). That is approved by the NEB.

Again you aren’t wrong but those middle steps are VERY important to what actually happened.
 
bravounite33 said:
You aren’t technically incorrect but you’re leaving out important stuff in between that really matter.

1) Ortiz makes the motion to extend but gives a union-only option in ‘26 to reopen if the political climate is good for us.

2) Santa says that’s a no go (obviously, why would the FAA ever agree to that?)

3) Ortiz amends the motion removing the union-only option and making it by mutual consent.

4) After lengthy debate, the NEB unanimously agree to Ortiz tabling the motion UNTIL a political discussion is had on the 2024 election.

5) Ortiz then moves to delay a decision on slate book negotiations until NATCA gets briefed from NATCA staff and consultants on the 2024 election outlook which is approved by the NEB.

6) Nick then moves that if delaying is not an option anymore (step 5), Santa will pursue extending the contract until ‘29 with the ability to reopen in ‘26 by mutual consent (which is the same motion as step 3 by Ortiz). That is approved by the NEB.

Again you aren’t wrong but those middle steps are VERY important to what actually happened.
Click to expand...
It's a distinction without a difference.
Getting us a good contract should be the top priority of the union. Deciding wether or not they should try is a failure in and of itself.
 
bravounite33 said:
You aren’t technically incorrect but you’re leaving out important stuff in between that really matter.

1) Ortiz makes the motion to extend but gives a union-only option in ‘26 to reopen if the political climate is good for us.

2) Santa says that’s a no go (obviously, why would the FAA ever agree to that?)

3) Ortiz amends the motion removing the union-only option and making it by mutual consent.

4) After lengthy debate, the NEB unanimously agree to Ortiz tabling the motion UNTIL a political discussion is had on the 2024 election.

5) Ortiz then moves to delay a decision on slate book negotiations until NATCA gets briefed from NATCA staff and consultants on the 2024 election outlook which is approved by the NEB.

6) Nick then moves that if delaying is not an option anymore (step 5), Santa will pursue extending the contract until ‘29 with the ability to reopen in ‘26 by mutual consent (which is the same motion as step 3 by Ortiz). That is approved by the NEB.

Again you aren’t wrong but those middle steps are VERY important to what actually happened.
Click to expand...
Nick could have said nothing and they would have had to revisit this at a later time. Nick wanted to take credit for this so he had to say something when saying nothing would have been better for him. We do not know what would have happened with the tabled motion so that’s not even an option anymore and Ortiz is out, now it’s on Nick.

KP-ATC said:
It's a distinction without a difference.
Getting us a good contract should be the top priority of the union. Deciding whether or not they should try is a failure in and of itself.
Click to expand...
Correct Ortiz at least tabled it so we could see what the climate from the members/staff was but Nick had to speak up and put his name behind something someone else came up with, like he always does. This time he fucked up and got caught in the minutes.
 
KP-ATC said:
It's a distinction without a difference.
Getting us a good contract should be the top priority of the union. Deciding wether or not they should try is a failure in and of itself.
Click to expand...
I agree, I'm 100% for a new contract but I do get more hesitant if it's under a Trump administration. I don't care about the failure to do it in the past under Biden as that is all in the past and that decision can't be changed. It just gives people more ammo to complain about.

LennyA21 said:
Nick could have said nothing and they would have had to revisit this at a later time. Nick wanted to take credit for this so he had to say something when saying nothing would have been better for him. We do not know what would have happened with the tabled motion so that’s not even an option anymore and Ortiz is out, now it’s on Nick.
Click to expand...
I think that was the entire point of the motion. It being a tabled motion means the NEB needs to be back in a meeting again to vote again on that motion before Santa could move on. Instead, the final motion made was if we've run out of time to find out information on the political climate, Santa can move ahead with the extension with the potential for reopening in '26 with mutual consent without having to reorganize the NEB to get a vote together. Now they've already had that vote. Again, that is the exact same motion made by Ortiz prior to all the political climate discussions. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who made the motion as the majority of the NEB voted to approve it. The only reason is matters who actually made the motion was because now Mick can use it campaign materials now.
 
bravounite33 said:
I agree, I'm 100% for a new contract but I do get more hesitant if it's under a Trump administration. I don't care about the failure to do it in the past under Biden as that is all in the past and that decision can't be changed. It just gives people more ammo to complain about.


I think that was the entire point of the motion. It being a tabled motion means the NEB needs to be back in a meeting again to vote again on that motion before Santa could move on. Instead, the final motion made was if we've run out of time to find out information on the political climate, Santa can move ahead with the extension with the potential for reopening in '26 with mutual consent without having to reorganize the NEB to get a vote together. Now they've already had that vote. Again, that is the exact same motion made by Ortiz prior to all the political climate discussions. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who made the motion as the majority of the NEB voted to approve it. The only reason is matters who actually made the motion was because now Mick can use it campaign materials now.
Click to expand...
It most certainly matters who made the motion when the person who made the motion is running to be our President.
 
LennyA21 said:
It most certainly matters who made the motion when the person who made the motion is running to be our President.
Click to expand...
And Santa, another guy running against Nick for President, also voted FOR that motion. In this specific case, I say it doesn't matter who brought the motion up as Ortiz already had brought up that same motion earlier in the meeting so that's why I'm saying this wasn't some master plan by Nick. In the end, there's a very real possibility it was a pointless motion anyways as it's only goes into effect if time has run out on whatever they want to get more information on with the political climate and Santa gets put in that position.

To me, this is just one candidate trying to use anything they can as ammunition to attack their counterparts. Same type thing happened with the whole center upgrade crap a few months ago.
 
bravounite33 said:
And Santa, another guy running against Nick for President, also voted FOR that motion. In this specific case, I say it doesn't matter who brought the motion up as Ortiz already had brought up that same motion earlier in the meeting so that's why I'm saying this wasn't some master plan by Nick. In the end, there's a very real possibility it was a pointless motion anyways as it's only goes into effect if time has run out on whatever they want to get more information on with the political climate and Santa gets put in that position.

To me, this is just one candidate trying to use anything they can as ammunition to attack their counterparts. Same type thing happened with the whole center upgrade crap a few months ago.
Click to expand...
Where did Santa vote for the motion?
 

Similar threads

A
NEB Meeting Minutes
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
ChuckNovember
ChuckNovember
L
Did Nick Daniels propose extending the contract to 2029?
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Periculant
Periculant
GulfCharlie
Nick Daniels / Jamaal Haltom NATCA Pres/VP
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
13K
Logical_Mongoose
Logical_Mongoose
jdatc
NEB meeting in Hawaii
5 6 7
Replies
135
Views
11K
boots
boots
J
NEB jan meeting?
Replies
2
Views
611
J-one-s
J
Back
Top Bottom