Originally Posted by
RyeMex
I suppose I may be looking for more specifics though. I'm all for diplomacy. But would you have preferred that the Union simply have accepted the company's push for binding arbitration for our new CBA, leaving the membership with yet another contract that they have no chance to vote on?
I don't think that it is so simple. From my understanding, you don't just jump to binding arbitration to get a contract while in discussions whether is be via RLA section 6 or CBA successorship. Aren't you missing a few steps? Besides, the point is moot. The union made their position clear as did the company during those talks which were intentionally untenable from both sides forcing our legal path.
Originally Posted by
Screwed
How did the union jointly decide to take this labor group down the legal path?
It is the company that is trying to shove amalgamation down our throats. It is the company that has not negotiated in good faith. It is the company that has sued US.
I believe this is a make or break contract for Atlas Pilots. It will determine whether we are a second tier pilot group in terms of compensation and benefits or whether we are a 3rd rate group like Omni, ATI and Kalitta, etc. etc.
We need to fight for a negotiated contract that we vote on. The time is now. Conditions may never be this good again.
I agree that it appears as though the company is doing what it can to prolong this effort but it matters not the reason. It is their company and it is obvious that they feel they can do whatever they want to achieve their business goals.
But I don't think we'll get to vote. The company knows this as does the union. The union is right. We did embark down the section 6 path. The company is right too. There is a viable successorship clause. But I am not sure that there is legal precedent to determine that once a negotiation path was started it must be finished as the union is trying to argue. I hope so, but I doubt it. Every thing else you said has no legal weight. It is just emotion.