Originally Posted by DashTrash

You are absolutely correct!!! You have to walk, I never said anything to the contrary. All I’m saying is that going into a room and demanding things from the Company is not going to be very productive. You have to find ways to let them see that this will benefit them as well. Also, giving things up in the contract for pennies on the dollar is unacceptable!!!

Originally Posted by Mytime2025

You actually think hand holding the company negotiators is how you negotiate? Have you ever been in a negotiation? You let the other side know that if they don't take your offer it will cost them three fold or perhaps the entire company and remind them who has the hands on the throttles. It's not rocket science. If they open with 5% year one you don't counter at 6% you counter at 30% year one and maybe settle at 25% . You let them know pilots expect and deserve a solid "pay raise" not some BS sub inflation adjustment. That's how you negotiate, no apologies, no excuses no hand holding.

Originally Posted by AlettaOcean

The entirety of the TA2022 was negotiated under Insler: Hamilton was simply the poor sap that Insler set up to try to get it passed.

Ask yourself: What has changed in the 2-3 months between Insler’s departure and Hamilton’s taking the helm? NOT A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT. Why wouldn’t Insler simply ram it through before he left office? He had the MEC and the votes.

Insler was savvy enough to know that it might fail, and it would affect his chances at ALPA NATIONAL PRESIDENT. His name would be associated with a failed, concessionary TA and he couldn’t take that chance.

Enter Mike Hamilton. Hamilton is a fall guy and Insler’s stooge: If TA2022 passes, Insler gets some credit and a shiny new contract to show the folks who are voting for ALPA National President.

If it FAILS, then Hamilton gets left holding his dck in his hand, and Insler never looks back. Hamilton gets egg on his face, Insler comes away clean in this worst case scenario.

The pathetic part is that Hamilton didn’t have the street smarts to figure out this scenario, but now it’s too late. Is this the type of individual you want leading your union?

Originally Posted by Mytime2025

You actually think hand holding the company negotiators is how you negotiate? Have you ever been in a negotiation? You let the other side know that if they don't take your offer it will cost them three fold or perhaps the entire company and remind them who has the hands on the throttles. It's not rocket science. If they open with 5% year one you don't counter at 6% you counter at 30% year one and maybe settle at 25% . You let them know pilots expect and deserve a solid "pay raise" not some BS sub inflation adjustment. That's how you negotiate, no apologies, no excuses no hand holding.

Originally Posted by Lewbronski

The 2009 case of ALPA against Spirit Airlines is probably worth reading in entirety. It talks extensively about what the RLA's requirement "to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements" means.

First, the duty to "bargain in good faith," is derived from the above language in the RLA. The court pointed out that a party violates the RLA when it negotiates in "bad faith . . . [t]he requirement of good faith bargaining is really a requirement of absence of bad faith."

An example given of bad faith bargaining was an "egregiously one-sided `proposed contract' [which] may have some evidentiary value in appraising the intent of a party." The court cited as a further example of bad faith bargaining a case involving Horizon's negotiations with it's FA's where Horizon's "initial proposal allowed [it] to unilaterally change any work rule at any time for any reason and required the union to recruit replacement workers during strikes; [the airline] submitted proposals less advantageous to its flight attendants than existing terms and conditions of employment; [the airline] offered proposals substantially less generous than prior proposals or than provisions included in a contemporaneous contract with its nonunion pilots." It went on to explain that during negotiations, "(1) [Horizon] printed a handbook for supervisory employees that included a section on `union avoidance,'" (2) "[the airline's] chief operating officer opposed the union's organizing campaign by declaring, `I'll fight you every step of the way if it takes me two years, and if you strike, I'll fire and replace every damned one of you,'" (3) "[the airline] warned new flight attendants to stay away from the union," and (4) the airline "frustrated the progress of negotiations" by "refus[ing] to release flight attendant negotiators from their duties to attend negotiating sessions, even though the union offered to pay for the lost time" and "refused to meet on Mondays, Tuesdays, Friday afternoons, and weekends, and cancelled several negotiating sessions."

It's also interesting to learn what the court explained was NOT bad faith bargaining. First, "evidence of hard bargaining, inability to reach agreement, or intransigent positions" does not by itself constitute bad faith bargaining. Also, "proposals described as 'obstinate and unyielding' do not violate" the RLA. The court continued, "In addition, '[m]ere insistence on demands that seem extremely harsh to the other side and that a neutral party may consider `hard' is not a violation of bargaining duties.' This rule has two important implications. First, 'movement toward the position of the other side is not a requirement of good faith bargaining.' Second, '[a]n employer may insist on positions . . . even if the union may consider the proposals greedy.'"

Finally, the court cited a 1988 case involving Trans International Airlines that included examples of reasonable bargaining: "if an aggressive union may lawfully bargain for a tripling of expenses for a flight attendant group believed to be working in substandard conditions, the converse should be true, and an aggressive employer should be able to lawfully bargain for a 50% reduction in total expenses of a group believed to be considerably overpaid and much less productive than is feasible."

Originally Posted by Pilotdude3407

The negotiating committee does NOT have the power or ability to tell the company that “we will just see you on the picket line”. That is an MEC decision carried out by the SPSC committee.

Originally Posted by jerryleber

And this NC/MEC/MC claim this is the best we can do without polling the pilots for five years, without activating SPSC (Some LECs don't even have a Strike Chair & the MEC Strike Chair has no experience), without activating Family Awareness or P2P (except to sell this POS). Our union leadership didn't even pretend to fight for us. It's as if our union is representing someone else's interests.