My understanding is that the company, the mediator and the negotiating committee came to this agreement under mediation of the Railway Labor Act. The mediator wants to accomplish a collective bargaining agreement, a TA is not a CBA until member ratification. As such, I believe we go back into mediation and set a schedule based on the company, union and mediator. The process of that timeline is dependent on multiple items: Replacing the negotiating committee, recalling of reps that endorsed the failed TA, election of new reps, more polling I assume and then reengagement. The most recent example of the RLA was the railroad TA that got rejected by a few of their unions and they reengaged, did not come to an agreement, went to the PEB then had congress implement the PEB recommendation through legislation. When we return to the table, the company may want to open every section, they may not. We might have a framework with this TA, we might not. If this passes or fails in the 50% range, then half of our group is not being well represented. I would consider that a “area for improvement” however, it if passes or fails at 70%+, I would call it a successful outcome either way. If it passed, a large contingent is happy, if it fails, the union returns to the mediator and says that the perception of a zone of reasonableness was wrong according to our members. Then we have the unity of a 99% strike vote and an overwhelmingly rejected TA because it is inadequate. Will that help? Maybe. Will it hurt, for the short term, probably. Could the company furlough or wet lease or go into 4A2B/C? They are going to do what they need to do for their business. How long will it all take? Who knows. That is one of the unknowns. Will we get something better? I think it is possible. How do we get it? We eleven new reps, we gather new data, we maintain status quo, and we continue down the path of the RLA as we are permitted.

Small