"Good faith"
08-04-2015 | 03:54 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Straight QOL, homie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 1
From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
"Good faith"
Sleepy Ed has been quoted as saying there is "no more money" in any deal. Frankly, I'm surprised RA is letting him anywhere near this deal after his incompetence with NA15.
Anyway, the RLA requires both parties to continue to negotiate in good faith.
I'm trying to figure out how a Ed's statement reflects a "good faith" position.
And if his statement is legal, then we need to deliver an equally inflammatory (and highly public) response. Why haven't we?
Anyway, the RLA requires both parties to continue to negotiate in good faith.
I'm trying to figure out how a Ed's statement reflects a "good faith" position.
And if his statement is legal, then we need to deliver an equally inflammatory (and highly public) response. Why haven't we?
Last edited by Purple Drank; 08-04-2015 at 04:04 PM.
08-04-2015 | 03:58 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 0
Sleepy Ed has been quoted as saying there is "no more money" in any deal. Frankly, I'm surprised RA is letting him anywhere near this deal after his incompetence with NA15.
Anyway, the RLA requires both parties to continue to negotiate in good faith.
I'm trying to figure out how a Ed's position reflects a "good faith" position.
And if his statement is legal, then we need to deliver an equally inflammatory (and highly public) response. Why haven't we?
Anyway, the RLA requires both parties to continue to negotiate in good faith.
I'm trying to figure out how a Ed's position reflects a "good faith" position.
And if his statement is legal, then we need to deliver an equally inflammatory (and highly public) response. Why haven't we?
08-04-2015 | 04:33 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,872
Likes: 189
Sleepy Ed has been quoted as saying there is "no more money" in any deal. Frankly, I'm surprised RA is letting him anywhere near this deal after his incompetence with NA15.
Anyway, the RLA requires both parties to continue to negotiate in good faith.
I'm trying to figure out how a Ed's statement reflects a "good faith" position.
And if his statement is legal, then we need to deliver an equally inflammatory (and highly public) response. Why haven't we?
Anyway, the RLA requires both parties to continue to negotiate in good faith.
I'm trying to figure out how a Ed's statement reflects a "good faith" position.
And if his statement is legal, then we need to deliver an equally inflammatory (and highly public) response. Why haven't we?
08-04-2015 | 04:53 PM
#5
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
08-04-2015 | 05:30 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,872
Likes: 189
08-04-2015 | 07:26 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
The quote I heard was:
"We'll get a new TA"...then almost under his breath said "but the economics will not change".
He won't settle for anything other than a "cost neutral contract".
"Constructive Engagement" was an interesting approach to negotiations. Obviously, we've learned that this approach is not working.
It's time for a new approach to negotiations.
The company needs to learn that it's in their financial best interests to pay us an honest wage, for honest work, while we are forced to spend almost half our lives away from home.
08-05-2015 | 05:03 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 1
Well it worked for one side of the table.
Every time we push back the video says we have the worlds best employees...... is it not unreasonable to be compensated accordingly?
I'm pretty sure at least a few employees at delta are compensated at the top...
Every time we push back the video says we have the worlds best employees...... is it not unreasonable to be compensated accordingly?
I'm pretty sure at least a few employees at delta are compensated at the top...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
