The NMB doesn't have any authority to force us to accept any rates or work rules we don't want to accept. The only power they have is a limited power over the clock - with an emphasis on the word "limited." They can not "park" us or "ice" us forever. Yes, of course, they want all of us to believe they can. Haven't you heard the quotes about the NMB's "blarney" and "hoomalimali"? The NMB tries to scare us into thinking we can never get released. And we usually believe them.
Here's the blarney quote for those who haven't read it before:
Here's more FACTUAL information about reasonableness under the RLA (courtesy of Lew in
this thread), rather than opinion about what you
think the NMB
might do:
In a 1971 RLA case (
Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union, 402 U.S. 570 (1971)) that was heard before the Supreme Court that considered issues of reasonableness, the majority stated:
The Supreme Court is saying that, when it comes down to it, it's not the NMB that determines what is reasonable if that is in question. It is the courts that determine what is reasonable in RLA disputes. Had DL's NC stuck to its guns and maintained that its demands were, in fact, reasonable, then it would have left DL management in the position of deciding to move toward the DL NC's position or not. Eventually, if neither side is moving toward the other's positions and both sides have satisfied the statutory requirements of reasonability by showing up for mediation sessions and demonstrating an openness to and a desire to come to an agreement, then if an agreement cannot be reached, the two sides are at an impasse.
Since the courts, not the NMB, are the arbiters of reasonability in RLA cases, what is considered reasonable bargaining under the RLA according to them? Maybe the best way to communicate the thrust of how the courts have opined on the issue is to simply list quotes from a variety of RLA court cases without comment. If you don't want to read through them, the gist is that courts only concern themselves with determining if the sides have demonstrated a desire to reach an agreement and steer almost entirely clear of ruling on reasonability based on how "extreme" or "greedy" a proposal may seem to the other side or to those outside the dispute.
Given that the courts have jurisdiction over reasonability determinations in RLA disputes, and that the courts have abstained themselves from finding unreasonability except in the most egregious cases, do you think the mediator's comments about the "zone of reasonableness" (referring to Delta's negotiations last year) might not have been a tactic designed to spur negotiations rather than a rightful and binding determination of reasonability in the DL dispute? If DL management had taken DL ALPA to court to obtain some sort of injunction against them for the alleged unreasonability of their demands, DL management likely would have lost the case.