OU...You are aware that the agreement for a mid june TA completion a day before JH unilateral decison ( with all partners, to include our lead NMB rep and his boss) potentially violated good faith.
Was there really a legal agreement?
In fact my concern now is if the NMB states no to the request, which is highly likely, then JH just gave the company an out to delay negotiations further and the mid JUne agreement is off the table.
If they say 'no', what is the companies basis for further delay and removing the alleged mid Jun 'agreement'? Spite?
They can ask for it to be removed BTW...hiring lobbyist? The company has lobbyist also, so the impact on the NMB is fools gold.
That's all the more reason for US to have 'lobbyists'.
Our leverage was the timeline that all agreed upon, with the NMB leadership in the room..and if the company delayed or backed out, give us greater leverage and the NMB for release...
I'm confused. Which timeline? We've all agreed on so many that I lose track.
Hope is not a strategy, and it appears that's exactly what JH is resting upon...Hoping the NMB will say yes...
You really need to think this through in more detail. This isn't a one shot Hail Mary.... Even if they say 'no', there is no harm or jeopardy in asking. Last I checked the RLA doesn't limit the number of times we can ask.
I can understand where you're coming from if you think the company is negotiating in good faith. But if that's what you think then we have bigger problems than agreeing on strategy. If, on the other hand, you believe the company has not been negotiating in good faith, then why would you object to asking for release?