What's to stop.....
01-02-2009, 08:42 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 11 Capt
Posts: 509
I have to agree with you that this is total BS on the part of the company. We cannot let them make this precedence stick. We need to take them to court on this. Like you said the way the company is interpreting this, they can lower and raise our Contractually Guaranteed pay hours at will to any amount between 40/60 to 68/85 (by saying they are trying to prevent a furlough).
It makes no sense that this is the thought process behind the agreement. It only makes sense that the company has the choice of our normal 68/85 BLG or 40/60 to prevent a furlough with nothing in between; otherwise we have no real pay Guarantee at all which is crazy. What union would agree to that?
Venting as well!!
It makes no sense that this is the thought process behind the agreement. It only makes sense that the company has the choice of our normal 68/85 BLG or 40/60 to prevent a furlough with nothing in between; otherwise we have no real pay Guarantee at all which is crazy. What union would agree to that?
Venting as well!!
01-02-2009, 09:16 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 74
Past
I think you are correct. The Union is contending that the company cannot unilaterally reduce BLG numbers to the contract language in 4.A.2.b. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong - but the section reads plainly enough and they can lower BLG as they see fit to prevent or delay a furlough. We will have a great burden to prove the company is not preventing or delaying a furlough. Very disappointing that this section wasn't scrubbed for loopholes.
Curby
I think you are correct. The Union is contending that the company cannot unilaterally reduce BLG numbers to the contract language in 4.A.2.b. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong - but the section reads plainly enough and they can lower BLG as they see fit to prevent or delay a furlough. We will have a great burden to prove the company is not preventing or delaying a furlough. Very disappointing that this section wasn't scrubbed for loopholes.
Curby
01-03-2009, 05:17 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 FO FDX, C130 ANG
Posts: 538
Language and intent
Past
I think you are correct. The Union is contending that the company cannot unilaterally reduce BLG numbers to the contract language in 4.A.2.b. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong - but the section reads plainly enough and they can lower BLG as they see fit to prevent or delay a furlough. We will have a great burden to prove the company is not preventing or delaying a furlough. Very disappointing that this section wasn't scrubbed for loopholes.
Curby
I think you are correct. The Union is contending that the company cannot unilaterally reduce BLG numbers to the contract language in 4.A.2.b. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong - but the section reads plainly enough and they can lower BLG as they see fit to prevent or delay a furlough. We will have a great burden to prove the company is not preventing or delaying a furlough. Very disappointing that this section wasn't scrubbed for loopholes.
Curby
01-03-2009, 05:30 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
A pilot, on the seniority list, needs to be working a pilot contract. If he or she doesn't feel comfortable with a section or if supporting lawyers reviewing the section express concern, they need to work thru some worst case scenarios with the help of counsel. Then, if the language is deemed unsuitable, this pilot negotiator needs to put their foot down and sound the alarm.
If you think you know it all the above would look silly.
Last edited by Gunter; 01-03-2009 at 05:41 AM.
01-03-2009, 06:45 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
No, like a professional lawyer. How about reading just the part of the contract dealing with Reserves. "Requests to move or drop days will not be unreasonably denied" - how is that even remotely enforceable? How about the verbage that allows them to drop the BLG to 48 while keeping the number of reserve days at 15, reducing an R-day value to 48/15?
Pilots will talk about silly things such as "intent of the language during negotiations" and "that is not how they meant it" while lawyers will say stuff like "but the judge/arbitrator will interpret it as it is written" and "why did they write it that way".
Pilots will talk about silly things such as "intent of the language during negotiations" and "that is not how they meant it" while lawyers will say stuff like "but the judge/arbitrator will interpret it as it is written" and "why did they write it that way".
01-03-2009, 06:58 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
This majority of this contract contains language that wasn't written by ALPA lawyers, but FPA with a lot of 'strike through' amendments/additions in the last deal. I'm not saying ALPA contracts are bulletproof(really nothing is with RLA but that's another story), however most of them are written with language that is far more concise and expansive language than ours is. A rewrite of the language was ruled out last time because they wanted to get it out for ratification quickly, but perhaps it should be reconsidered going forward.
01-03-2009, 06:59 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
So I guess you just want this "Professional lawyer/negotiator" to put out a poll or two to the membership then let him go negotiate?
I bet the give a hoot factor will be relatively low. He'll be thinking about collecting his fee and lining up his next job. If it is a flat fee, I bet he makes "deals" to get done early. If he is paid by the hour I bet he drags it on forever.
I don't think we can do as well as you think with a lawyer in charge. I think they are critical but better in a supporting role. I want someone who will have to live with the CBA to make choices about it.
I bet the give a hoot factor will be relatively low. He'll be thinking about collecting his fee and lining up his next job. If it is a flat fee, I bet he makes "deals" to get done early. If he is paid by the hour I bet he drags it on forever.
I don't think we can do as well as you think with a lawyer in charge. I think they are critical but better in a supporting role. I want someone who will have to live with the CBA to make choices about it.
01-03-2009, 07:21 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
How about we mimic what the company does. Do you think Meliniak is making all of the calls? No, he is given his marching orders by the execs and he tries to write the language to make that hapen. When it comes to concessions, he reports to the execs and sees what they are willing to give up.
With professional negotiators/lawyers, the lawyers are doing the majority of talking and writing, but the negotiating committee drives the show.
If the company sees fit to have the lawyers do the leg work instead of the managers, there must be a reason. The managers here won't even discuss actual manager related material without input from the attorney.
With professional negotiators/lawyers, the lawyers are doing the majority of talking and writing, but the negotiating committee drives the show.
If the company sees fit to have the lawyers do the leg work instead of the managers, there must be a reason. The managers here won't even discuss actual manager related material without input from the attorney.
Last edited by LivingInMEM; 01-03-2009 at 07:37 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bloodhound
Your Photos and Videos
5
11-02-2008 05:17 PM
