APA,APFA & TWU
- Thread starter aapitbull
- Start date
Does anyone think the NMB will touch this with a ten foot pole?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #3
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #4
The NMB can't accept the TWU's proposal because it asks for something outside the bounds of the NMB's authority. The NMB offers binding arbitration as the last step before the 30-day cooling off period starts and doesn't have the authority to offer it at any other time. The TWU even recognizes this when it says "To be perfectly clear, TWU requests that the NMB take this action not as its "final required action" under Section 5, 45 U.S.C. § 155, First, but as an appropriate part of its efforts to reach quick resolution of these seven collective bargaining disputes during American's re-organization in bankruptcy."
Plus, even if the NMB did stick it's neck way out and offer binding arbitration, both sides would have to accept it. What are the chances that AA would go along?
Jim
Plus, even if the NMB did stick it's neck way out and offer binding arbitration, both sides would have to accept it. What are the chances that AA would go along?
Jim
chris perry
Veteran
- Sep 17, 2008
- 544
- 118
It would certainly level the playing field for labor,taking all the stick in the eye proposals out... One being the PV days it doesn't cost them a penny for PV's. It's just a jab in the eye,they have not covered PV days since I started here 22 years ago.
chris perry
Veteran
- Sep 17, 2008
- 544
- 118
http://www.nmb.gov/helpdesk/helpdesk_jurisdiction.html
It falls under the scope according to this link? I suspect it's going to get interesting. It is up to the Judges opinion it certainly would speed up the process.
It falls under the scope according to this link? I suspect it's going to get interesting. It is up to the Judges opinion it certainly would speed up the process.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
This is nothing more than the TWU looking to take the membership vote out of the equation and deflect blame for what is about to happen. Basically equates to another "without ratification" signed labor agreement by James C. Little.
No More VOTE NO vidoes
Just a binding decision that the membership must accept without voting on a labor agreement.
No More VOTE NO vidoes
Just a binding decision that the membership must accept without voting on a labor agreement.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Then why are the tax payers footing the bill for them to attend the negotiations?
No matter how many times you keep saying it, there is no final legal proof that the Bankruptcy Law trumps the Railway Labor Act.
The two parties are attempting to reach agreement OUTSIDE of the bankruptcy court and therefore the NMB does carry weight in the process.
Where did you go to law school at anyway?
Maybe you should try reading Section 7 of the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 157,
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
So AMP Organizers are advocates for a process that eliminates membership ratification of their labor agreement?
WOW! And I thought the AMP idea was to advocate more membership control NOT LESS!
(First off the following are my thoughts alone, the Binding Arbitartion idea was not discussed and debated by us on the committee, it was a joint action decided on by the leaders of the three unions, I found out about it the same way everyone else did. )
Not according to the NMB. They have claimed all along that they do and they have remained involved.
The NWA-AFA case didnt say the workers had to accept the deal period, it said they had to follow the proceedures per the RLA before they could strike.
Where does it say that the process's cant be conducted simultaneously?
The AFA was not in Sect 6 negotiations when NWA filed. Had they pursued it they would have been starting at day 1.
By continueing the process with the NMB the Unions could have their releases locked and loaded should the Judge abrogate the deals. This would put us as close to having the same freedom and leverage that Unions under the NLRA have. By working together the three unions can put max pressure on the company to come off their unreasonable demands.
While I dont like binding arbitration I think this was a good call. In the BK process the Judge is just a rubber stamp for the company, nothing requires him to look at market conditions, thats not the case in Arbitration where market conditions usually play a more significant role than what the company cliams they can pay (because its expected that they will cry poverty). We are at the bottom, has anyone ever come out of binding arbitration with the worst deal in the industry?
