Davetastic

BK is months away.....for all intents and purposes....RETIRED. And I don't agree with him staying on to represent us....it presents a conflict of interest. Hats off to him though...he played politics to keep himself in power and he did it. It's just politics.


Every post that I put up some union hard liner including YOU wants to paint a picture of me as a company guy but I can't tell you enough to STOP already. I am not a company guy and I support the union. PERIOD. I am just critical of policies to which I don't agree.



I know union and company tactics and politics. I don't agree with EITHER. Frankly, you can't help but wonder that because the union has decided to play politics that the company is making it difficult for us as retribution...or visa versa. Regardless, this is the path that was forged when the company and union jointly decided to take this labor group down the legal paths that we find ourselves on now. The line pilots are stuck in the middle.

Davetastic

For once I agree with a few things you said here....the union does a GREAT job with grievances and disciplinary hearings.

The lawyers are the only winners which is why I can't see that a protracted labor dispute at OUR expense is positive. I am surely not saying "settle", but expedience is clearly not high on the priority list.....from either side of the table.

RyeMex

Dave,

I've got no beef with you. I'm honestly just trying to understand your position.

What would you proposed solution be going forward? Or how do you think that this process should have been handled differently?

Davetastic

This is a generalization. You assume that those that are critical don't volunteer. I am sure there are those that fall into the category of "critical non-helpers" but there are also those that are critical and still volunteer, i.e., P2P, flying the CBA to the letter at a minimum.



I understand what you are saying and I agree. If one is going to be critical, at the very least they should NOT be doing anything to circumvent one of the very few tools we have: The CBA. But at the same time, if unity is our message how is bashing other Atlas pilots on this forum helping our cause?

Davetastic

Nor I with you, or anybody for that matter. I have ad nauseum explained what I do, what I have done, what I will continue to do and what I would have done differently. I emplore you to do a search in previous posts. But the short answer; Diplomacy and transparency.....but I get it....that doesn't get the base riled up like good ol' fashioned brute force politics.

Screwed

For those who think the union is delaying a contract so that they can keep the extra assessment in place......

Would the union not make more money even if all we got was the Kalitta pay scale and the extra assessment went way?

RyeMex

I suppose I may be looking for more specifics though. I'm all for diplomacy. But would you have preferred that the Union simply have accepted the company's push for binding arbitration for our new CBA, leaving the membership with yet another contract that they have no chance to vote on?

Screwed

How did the union jointly decide to take this labor group down the legal path?

It is the company that is trying to shove amalgamation down our throats. It is the company that has not negotiated in good faith. It is the company that has sued US.

I believe this is a make or break contract for Atlas Pilots. It will determine whether we are a second tier pilot group in terms of compensation and benefits or whether we are a 3rd rate group like Omni, ATI and Kalitta, etc. etc.

We need to fight for a negotiated contract that we vote on. The time is now. Conditions may never be this good again.

Davetastic

I don't think that it is so simple. From my understanding, you don't just jump to binding arbitration to get a contract while in discussions whether is be via RLA section 6 or CBA successorship. Aren't you missing a few steps? Besides, the point is moot. The union made their position clear as did the company during those talks which were intentionally untenable from both sides forcing our legal path.

I agree that it appears as though the company is doing what it can to prolong this effort but it matters not the reason. It is their company and it is obvious that they feel they can do whatever they want to achieve their business goals.

But I don't think we'll get to vote. The company knows this as does the union. The union is right. We did embark down the section 6 path. The company is right too. There is a viable successorship clause. But I am not sure that there is legal precedent to determine that once a negotiation path was started it must be finished as the union is trying to argue. I hope so, but I doubt it. Every thing else you said has no legal weight. It is just emotion.

RyeMex

Right. So, I'll admit right from the get-go that I'm no expert on this and I may be completely incorrect in this, however, *as far as I understand the situation*:

My understanding was that the Company's position is that we should not be continuing under section 6 negotiations because the successorship section of the CBA is now applicable. Most importantly, this would imply that CBA 1.F.2.b.iii would be applicable. This is where the company comes up with the "you'll have a new CBA in 9 months" number. However, that section requires that after the Union and Company negotiate for a period of 9 months, "the parties shall jointly submit the outstanding issues to binding interest arbitration".

The long and short of it being, the Company refused to take any path forward with this process other than the one in which we would all be handed a new CBA by an Arbitrator (after they presumably would be unable to get a new CBA hammered out in 9 months time). So, I'm all for diplomacy (and I'm sure that there have been many opportunities on both sides where discussions could have been handled more diplomatically), but if we, the Membership, want a TA that we actually have a chance to vote on, I fail to see what other option that Union had besides fighting to keep us from being bound by this successorship language.

Just my two cents. I am completely open to being corrected if I misunderstand the process.