Originally Posted by I was inverted

This is 1) speculation and 2) probably not the case, though I forgive you for thinking its fact since the union keeps spewing that talking point. My (2) could be considered speculation, but ask yourself this: why did the company agree to a narrow scope extension in the first place? They didn’t have to. This short term agreement was still achieved in section 6. They could have said no, we want to continuing negotiating line by line and just waited until JCBA (ironically the same threat the union keeps giving out and gets parroted here and in real life).

If it gets voted down, the whole thing could open up, or they could just revisit the same sections. And if a labor dispute were called, and other levers pulled, given attrition and the current applicant pool, there is not a chance in hell this company would delay til JCBA. They couldn’t get through the next 7 months, much less 2-3+ years. As the union said today, JCBA talks will likely begin by the end of the year. That’s plenty of time for CBA ext. v2.

That they’d say nah not negotiating until JCBA is pure FUD. They are required to re-engage in section 6, in what we capacity is agreed upon. If the company said full CBA, no more extension, they’d be so bogged down with negotiations at that point, and a labor dispute, and attrition, they couldn’t handle a merger at the same time. They want this done and over with. They’ve said so. But they would have to continue negotiating a CBA in good faith and deal with a labor dispute, and JCBA negotiations, and a merger, the whole time? That’s the leverage we have right now. They can’t NOT reengage. They can’t afford it. Meanwhile, I can afford to wait another 6 months.