Tim,
If these alleged "strong rumors" do materialize one could interpret this as conceding an election and an acknowledgement of failure to duly represent the Fleet Service at US. Additionally, it would certainly be viewed as "horse trading" between both unions. I, personally, hope these are just rumors.
A lack of good faith is what our current and past negotiating committees have been dealing with for years. Under the RLA companies can negotiate for years, with the lack of good faith, before you are released by the NMB to take action (strike). DP is currently using this advantage with every labor group on the property. Subsequently, all organized labor groups on the property are reduced to "pawns" in the chess game. Newly elected union leadership teams will not change this reality.
You're absolutely correct. Blatent disregard for negotiating in good faith. Sure doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling about what DP thinks of your working conditions, livelihood or future. Bottom line... he and others can get away with it under the RLA. Please keep this in mind in future union representation elections. He's hoping for apathy.
When the Co/UA merger happened, the NMB rules were different. Thus, the IAM only needed 35% showing of interest which was satisfied with the dues checkoff. Since then, Obama changed the showing of interest to make it much more difficult to obtain a dispute. The bar was raised to 50%. Thus with 12,000 AMR eligible and 6,000 US, the IAM would need a showing of interest at 9,000. At AirTran, none of the AirTran unions could obtain the necessary % so the AirTran unions all signed contracts [except for the IAM] before the merger to get a small bump in pay and seniority protections. Same thing at United, all other unions signed contracts for seniority protections and wage hikes before joint talks, except one union, i.e., the IAM which has been sucking it up at United. At US AIRWAYS, I imagine the same thing as no CEO respects IAM 141 leadership, it's incredibly soft. As far as representation dispute, the IAM may stall and ask the NMB to knock off the laid off AMR members but that will not be successful. The IAM could also ask for clarification of the new rule and ask that it not apply in merger procedures. Remember, when Obama changed this rule in the FAA reauthorization bill and hammered airline workers, guess which union fully backed him? Yep, the TWU. Obviously the IAM was strongly against it. IMO, the IAM may strengthen its leverage against the TWU and try a card signup to challenge the TWU and get the TWU to negotiate. If a card signup does fairly well then the TWU may want an arrangement like the CWA has with the IBT upstairs. But all the leverage is with the TWU at this point.
There is no deal. The IAM can not afford to lose one member out of the IAM pension plan. Plus, since the IAM has been losing 3,000 a month, it is not in position to just throw away 6,000 members without a fight. Plus the TWU is a weak union and the IAM may want to rattle it a bit in hopes of negotiating a deal. But the current leverage insist that the IAM would have to do a strong card signup to get the TWU to horsetrade anything.
