Originally Posted by
PCL_128
Are you really stupid enough to believe that ALPA is going to sell off its wholly owned subsidiary to a band of fools at a new independent union that will fail in no time flat? Really? You seriously lack credibility with this kind of nonsense, Carl.
Your opinions carry no more weight than the next internet poster. Get over yourself.
Originally Posted by
PCL_128
Mr. Rosen is one of the best. All of the others also work at ALPA. Bruce York, Art Luby, Bill Roberts, etc. They come to work at ALPA after having achieved years of experience in labor law and negotiations, because ALPA is the best job out there for labor attorneys. You don't find experienced labor attorneys and negotiators at independent unions. When it comes to arbitrating grievances, they can get by with outside counsel, but their success rates lag ALPA's significantly. ALPA's success in arbitration is about double the labor average in this country. When it comes to Section 6 negotiations, everyone comes to ALPA for assistance, because they can't do it themselves. Of course, splinter unions like USAPA get no assistance from ALPA, and they'll be mired with a bankruptcy era contract forever. The DPA would be no different. You'll have no experienced RLA negotiator. No one who knows how to deal with the NMB. No one with connections at the White House or in Congress. You'll be all alone. Not a good prospect in Section 6.
Great example of ALPA national spin, scare tactics, and utter BS. Your opinions only.
Originally Posted by
PCL_128
And you REALLY don't know Seth Rosen if you think he'll leave ALPA. He's worked at ALPA since 1971.
That has nothing to do with the question. The question is:
IF Seth is really the master of the universe with regard to negotiations, would he not be contractable by an outside union? You say no. I say, you know nothing.
Originally Posted by
PCL_128
You should study the law a little bit more. Nowhere in the Act does it require the NMB to release you to strike. The NMB's charter is two-fold: 1) Prevent disruptions to air and rail commerce, and 2) Assist in resolving labor/management disputes in the air and rail industries.
This is all correct. I've never said anything else. But although NMB is not required to release the parties, there has never been a more egregious example as the AMR case. In my opinion, a judge will decide if the NMB is using the lack of a
requirement to release the parties as a weapon to remove labor's right to strike in the transportation industry.
Originally Posted by
PCL_128
They won't take an action that would violate that first mandate unless they feel that it is the way to a deal. In the case of the APA/AMR, they will never release the APA until they adjust their demands, because the NMB knows that there won't be an agreement reached if there is a strike, because the APA's demands are unsustainable for AMR, and no AMR executive will agree, no matter how long a strike drags on. A disruption to commerce occurs, and there is still no resolution to a dispute. That's not how the NMB and the RLA work. If you don't come with what the NMB considers to be realistic demands, then you aren't getting release. Period.
And you were doing so well! This paragraph is utter BS in its entirety. Even more than your normal opinions that you try to pawn off as fact.
Carl