No agreement
- Thread starter Hatu
- Start date
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
jimntx
Veteran
A special communique from Glading to APFA members stated that at the lockdown in D.C. tonight, the union presented what they thought to be a fair and reasonable offer to the company bargaining reps.
The company's response to the proposal was to walk out of the "lockdown" session in full view of the Federal mediator. So much for bargaining in good faith, huh?
The company's response to the proposal was to walk out of the "lockdown" session in full view of the Federal mediator. So much for bargaining in good faith, huh?
jimntx
Veteran
Whether the union's proposal was reasonable or not is not really the issue. I doubt seriously the Federal mediator who ordered the lockdown sessions in D.C. and who was present when the company walked out will view the company's actions as "bargaining in good faith."
As near as I can tell from both the company and the union's attempts to sway the populace, the company's version of bargaining in good faith is "you accept whatever we propose without so much as a changed comma or decimal point. Anything else and we walk." I guess they are counting on SCOTUS to rule that companies are not bound by the RLA, only the unions. I mean now that companies have the same free speech rights as you and I why should the poor dears have to soil themselves with following laws and such that were obviously written by the Obama administration to destroy free enterprise. (The fact that the RLA has been around since the 1920s is just a liberal smokescreen, you understand, to hide their true intentions.
)
As near as I can tell from both the company and the union's attempts to sway the populace, the company's version of bargaining in good faith is "you accept whatever we propose without so much as a changed comma or decimal point. Anything else and we walk." I guess they are counting on SCOTUS to rule that companies are not bound by the RLA, only the unions. I mean now that companies have the same free speech rights as you and I why should the poor dears have to soil themselves with following laws and such that were obviously written by the Obama administration to destroy free enterprise. (The fact that the RLA has been around since the 1920s is just a liberal smokescreen, you understand, to hide their true intentions.
)
jersey777
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 73
It is interesting to read some of the new company proposals. Looks like they are coming off their lump sum bonuses and realizing that they have to offer structural increases. I still want to know what the union is specifically asking for. In 1993, the company kept on telling the membership how ridiculous the APFA's offers were and how much money it would cost. Now we are not hearing that probably because the numbers are so transparent. We all know that we gave up $350 million per year in 2003. Anything costing the company less then that in this round of negotiations would not put us back to where we were 7 years ago. Yes folks!...7 long years ago.
http://www.aanegotiations.com/apfaUpdates.asp
http://www.aanegotiations.com/apfaUpdates.asp
I agree with you Jersey777. I would like to know what Apfa is asking for.
I find it interesting how this company can spin anything to look like they
are the good guys and Apfa is not willing to move toward an agreement.
and Yes 7 years is long enough.
In 1993 the APFA went on a ten day strike demanding the company accept binding arbitration to resolve the outstanding issues. The strike ended before the ten days were up when the company agreed to binding arbitration.
Any chance either side would accept binding arbitration if the NMB agrees with the APFA and declares an impasse?
Any chance either side would accept binding arbitration if the NMB agrees with the APFA and declares an impasse?
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
I had mixed feelings about AA's website for negotiations, but I have to admit that they're winning the transparency game this time around, and they've eliminated the ability for the union to misrepresent what the company actually offered.
So three years into this, why isn't APFA doing the same? What do they have to hide?...
So three years into this, why isn't APFA doing the same? What do they have to hide?...
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Transparency game? Of what? Telling all who visits the site how arrogant the company is by wanting more? How generous they are?
Nothing to misrepresent there. The company wants more and there is no mistake about it.
Do you think they will air exec laundry come PUP time?
No of course not..One will have to search the SEC sites to get the lowdown.
AA's transparency game is no more revealing than Obama's promise of transparency with healthcare.
It's not a matter of what they have to hide. The company is posting items that were signed off on tentatively and are not guaranteed to be in the final contract that is sent to the membership for ratification. Any of those items that have already been agreed upon can be reopened and changed in order to negotiate better things in the open articles.
What is the point of showing what you may get if it isn't definite? It does nothing but confuse people. It has bait and switch potential that could be more harmful for the union's rep which is really why the company is posting it.
The APFA presents its comprehensive proposal at 6:30pm on the fifth day of a five-day lockdown mediated negotiation session. Management takes the proposal and goes home and says "we'll get back to you" and that's walking out? That's indicative of bad faith bargaining? That makes me laugh out loud.
When you've got nothing, orchestrate a scene like this to try to paint the other side as outrageous.
Reminds me of Lewis Carroll's writings. Maybe the APFA is being paid to promote Tim Burton's latest take on Alice in Wonderland, opening tomorrow?
I see ridiculous behaviour by both sides.
Wonder why the APFA didn't post the proposal or tell the APFA membership what was in it?
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
When AA comes back and says NO...Will you laugh out loud then?
Probably not, because it seems from reading your posts, all the unions are being unreasonable and AA is just the fairest of them all.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Is not this topic PRO COMPANY vs. ANTI-COMPANY?
Only with respect to this company do I take this position.
Just think, had AA gone CH.11, either all of us "unionistas" would have either sucked it up or moved on and this forum would be as empty as AA's promise to share the pain.
