Originally Posted by
CVG767A
I think that is a big part of the problem here. There are two ways to reach an agreement between two groups having divergent goals: the traditional, adversarial way, where the stronger entity wins, and the cooperative way, where both sides seek an agreement that addresses their respective needs.
NWALPA typically resorts to the former method; DALPA typically uses the latter.
Which is more effective? I'll leave that for you to decide. One way to judge the effectiveness of each method is to compare our contracts over the years. You be the judge.
CVG,
That's just ignorance of history on your part. And the way you spliced that half sentence out of my post gives new meaning to lack of context, but that's OK. Not too many people understood why all the strikes happened at NWA. It was because of something called the Mutual Aid Pact. It meant that if an air carrier suffered a strike, other airline managements would come to the financial aid of the carrier that was struck and actually give them cash. NWA managment realized that money could be made, so they routinely walked out of negotiations with all labor groups KNOWING that the law allowed them only one option - which was to strike. After about the fifth time this happened, other airlines got wise and lobbied congress for an end to the Mutual Aid Pact. Congress quickly agreed.
By not caving in to our management's draconian salary cuts back then, we held the line on not having a bad pattern affect the rest of our ALPA brothers. We lost a lot of income because of that, but we felt that the line had to be held.
Carl