Mediator say no release under any circumstance, then refused to mediate for 4 months.

I come here for capitalism and find same government involvement in business. No release, no lever. Accept below average deal or wait for company to implode. How long when this happens?

 

Well, if the company were to implode it would be their own doing. They will always be greedy scumbags and ill loathe mgmt here for as long as I live but make no mistake, im not potentialy going to “Vote” yes out of fear because conpany may implode

 

This is what you call lying "to spur the negotiations."

Here's how it works:

The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:

- A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, work rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice (so called "Section 6 notices").

- The parties must confer, and if they fail to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the NMB. The NMB may also offer its services if it finds a labor emergency to exist.

- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. (Is there one with a rejected TA?) However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.

- If arbitration is rejected, the parties must maintain the status quo for a 30-day period. If the NMB determines that the dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the NMB shall notify the President, who may create a PEB to investigate the dispute for a 30-day period and issue non-binding recommendations for resolving the dispute. The parties typically agree to PEB requests for extensions of time to further study a dispute.

- While the dispute is working its way through these stages, and for an additional 30 days following the issuance of the PEB's report, the parties must maintain the status quo, and cannot utilize self-help measures. Although not specifically provided for in the RLA, the NMB typically works with the parties to try to induce a last-minute settlement or voluntary extension of the status quo.

- If, after the final 30-day status quo period has expired, a settlement has not been reached, the parties are free to resort to self-help and cannot be enjoined from doing so.


The fearmongering about being put on ice and held indefinitely are either done by the management shills or by those who don't understand how the process actually works.

 

agree. I mean without possible release the only leverage is when company can not fill pilot seats.

 

This works good in book world. Real world this would be first government person to follow own rules. Who does alpa make complaint to? Who decides when there is no reasonable prospect? Mediator? No help there.

 

Ahh I see what ya mean, yeah I agree

 

What do you think happens if you reject a contract offer, in other words, you have a TA, it gets put to a membership vote and it gets rejected?

 

I think:

1. we get survey
2. when mediator wants, everyone sits in room more.
3. Alpa gives new proposal, company say no.
4. mediator either calls for another 4 months break(goes back to step #1), or we go back step #3

All this time we need scope / ltd.
Is scope / ltd worth bad pay, soso retirement, lose schedule integrity, pbs, trans conflict? = personal choice

 

So in your scenario, at what point is there a "reasonable prospect for settlement" considering the TA got rejected? You have a rejected TA, you have a continued disagreement.

 

I am curious, when Southwest regected their TA1, how far off of Delta/United 737 or Group 2 pay (AA) were they under their current book? It’s a completely different scenario, from what I know. And, as someone else has pointed out, would you rather negotiate against our current book or our proposed AIP?

For the record, from what I have seen in the AIP, it is bigly deficient in a few but important areas. However, to equate our dilemma to what Southwest or Delta had when they voted down their respective TAs, is a false equivalency.