Originally Posted by IA1125

I have no way to verify the authenticity of RAH's timeline. It's their document, not mine.

I don’t doubt the content of your speech, the tone and demeanor with which you delivered your speech may have had something to do with the reception of your theories and the outcome.

If you were RAH Management and had these events occur in 2008:

January - November:

“Teamsters and Republic meet for 11 of 12 months and agree on substantial portions of a new contract.”


And these events occur in 2009:

“April 14: Teamsters and Republic agree to approximately a third of open contract items and hold productive discussions on the remainder.

April 15: Teamsters Local 747 is placed into trusteeship resulting in cancelled sessions and a general delay in productive negotiations for months.

July 7: Union trustees withdraw both the union’s compensation proposal and its insurance/benefits proposal.

August 25: Company submits a proposal in hopes of pushing negotiations forward. Union offers no proposals until December 2010.

September: Republic agrees to the Teamster’s request that the parties defer negotiations until an integrated seniority list is completed following the purchase of Frontier and Midwest.

The seniority matter ultimately goes to arbitration which results in 18 months of delay.”
Funny...no mention of the delay taken by allowing RAH to form their own Local and that adding to the reasoning in requesting the delay...

Would a single speech from the “Strike Committee Chairman” on working together have made much of an impact on your expectations and methods of dealing with the IBT? In fact, why did the IBT select the Strike Comm. Chair instead of a more a Member with a more neutral title?

Maybe because the persons previous TITLE is inconsequential when considering a persons ability? Nah...

Then, after the January 19, 2009 speech, you (RAH Management) were forced to watch how the IBT dealt with the SLI, including the other 3 Unions, the Arbitrator’s instructions and the NMB, what would you feel the odds were that there would be a cooperative, non-adversarial relationship going forward?

Now, based on the 357’s behavior, the ExCo has members that meet with Frontier Management monthly (or at least one month in a row), but refuses to meet with RAH Management for your Monthly Ops meeting.
"monthly"...or at least one month IN A ROW. C'mon...try to make sense here.

If you didn’t like the course the Monthly Ops meeting was taking, you could have easily said, “We are not going to negotiate at this meeting”, instead of taking your ball, going home and refusing to meet again.

I refer you back to the SLI process, as this seems the standard philosophy and behavior pattern for the IBT.