Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
It's just not correct Alan. I have personal knowledge of this. In Section 6 negotiations, you are held to account every step of the way for bad faith negotiations. Specifically, you cannot say later in negotiations that you now want a 50% pay raise even though you initially asked for only 25%. Conversely, management can't later say they want 50% pay cuts even though they only asked for a 25% pay cut initially. This can be tried occasionally when one side feels they have a leverage advantage in a strike, but you'll quickly get slapped by the NMB who will remind you that going backward from your opener is bad faith negotiations. Without a detailed opener, you'd never know that. It's why openers are a detailed exposition of what you want as the final contract.
I'll never argue with personal knowledge, and I certainly understand the concept of negotiating in good faith and not escalating your position later on (unless the other side proposes something to which you will only agree in return for more of something else that you originally proposed).
That said, I don't see the issue with starting out with general proposals and following those up throughout the process with more specifics. The conceptual opener that we all saw stated that we were seeking to "significantly increase hourly rates of pay." How would it be considered bad faith negotiations to later put more flesh on those bones by proposing a specific amount?