Allegiant Air
06-26-2016, 04:40 PM
#3101
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 9
Of course they apply. The provisions of the RLA are not thrown out simply because a vote turned down the TA. Remember, things could go both ways, and backfire, both ways. If the RLA goes out the window then the company can violate status quo then so can the employee group. IE, work slow-downs, strikes, etc. No way the NMB would allow it. It's not that easy to circumvent the RLA.
Status quo stays in effect until a contract is ratified. Now. That doesn't mean the two parties can't come up with letters of agreement to agree to temporary changes to the status quo. For instance, if it's decided it will take a year or more to negotiate a second TA, but the company wants to instill a pay raise the Union could agree to that in writing. But to change our insurance or work rules, for instance, without an LOA during the "laboratory period" could land them in court and easily be found in violation of the RLA, or ruled against them in arbitration.
Status quo stays in effect until a contract is ratified. Now. That doesn't mean the two parties can't come up with letters of agreement to agree to temporary changes to the status quo. For instance, if it's decided it will take a year or more to negotiate a second TA, but the company wants to instill a pay raise the Union could agree to that in writing. But to change our insurance or work rules, for instance, without an LOA during the "laboratory period" could land them in court and easily be found in violation of the RLA, or ruled against them in arbitration.
Additionally, take a look at the last paragraph on p. 23 of http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/14-16465.pdf
06-26-2016, 04:49 PM
#3103
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Position: A320
Posts: 92
I respectfully disagree. Status quo, as provided for in 45 U.S.C. 156, only applies to work rules, etc. that are already in place as a result of an AGREEMENT between the bargaining unit and the company. Are any of the current work rules, or pay rates, etc. provided for under an existing agreement under the RLA and within the jurisdiction of the NMB?
Additionally, take a look at the last paragraph on p. 23 of http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/14-16465.pdf
Additionally, take a look at the last paragraph on p. 23 of http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/14-16465.pdf
*shrug* Understood, no problem.
I don't have time for a legal debate with you, quite frankly, nor am I interested in one. But I can tell you that I have significant union leadership experience at more than one previous airline, and happen to know directly through experience that you're wrong. You can disagree all you want. That's fine. I can sleep at night knowing you are mistaken. ;-)
Companies get busted for violating laboratory periods and/or status quo all the time. They don't get a free pass on your existing work rules that went into effect when the laboratory period became active simply because a TA gets voted down. That doesn't mean they won't try to violate it, TA or no TA. In fact, if you wanted to get technical, the fact that new-hires now get to stay in a company-paid hotel and get paid 70 hr guarantee while in training, which is contrary to what is written in the 51-page work rules, and as far as I know no LOA with the Union allowing that change could be considered a violation of the laboratory period. But since it's benefiting the pilots, of course the Union isn't balking at that. But that would be an example of violating the laboratory period. The company can do what they want, but it would take the Union actually taking them to court over it to enforce anything on it.
Last edited by smoothatFL410; 06-26-2016 at 05:13 PM.
06-26-2016, 04:49 PM
#3104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
06-26-2016, 05:01 PM
#3105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,432
06-26-2016, 05:13 PM
#3106
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 9
*shrug* Understood, no problem.
I don't have time for a legal debate with you, quite frankly, nor am I interested in one. But I can tell you that I have significant union leadership experience at more than one previous airline, and happen to know directly through experience that you're wrong. You can disagree all you want. That's fine. I can sleep at night knowing you are mistaken. ;-)
Companies get busted for violating laboratory periods and/or status quo all the time. They don't get a free pass on your existing work rules that went into effect when the laboratory period became active simply because a TA gets voted down. That doesn't mean they won't try.
I don't have time for a legal debate with you, quite frankly, nor am I interested in one. But I can tell you that I have significant union leadership experience at more than one previous airline, and happen to know directly through experience that you're wrong. You can disagree all you want. That's fine. I can sleep at night knowing you are mistaken. ;-)
Companies get busted for violating laboratory periods and/or status quo all the time. They don't get a free pass on your existing work rules that went into effect when the laboratory period became active simply because a TA gets voted down. That doesn't mean they won't try.
The only thing that might preclude the company from making unilateral changes is the same thing that motivated them to negotiate in the first place...
You mentioned your experience at other carriers, and you mentioned that companies get in trouble all the time for status quo violations... So in your vast experience, can you provide a single precedent of when a company was obliged to maintain status quo on work rules without an RLA agreement already in place that had established those work rules to begin with? What company? What union?
Not trying to have an academic discussion, but I sincerely don't believe that the Allegiant pilots have the same status-quo protections that a pilot group with an established agreement in place would have if that group then voted down an amendment to the agreement. I'd ask my reps, but I also wouldn't be satisfied with what they "think" (too many airlines, and several unions, in my past, too...). But it's a question that should be asked and answered in fact during roadshows and before a vote.
06-26-2016, 05:44 PM
#3108
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: FO
Posts: 88
Hey guys,
I should probably know this, but will the whole pilot group be able to vote on this, or only pilots on property for more than 6 months, 1 year, etc? Thanks.
And as always, anyone potentially interested in Allegiant with general questions for a line pilot, feel free to call/text me anytime. Forums get so mis guided sometimes, just wanna ensure there's a way for people to get their basic questions answered.
-Alex-
cel: 484-661-7716
I should probably know this, but will the whole pilot group be able to vote on this, or only pilots on property for more than 6 months, 1 year, etc? Thanks.
And as always, anyone potentially interested in Allegiant with general questions for a line pilot, feel free to call/text me anytime. Forums get so mis guided sometimes, just wanna ensure there's a way for people to get their basic questions answered.
-Alex-
cel: 484-661-7716
06-26-2016, 06:17 PM
#3109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 926
I'm not advocating a position, but if the company is unable to take advantage of whatever opportunity because of this TA being voted down, the company may use alternate means to meet their needs....means that we may very well not appreciate.
06-26-2016, 07:11 PM
#3110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 289
An accurate representation of the struggle between the Gallagher family and the NC for your viewing pleasure.
NASCAR fight: John West Townley, Spencer Gallagher go at it, and drivers react | NASCAR.com
NASCAR fight: John West Townley, Spencer Gallagher go at it, and drivers react | NASCAR.com
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
