|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2954882)
By default the union has to press for the long process to self help to further their leverage. Nowhere is it written that the NMB must be involved, but it is in fact a requirement for gains beyond what management dictates.
|
Originally Posted by DeltaBubba
(Post 2954828)
This is disgusting. Every item listed here are things that were for our protection. It's cute that you are willing to overlook all of the PWA abuse, Scope violations, and understaffing out our expense. Don't bring your management apologies here, though.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2954894)
You kid when you discuss self help right? Have you followed the NMB at all the last 15 years?
https://nmb.gov/NMB_Application/wp-c...-flowchart.pdf |
Perhaps one strategy of the timing of this is to have the mediators establish the “zone of reasonableness” which they will then work towards before any contract gains are achieved at other carriers. Just a thought.
|
Originally Posted by asacimesp
(Post 2954921)
Perhaps one strategy of the timing of this is to have the mediators establish the “zone of reasonableness” which they will then work towards before any contract gains are achieved at other carriers. Just a thought.
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
But what is the “zone of reasonableness” based on? I’d posit that the zone is different for each company based on their relative profitability. Different from company to company.
Denny |
If neither side petitions the NMB self help could begin as soon as negotiations are discontinued. The company runs the risk of immediate (10 days) self help if they fail to negotiate and don't go to the NMB. For this reason I think they should have to make the request on their own. The joint request serves no purpose. We have and are willing to schedule sessions and negotiate. The obvious meet in the middle over time that would result is not acceptable to the company so they have to take this course.
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 2954932)
But what is the “zone of reasonableness” based on? I’d posit that the zone is different for each company based on their relative profitability. Different from company to company.
Denny On the other hand, what reasonable judge/person would say "hey they're making 5+B a year and they want to reward their labor with scraps..."? |
Originally Posted by Crown
(Post 2954970)
that is a very good question. Never in airline history have companies been making so much money. Is this something our Union is allowed to use as an argument in front of an arbitrator? In other words, if an arbitrator or mediator wants to base discussions on "past precedent", that precedent no longer exists. Delta is making so much $$, yet will a mediator or arbitrator see that as a reasonable argument? Hey judge, they're making money, we want some of it.
On the other hand, what reasonable judge/person would say "hey they're making 5+B a year and they want to reward their labor with scraps..."? |
Originally Posted by Crown
(Post 2954970)
that is a very good question. Never in airline history have companies been making so much money. Is this something our Union is allowed to use as an argument in front of an arbitrator? In other words, if an arbitrator or mediator wants to base discussions on "past precedent", that precedent no longer exists. Delta is making so much $$, yet will a mediator or arbitrator see that as a reasonable argument? Hey judge, they're making money, we want some of it.
On the other hand, what reasonable judge/person would say "hey they're making 5+B a year and they want to reward their labor with scraps..."? Scoop |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:01 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands