Originally Posted by
Thunderpig
This isn't meant to be a poke in the eye or a snarky question:
Is it going to look negatively on the union that they were (allegedly) unwilling to meet in DC since the mediator was apparently unable to travel due to funds and (allegedly) the company offered to meet the union there?
Caveat: this was a topic of conversation between a couple of people and I was curious who was telling the truth.
Ultimately that’s what the nmb will decide. But, we can speculate for whom has the moral high ground. A good start as to understanding who is telling the truth, is history. Check out the statements these people have made under oath, and their actions. What have they consistently done? That bit of “Oh we can meet after all in DC”; at virtually the last minute. Everything was already set up in Orlando; the only person who wasn’t going to show up was the mediator. Why change the venue at the last minute? They complained when we launched our lawsuit in FLL; the argument was a snarky response calling the union careless and needlessly wasteful of time and resources.
Our negotiators are using their free time and union money to meet. Why was it they wanted to change the venue at the last minute? Come on, that’s a delay and frustration tactic. Waste our union negotiating team’s time and money; a wear down tactic. Delay; the longer this drags out, the more money they keep off of our tables.