If the SWA NC forwards a TA that is even remotely close to the same ballpark as this one to the membership of SWAPA for ratification, I expect at least the initiation of an effort to recall and replace the BOD, executives, and NC.

If the Alaska NC/MEC is giving this to their membership with the recommendation to vote yes or with no recommendation at all, it represents a dark day for our profession.

The only explanations for such a move are all bad ones. Either they succumbed to negotiating fatigue, they were co-opted by management, they gave way to Stockholm Syndrome, they believed the "blarney"* the mediator was telling them, etc.

If the Alaska NC/MEC is handing it over to a vote with some sort of recommendation to vote no, it's a high-risk move, but sort of barely understandable but still head-shakingly bad.

Are you saying the Alaska NC/MEC is recommending a yes vote or putting forth no recommendation at all?


*From a 1991 RLA case: "we do not think it appropriate for a court to examine a Board member's statements, made in the course of mediation, so critically. Successful mediators often liberally use blarney (hoomalimali in Hawaiian) as one of their mediation tools. See Local 808, 888 F.2d at 1436-37. The Chairman's statement may well have been a ploy. By inquiring as to the true meaning of such a statement we could well undermine its entire purpose by forcing the Board to admit it was a tactic to spur negotiations."