I think FURP is mistaken about the role of a mediator. He's not a judge or an arbitrator. He's there to facilitate. Pushing one side or the other towards common ground isn't his job -- it is to try and keep the conversation going.
If he's declaring that there is "insufficient progress, and insufficient hope for progress," then maybe, just maybe, the problem is with the two parties involved.
If you want someone to split the differences, request binding arbitration.
If you want someone to make the decisions for the two parties, wait long enough and you'll probably get your wish in front of a judge.
Well Bob, then I guess it's time you and the other presidents around the system get a game plan together to make AA understand that stalling will no longer be tolerated. Get my drift?I agree that Jack kane is just doing his job, and the job of the NMB is to try and prevent labor disputes from causing disruptions to commerce, so if we are looking for neutrality we are misguided. I believe that the decision to pull out the Mediator can only be made by the NMB and not the Mediator himself. In case you missed it Larry Gibbons, Jack Kane's Boss came in this week.
http://www.nmb.gov/directory/gibbons-larry_bio.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Express
http://www.aircon.org/what_is_aircon/index.htm
I dont think when they crafted the law that the intent was to allow negotiations to drag on forever, or until labor gives in to the companys demands. If thats the case then its in our best interests to take on the RLA the way African Americans took on the Jim Crow laws.
I was always under the impression that when the NMB declares that "No further progress can be made" and pulls their Mediators out that the parties are proffered binding arbitration and if refused, released, not put on ICE. Then if the NMB feels that the system will be impaired that they can inform the President and then the President can establish a PEB, if that fails then Congress can impose an agreement. Nowhere have I seen where it says they just put you into a holding pattern until labor agrees to whatever the company wants to offer.
I agree that Jack kane is just doing his job, and the job of the NMB is to try and prevent labor disputes from causing disruptions to commerce, so if we are looking for neutrality we are misguided. I believe that the decision to pull out the Mediator can only be made by the NMB and not the Mediator himself. In case you missed it Larry Gibbons, Jack Kane's Boss came in this week.
http://www.nmb.gov/directory/gibbons-larry_bio.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Express
http://www.aircon.org/what_is_aircon/index.htm
I dont think when they crafted the law that the intent was to allow negotiations to drag on forever, or until labor gives in to the companys demands. If thats the case then its in our best interests to take on the RLA the way African Americans took on the Jim Crow laws.
I was always under the impression that when the NMB declares that "No further progress can be made" and pulls their Mediators out that the parties are proffered binding arbitration and if refused, released, not put on ICE. Then if the NMB feels that the system will be impaired that they can inform the President and then the President can establish a PEB, if that fails then Congress can impose an agreement. Nowhere have I seen where it says they just put you into a holding pattern until labor agrees to whatever the company wants to offer.
... snip
If you want someone to make the decisions for the two parties, wait long enough and you'll probably get your wish in front of a judge.
... it also helps immensely if the party negotiating opposite the company is not a defacto wholly owned subsidiary of that company ...
It would seem more lkely the company and the twu international have agreed on a contract and are waiting until the membership has had enough of the everlasting delays to vote for whatever is tossed in front of them. Some are ready to do so now, talking about how much money they've "lost".
You guys know it doesn't have to be a very good contract, just one that can garner 50% + 1 of the vote - hardly a mandate and guaranteed to keep everyone pissed off for a long time.
Some were ready to accept the TA. They only "lose" it if they approve a contract without Retro. We can always vote NO again.
Not everyone voted against the TA, so its to be expected that those who voted in favor of it complain.
The election cycle, while painfully slow has changed the makeup of the committee, while those of us on the more agressive side used to lose along the lines of 12 to 5 in the full committee now its more like 8 to 7.
CRAPDOG......GET INTO MY BELLY!!!! I LOVE ME SOME CRAPDOG. GIVE ME MY BABYBACK BABYBACK BABYBACKI think he got word that AMP has enough cards to vote TWU goodbye. He's fed up with the silly games. This is the direction we are heading.
I've seen you write it on many occasions, but what in the world does the word "byhaps" mean? It isn't really a word and I can't for the life of me figure out what you are intending it to mean. Thanks.Mr. E:
The lack of a "union's" signed employment contract has never forced any company into bankruptcy, if that's what you're implying.
Byhaps afterwards but never before.
Oh, please - it's a silly-ass way of saying "perhaps" - on the same order of "methinks".I've seen you write it on many occasions, but what in the world does the word "byhaps" mean? It isn't really a word and I can't for the life of me figure out what you are intending it to mean. Thanks.
Mr. E:
The lack of a "union's" signed employment contract has never forced any company into bankruptcy, if that's what you're implying.
Byhaps afterwards but never before.
... and that, Sir, I agree with.I'm not implying that you're going to be in front of a judge simply because of your contract. Bankruptcy will probably happen on its own merits.