national mediation board
 

why does it take the national mediation board years to release unions from stalled negotiations? how did it get like this? what do they actually do?

Because billionaires control the government.

Their number one goal is to prevent interruptions to air service. Releasing unions is counter productive to their charter.

This is a joke, right?

Nope. New to NMB relations?

Quite the contrary. I am retired.
I will go easy on you here because I can tell you are just a young feller.
The idea that the NMB thinks they have a goal is precisely the problem.
The idea that you (and others) think them having a goal is OK is precisely the problem.
Over the years the NMB and its "Mission" have been contaminated by politics and assumptions such as yours.
Unbelievable.

You are asking the right questions.
But you have to be willing to dig a little.
You suspicion they have morphed; you are correct.
Where they are today is NOT what the original intent(ion) was.
The reasons and explanation is pretty complicated though. Not enough room here.
Suffice to say politics and acquiescence (by ALPA and others) has led to the monster we have today.
Please understand the population that has to deal with the NMB as it relates to the RLA is quite small when compared to labor as a whole.
But your gut is correct; they are steamrolling you and all the RLA unions.
This is NOT why they exist.
They (labor under RLA) will have to stand together to reign in this "power trip" they (NMB) have been on since the mid 60's.
Good Luck and keep asking those questions and don't let these youngsters who act as though they know deter you.
Otherwise you (the plural) are doomed.

It appears that he is correct in his "idea"

From nmb.gov:

Pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, NMB programs provide dispute-resolution processes to effectively meet its statutory objectives: avoiding interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier;

Like it or not; the RLA provides for protection of the national transportation system; which by default, favors management during labor disputes and negotiations.
I don't think that any of us think that this is "ok" but we have no choice but to play by their rules.

Well it appears I have some research to do.
This statement you quote is NOT consistent with the original "mission" or "mission statement".
If thats the case then it would appear that politics has become so influential as to have changed it's mission.
Not sure when that may have occurred. I do know at one time changes to NMB policy were followed along the same lines as changes to other government organizations. In the same manner one would follow changes to DOT or the FAA that would affect operations.
As I said I'm retired so I have the luxury of time to look into this.
What a travesty though.
The intent was NOT to infringe upon the rights of workers (labor) but simply to ensure any impasse was not arbitrary.
The powers that be didn't want minor disputes to interrupt commerce.
They had specific instructions to promptly determine whether there was room to negotiate or declare an impasse.
Yes, there is a history here but we (labor) should have never allowed them to morph to this level of control.
This was reemphasized to them in the late 60's after they limited strikes to basically 1 airline at a time. (and releases timed to congress).
Still it is important to remember and fight for the fact that while they refuse to release you once an impasse is determined they are in fact abridging your rights, regardless of this superfluous language that has been added to expedite a political "goal".

I am so confused.

Gee, thanks! Although I'm youthful in appearance, I'll have a 20-year ALPA pin in the mail in a couple of years, but it'll probably stay in a keepsake drawer with the rest since I prefer to wear my battle star.

Yep. The way things are going. I think we will be the only "young fellers" sporting two battle stars from the same airline.

The NMB- isn't your friend. They aren't there to "carry your water" infact- your airline is a LCC- and your peers are such. Thus the NMB will rule such.

As much as you can kick and scream you want a Delta Airbus payrate. Spirit isn't in the same ballpark in respects to the NMB.

Any wonder why most people dislike Delta pilots? Geez get over yourself.

Ok, we're in the LCC/Major group. I'll take Southwest pay then.

You're on guuuuuuaaaarrrrrddd.

Geez- lighten up Francis.

I don't think he's a Delta Pilot.

Looks more like Atlas Air

Oh jesus, lol......

Shouldn't he be on the cargo forum justifying his low rates then?

How does a Delta pilot create more value than a Spirit pilot?

Don't be. You've witnessed an unfortunately common phenomenon on internet forums. Neither intelligence nor knowledge of facts are prerequisite to posting and acting like a know-it-all.

Doubt and verify.







.

Because they generate more revenue.

No, the business model generates more revenue. Our jobs in the front of the jet is the same. And don't feed me full of any bull**** about better customer care; most Spirit pilots served a legacy master at one time or another. Or were corporate pilots, who kick all our airline asses in customer care.

Yes, I am aware the NMB has programs they have developed to assist them in their mission.
The pertinent part of that mission in this discussion is;
“The prompt and orderly resolution of disputes arising out of the negotiation of new or revised collective bargaining agreements.”
And Yes, the RLA provides protection but does not provide any orders to the NMB or any one else that if in fact a genuine impasse exists between the parties, they are not to be released to self help.
Yes the RLA is the guidance and the NMB is the muscle, no doubt about that. Under the RLA the requirement is to conduct mediation or declare an impasse, they are not directed to settle the issue(s).
They exist to assist the parties in resolution.
Importantly, if your quote above (beginning with Pursuant) exists as a stand alone statement representing the complete definition of the purpose of the NMB then there may just as well be an edict to outlaw strikes altogether. For them to meet a regulatory dictate to avoid any and all interruption to commerce there would be no other way.
The intent of the NMB was not and can not be to usurp the rights of labor, they have just as much final responsibilty to declare an impasse, if one truly exists, as they do to determine a possible future resolution.
The reason the PEB and /or possible congressional interjection exists is to override the rights of (the individual) labor, NOT the NMB.
I don’t believe we are subject to any “rules” that abrogate our rights and I don’t believe that allowing them to delay these negotiations in to multiple years without some union and individual lobbying pointing out the lack of reasonable success with their programs (as you quote above) they presume to force upon you (us) and failure to act in good faith to the benefit of the very people they have been relegated to serve.

I appreciate a different take on this and haven’t had to think it through in many years. Evidently some don’t have that same appreciation.

Right, and a less revenue business model pays its employees less.

Does a xyz cargo pays its pilots the same as a fedex/ups pilot? Same jobs in the front right?

As with most government entities and programs, the intent and mission of the NMB is for the benefit of all involved parties, including the public as evidenced by my previous quote. However, I think that we both agree that over time the NMB has perhaps veered away from the original intent/mission due to political or economic pressures. Again, as with most if not all government entities and programs.
You stated, "if in fact a genuine impasse exists between the parties, they are not to be released to self help." I believe that you meant "are to be released." The key word here is genuine. An impasse may in fact be declared and the parties not be released. Even if the mediator recommends release, it may not happen. The NMB can halt the mediation process and "ice" the process. Or, the NMB can pull the mediator away from the process completely. Apparently, there is no absolute requirement that the NMB adhere to their very own stated purpose, if it is determined that one or both parties are not being reasonable during the negotiations. Thus, is the impasse genuine?
I think that we agree on the purpose/mission/intent of the NMB; however, I believe that the NMB's priority is protecting commerce. As I stated earlier; by default, this favors management during negotiations. Not by outlawing strikes, but by allowing the process to be so onerous that the time frame benefits everyone except labor.
Thanks for the great conversation.

Yep, and spirit has better margins and makes more money than the rest of the industry. Hence I want industry leading! Not standard! Let er rip tater chip!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The more the stock drops the more the company trolls come out to play. Ignore them. Industry standard or let it burn.

Yes, one of the highest margins in fact. And the way they get that from one of the lowest RASM airlines is because it has one of the lowest CASM.

If CASM increases without revenue increase it'll be one of the least profitable airlines. Hence, you won't see legacy wages without legacy revenues.

Queue someone, "it's been proven by our union that we can get million dollar raises and still be INSANELLY profitable!!!"

Totally agree. If they want labor unrest, they will get it. They set the tone and it's their operation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If there's anything this management is good at it's finding creative ways to increase revenue.

However even with current RASM is proven our entire ask is affordable and profitable. The numbers aren't made up out of thin air. It's math. Unless you are spirit management taking to the NMB, then they like to speak in "alternative facts"

There it is!!

Feng, please contact the Economics & Financial Analysis department in Herndon... followed by downloading a PDF file on how to insert your foot in your mouth.

He/she either not a pilot or doesn't work here. Of course if he is a pilot that doesn't work her I don't know the incentive to manage down our expectations for no reason. I want EVERY single pilot group to get massive contracts. It only brings the market higher. Why another pilot would want us expecting less instead of demanding more is beyond me. The only answer is a ford and Harrison plant.

Both political parties in the US are corrupt, and they hate unions, the Reps somewhat more than the Dems.

The 0.1% are in control, and taking money from everyone else. If you look at the countries with the most even wealth distribution, they have a large union working population. When the US had the most union people, the wealth distribution was much more even.

Our 0.1% are intent on taking all the money.

I will vote accordingly when a TA is reached... i voted YES and the company CAN afford our ask, which can be verified through EF&A...

I think your misunderstanding me... im saying without a doubt the company can afford our ask and I won't accept less than standard... I've seen the numbers From Herndon. I was disagreeing with Feng... apologies if I came across other wise... no troll here believe me! STFD... same team Farve!