When BK II became a certainty, the unions had two options.
Accept the concessions and job loss, and negotiate the least pain.
Or employ the Samson defense (and mean it; no bluffing).
ALPA, AFA and CWA opted for negotiations - and they were upfront about it.
IAM straddled the fence. The concession stand was closed ('the judge opened the stand' story won't wash; everybody knew when it got to him, there would have to be talks), but the membership was not prepared for a strike (at least, not how they teach preparation at Placid Harbor).
The company's October 2004 'final' proposal varies from the January 2005 'final' proposal, and the union takes credit for the improvements.
Well, was the stand open, or closed? Negotiations, or not? Hard to tell from the rhetoric, but the results are plain to see.
If there is to be a strike, then prep the membership and get on with it.
If not, then quit fronting one and accept the consequences.
From the activities to date, I believe the IAM leadership does not want a strike.
They have had knowledge of and influence over the company's final proposal, and are letting the company take the rap for a proposal they are, however reluctantly, prepared to accept.
Otherwise, why the vote and the no-strike promise?
Accept the concessions and job loss, and negotiate the least pain.
Or employ the Samson defense (and mean it; no bluffing).
ALPA, AFA and CWA opted for negotiations - and they were upfront about it.
IAM straddled the fence. The concession stand was closed ('the judge opened the stand' story won't wash; everybody knew when it got to him, there would have to be talks), but the membership was not prepared for a strike (at least, not how they teach preparation at Placid Harbor).
The company's October 2004 'final' proposal varies from the January 2005 'final' proposal, and the union takes credit for the improvements.
Well, was the stand open, or closed? Negotiations, or not? Hard to tell from the rhetoric, but the results are plain to see.
If there is to be a strike, then prep the membership and get on with it.
If not, then quit fronting one and accept the consequences.
From the activities to date, I believe the IAM leadership does not want a strike.
They have had knowledge of and influence over the company's final proposal, and are letting the company take the rap for a proposal they are, however reluctantly, prepared to accept.
Otherwise, why the vote and the no-strike promise?