Originally Posted by
DeadHead
I'm guessing that if both/either sides decide to go public with the negotiations, then that could be a sign that negotiations aren't going well. Kinda like what ucal is going through.
Someone mentioned it a few pages back, but if management doesn't like our position could they really just say we'll meet again in 6 months?
I've heard passing a TA with retro pay rarely ever happens, especially when contract negotiations are dragged out, but how long could management drag out negotiations if they wanted to before their hand is forced?
If the MEC approves anything for a vote I believe that resets the clock and negotiations start back at square one, sound about right? I realize there is a process (cooling off period, arbitration...etc), but I just trying to figure out how long they could drag this thing out IF they wanted to.
First paragraph: That's probably an accurate assessment.
Second paragraph: The amendable date is Dec. 31, 2012. Contractually, if there is not an agreement by Mar. 31, 2013, both parties have agreed to petition the NMB jointly to get involved. From there the NMB wields the hammer. Just depends on who they are trying to bring inline. At AA they have been hammering the APA by essentially parking the negotiations. The NMB wields way too much power IMO.
Third paragraph: If there was a TA that was rejected by the membership I would think there would be a quick survey of the pilot group to see what the problem was and then they would try to fix those issues rather than starting from square one. This is what should happen but, I believe it was back in 1996, there was the threat of the negotiating committee resigning as well as the MEC and then having to start from before square one if we didn't vote for it. (My recollection of this might be off but not far)
The bottom line is that IF BOTH SIDES want to get this done, it could be done well before the amendable date but we know that won't be the case.
Denny