TA is here
09-25-2022, 05:01 PM
#301
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,168
Out of curiosity, how many of the Monday morning quarterbacks have lead or been a part of a contract negotiation that made amazing, not just industry leading, but industry paradigm shifting changes in their contract at brand X.
Feel free to post your identity redacted resume and amazing gains. I just wanna know how we somehow missed out on such epic level negotiating experience. I wasn’t here at the time, but it’s my understanding from those who were, that a negotiator out punting his coverage in negotiations is how we ended up with Kasher.
Feel free to post your identity redacted resume and amazing gains. I just wanna know how we somehow missed out on such epic level negotiating experience. I wasn’t here at the time, but it’s my understanding from those who were, that a negotiator out punting his coverage in negotiations is how we ended up with Kasher.
That would be one of those protections I mentioned in a pbs transition earlier. The name of a labor friendly arbitrator Incase of a language sticking point.
09-25-2022, 05:11 PM
#302
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,264
The background facts in this matter are straight forward and not disputed. ALPA is the exclusive collective bargaining representative for all of Alaska's pilots. The Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (the "RLA") allows parties to follow their own contractually negotiated procedures for amending their collective bargaining agreements in lieu of the lengthy procedures set forth in the statute. For nearly thirty years, ALPA and Alaska have engaged in interest arbitration concerning various issues they were unable to resolve in direct negotiations. This dispute arises out of the parties' most recent interest arbitration.The parties' collective bargaining agreement was to expire on April 30, 2005. In anticipation of that deadline, they entered into Letter of Agreement 01-02 ("Letter 01-02") and agreed to conduct direct and expedited negotiations regarding wages and other issues. The parties were required to begin their negotiations by June 1, 2004 and complete them by December 15, 2004. Letter 01-02 provided that if ALPA and Alaska were unable to reach an agreement on all of the terms of a new labor contract, they would submit wage rates and not more than ten non-wage issues (five per side) for resolution by a three member arbitration board comprised of one ALPA designee, one Alaska designee, and a neutral member selected by the parties (the "board"). Letter 01-02 set forth various parameters and criteria for the board to apply in fashioning its award.
The parties selected Richard Kasher as the neutral member of the board; he served as the board's chairperson. Mr. Kasher is the former General Counsel of the National Mediation Board. ALPA does not dispute Alaska's assertion that Mr. Kasher has extensive experience and expertise as a labor arbitrator and is highly regarded in the airline industry.
Letter 01-02 stated that the board's decision would be "final and binding." The arbitration hearing was conducted for seven days in March 2005 and involved numerous witnesses and the submission of lengthy pre-hearing statements and post-hearing briefs. The board issued its 64-page decision on April 30, 2005.
The parties selected Richard Kasher as the neutral member of the board; he served as the board's chairperson. Mr. Kasher is the former General Counsel of the National Mediation Board. ALPA does not dispute Alaska's assertion that Mr. Kasher has extensive experience and expertise as a labor arbitrator and is highly regarded in the airline industry.
Letter 01-02 stated that the board's decision would be "final and binding." The arbitration hearing was conducted for seven days in March 2005 and involved numerous witnesses and the submission of lengthy pre-hearing statements and post-hearing briefs. The board issued its 64-page decision on April 30, 2005.
09-25-2022, 05:24 PM
#303
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: This side of the dirt.
Posts: 897
Here's how Alaska ALPA ended up with the Kashtration: bewilderingly, Alaska ALPA elected to enter into a Letter of Agreement with the company mandating binding arbitration if they couldn't settle on a new contract by December 15, 2004 after entering "expedited" negotiations on June 1, 2004. I'm sure it must have made sense to somebody at the time. But it's hard to fathom how it did.
09-25-2022, 05:50 PM
#304
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 910
Out of curiosity, how many of the Monday morning quarterbacks have lead or been a part of a contract negotiation that made amazing, not just industry leading, but industry paradigm shifting changes in their contract at brand X.
Feel free to post your identity redacted resume and amazing gains. I just wanna know how we somehow missed out on such epic level negotiating experience. I wasn’t here at the time, but it’s my understanding from those who were, that a negotiator out punting his coverage in negotiations is how we ended up with Kasher.
Feel free to post your identity redacted resume and amazing gains. I just wanna know how we somehow missed out on such epic level negotiating experience. I wasn’t here at the time, but it’s my understanding from those who were, that a negotiator out punting his coverage in negotiations is how we ended up with Kasher.
But we can talk about the quality of the work. As if we've hired an electrician, we don't need to be electricians ourselves to recognize the outlets in the baby's room were missed.
09-25-2022, 06:07 PM
#305
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
I am a regional ca who was actively applying to Alaska. My situation is age. If I had 10 years left and hope of upgrade I would jump. I was going to jump with the few I have left anyway. But now? It’s not worth it. How many are like me? I don’t know. The point is that your point is correct.
09-25-2022, 06:32 PM
#306
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: This side of the dirt.
Posts: 897
This is overly defensive. No one is attacking the NC for their work. It's been a long slog, and we are still all in this together.
But we can talk about the quality of the work. As if we've hired an electrician, we don't need to be electricians ourselves to recognize the outlets in the baby's room were missed.
But we can talk about the quality of the work. As if we've hired an electrician, we don't need to be electricians ourselves to recognize the outlets in the baby's room were missed.
Vote no/yes….. but I just figured I’d let a few heavy hitters feel free to enlighten us on their amazing exploits in the arena of contract negotiations.
09-25-2022, 06:39 PM
#307
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 910
Fair enough. The NC and MEC really drug us up from the depths and got us 90% of the way there. They should be congratulated. Anyone personally attacking our NC is way over the line.
The question everyone should be asking is that last 10% worth the effort? As of right now, my answer is YES. Which means NO. Wait. I'm confused.
The question everyone should be asking is that last 10% worth the effort? As of right now, my answer is YES. Which means NO. Wait. I'm confused.
09-25-2022, 07:57 PM
#308
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 685
Fair enough. The NC and MEC really drug us up from the depths and got us 90% of the way there.They should be congratulated. Anyone personally attacking our NC is way over the line.
The question everyone should be asking is that last 10% worth the effort? As of right now, my answer is YES. Which means NO. Wait. I'm confused.
The question everyone should be asking is that last 10% worth the effort? As of right now, my answer is YES. Which means NO. Wait. I'm confused.
You got the QOL improvements.
You got the Schedule flexibility improvements.
You got the Scope and Job Security protections.
Hourly Rate is not what was hoped for, but the Snap Up provisions safeguards not being left too far behind, right?
Signing Bonus could be better, but could be viewed as the compromise in this process, if the JG Wentworth, "Its My Money, and I Need It Now!" stance is not adopted.
If ratified, the fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be a $hiddy contract to work under, by any measure. It's not the fully loaded, customised model one would've preferred, but it nevertheless comes VERY well equipped.
I'm leaning YES, but very much on the fence atm, and would actually vote NO, if I were to become convinced that from a RISK vs REWARD point of view, suiting up, and jumping back into the battle for that last 10% is the wisest thing to do.
Last edited by All Bizniz; 09-25-2022 at 08:22 PM.
09-25-2022, 08:11 PM
#309
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: This side of the dirt.
Posts: 897
Whether one's leaning YES or NO, that context right there is certainly worth understanding. The union did some SERIOUS heavy lifting.
You got the QOL improvements.
You got the Schedule flexibility improvements.
You got the Scope and Job Security protections.
Hourly Rate is not what was hoped for, but the Snap Up provisions safeguards not being left too far behind, right?
Signing Bonus could be better, but could be viewed as the compromise in this process, if the JG Wentworth, "Its My Money, and I Need It Now!" stance is not adopted.
If it is ratified, the fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be a $hiddy contract to work under, by any measure. It's not the fully loaded, customised model one would've been preferred, but it nevertheless would come VERY well equipped.
I'm leaning YES, but very much on the fence atm, and would actually vote NO, if I were to become convinced that from a RISK vs REWARD point of view, suiting up, and jumping back into the battle is the wisest thing to do.
You got the QOL improvements.
You got the Schedule flexibility improvements.
You got the Scope and Job Security protections.
Hourly Rate is not what was hoped for, but the Snap Up provisions safeguards not being left too far behind, right?
Signing Bonus could be better, but could be viewed as the compromise in this process, if the JG Wentworth, "Its My Money, and I Need It Now!" stance is not adopted.
If it is ratified, the fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be a $hiddy contract to work under, by any measure. It's not the fully loaded, customised model one would've been preferred, but it nevertheless would come VERY well equipped.
I'm leaning YES, but very much on the fence atm, and would actually vote NO, if I were to become convinced that from a RISK vs REWARD point of view, suiting up, and jumping back into the battle is the wisest thing to do.
I absolutely 💯 respect someone’s no. I’m not even making a decision myself till I’ve done my due diligence. But, if someone thinks that the opinion of someone on APC (Alaska pilot or another carrier pilot) is gonna be where I find my decision, you’d be dead wrong.
Last edited by av8or; 09-25-2022 at 08:37 PM.
09-25-2022, 08:13 PM
#310
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2021
Posts: 98
Whether one's leaning YES or NO, that context right there is certainly worth understanding. The union really did some SERIOUS heavy lifting.
You got the QOL improvements.
You got the Schedule flexibility improvements.
You got the Scope and Job Security protections.
Hourly Rate is not what was hoped for, but the Snap Up provisions safeguards not being left too far behind, right?
Signing Bonus could be better, but could be viewed as the compromise in this process, if the JG Wentworth, "Its My Money, and I Need It Now!" stance is not adopted.
If ratified, the fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be a $hiddy contract to work under, by any measure. It's not the fully loaded, customised model one would've been preferred, but it nevertheless comes VERY well equipped.
I'm leaning YES, but very much on the fence atm, and would actually vote NO, if I were to become convinced that from a RISK vs REWARD point of view, suiting up, and jumping back into the battle for that last 10% is the wisest thing to do.
You got the QOL improvements.
You got the Schedule flexibility improvements.
You got the Scope and Job Security protections.
Hourly Rate is not what was hoped for, but the Snap Up provisions safeguards not being left too far behind, right?
Signing Bonus could be better, but could be viewed as the compromise in this process, if the JG Wentworth, "Its My Money, and I Need It Now!" stance is not adopted.
If ratified, the fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be a $hiddy contract to work under, by any measure. It's not the fully loaded, customised model one would've been preferred, but it nevertheless comes VERY well equipped.
I'm leaning YES, but very much on the fence atm, and would actually vote NO, if I were to become convinced that from a RISK vs REWARD point of view, suiting up, and jumping back into the battle for that last 10% is the wisest thing to do.
