|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3135389)
Your assumption on what speeds up contact progress has been shown to be very wrong based on past history. Keep in mind the zone of reasonableness the NMB has long preached. Here is a quote from the current head of the NMB.
"Traditionally, both sides start by exchanging unrealistic proposals that unreasonably raise people's expectations," she said. "Moving to what I call the 'zone of reasonableness' takes a long time and uses up lots of energy. With interest-based bargaining, both parties start in that zone of reasonableness and stay there. They focus on solving problems -- not wish lists -- and the discussions tend to be much more fruitful." However, Alpa is crazy. Got it. You still ****ed at Alpa because they won't invite you to sit at the negotiating table? Maybe they should give you all the negotiating notes so you can pass them to us online? Next time I hope they show up and ask for 10 billion just to blow a fuse in your brain. |
Interest based bargaining (IBB) is a framework to reign in labor demands. If the RLA constraints were removed and there was real power on both side there would be more timely deals and openers would be more reasonable because you are actually bargaining for a specific time frame and not an open end undefined contract duration. IBB focusses on solving managements "problems." It's been the buzz word of choice for going on 3 decades now. All the training focuses on problem solving and mutual benefit which is great but the meat of a contract, pay and work rules, will always be in opposition which is why they are last and take the longest.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3135409)
Interest based bargaining (IBB) is a framework to reign in labor demands. If the RLA constraints were removed and there was real power on both side there would be more timely deals and openers would be more reasonable because you are actually bargaining for a specific time frame and not an open end undefined contract duration. IBB focusses on solving managements "problems." It's been the buzz word of choice for going on 3 decades now. All the training focuses on problem solving and mutual benefit which is great but the meat of a contract, pay and work rules, will always be in opposition which is why they are last and take the longest.
|
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3135408)
Again youve decided the putt will miss before weve even swung. You go into mediation, both sides get told where theyre wrong (company included) and you move to the next negotiating point. Youve already decided what they'd do. This business where the company going to get a revenue nuetral contract during record profits
To many pilots focus on the union parroting the company had only offered 25 million in improvements. The rest of the story however was that 25 million was not in the contract sections where the expensive items reside. The 25 million was the so called throwaway sections of the contract. Union communications should have read something like this. “To date the company has only offered 25 million in improvements in section 5,6, 13 and 16”. That’s not how communications I read phrased things. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3135419)
There was no such discussion of the company demanding a revenue neutral contract. Had we opened for 1.5 billion in improvements I suspect we would have had a agreement ontime. In a lounge meeting I listened as the company acknowledged the contract would be expensive. The December ask however was beyond expensive. If we had completed a agreement it almost certainly would have extended all furlough protections to all pilots on the property. That would be a big item at the moment.
To many pilots focus on the union parroting the company had only offered 25 million in improvements. The rest of the story however was that 25 million was not in the contract sections where the expensive items reside. The 25 million was the so called throwaway sections of the contract. Union communications should have read something like this. “To date the company has only offered 25 million in improvements in section 5,6, 13 and 16”. That’s not how communications I read phrased things. Ask your contacts what their section 23 proposal looked like... |
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3135414)
Im all for getting out of the RLA, but how long have pilots been barking up that tree? We are in the RLA for now, thats not changing soon. How much time you wanna spend wishing and hoping? Unless something has moved tectonically in washington we're under the RLA for the next 100 years.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3135419)
There was no such discussion of the company demanding a revenue neutral contract. Had we opened for 1.5 billion in improvements I suspect we would have had a agreement ontime. In a lounge meeting I listened as the company acknowledged the contract would be expensive. The December ask however was beyond expensive. If we had completed a agreement it almost certainly would have extended all furlough protections to all pilots on the property. That would be a big item at the moment.
To many pilots focus on the union parroting the company had only offered 25 million in improvements. The rest of the story however was that 25 million was not in the contract sections where the expensive items reside. The 25 million was the so called throwaway sections of the contract. Union communications should have read something like this. “To date the company has only offered 25 million in improvements in section 5,6, 13 and 16”. That’s not how communications I read phrased things. I dont care that you'd do thing different my annoyance is you're assertion the unions way wouldnt work and pretending they were screwing everything up. You have to let negotiators do what theyre doing, the NMB will give you guidance and the union will follow it. Management will too. We were never going to be done on time, it was a stupid promise only neophytes believe in. Give the volunteers a break and let them work. |
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3135452)
Oh Christ look how defense he gets folks. Negotiating started most responses with some variation on "what sre you willing to give up for blah". And lets face facts, if youve been on this industry long enough and met the people for negotiating teams theyre never guys like you and me looking to just shortcut to the end and go back to work. These are comically obtuse people who really believe if they ask for something crazy theyll get it. Management gets the same kinda folks.
I dont care that you'd do thing different my annoyance is you're assertion the unions way wouldnt work and pretending they were screwing everything up. You have to let negotiators do what theyre doing, the NMB will give you guidance and the union will follow it. Management will too. We were never going to be done on time, it was a stupid promise only neophytes believe in. Give the volunteers a break and let them work. |
Originally Posted by cni187
(Post 3135392)
With this ALPA team we'd never have a contract. They pretty much decided at the special meeting to do absolutely nothing and pray for a government Hail Mary. Way to go!! So glad I gave all that money to the NC so they could work for nothing.
Except that’s not at all what happened. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3135461)
There is currently no work being done. When the work does start we will have gone from a outstanding negotiating environment to a poor one. Reality is starting to set in for some but at this point delaying as long as possible and holding on to our current contract is probably as good as it will get. The question is how long will the NMB let us stall.
You know the company has no interest in resuming section 6 talks right now too, right? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:46 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands