viperdriver

Has anyone in management said whether BLG returns to 68/85 after a furlough. I asked the Union and got the answer of course it does, just like of course the 777 will pay A-380 rates, what else would it pay.

This is a vital question to know the answer to.

if you furlough 100 aren't you still preventing/delaying a furlough to keep 200 off the street?

Sluggo_63

I don't think so... I would consider that 'mitigating the effects of the furlough.'

But, bottom line is, it doesn't matter what I think... what does the arbitrator think?

Haywood JB

You have to know that if they furlough one guy, they win the greivance...and no that doesn't mean the blg's come up, because all they have to say is that they are delaying or preventing one more. The contract is not written with specifics..

onetime

A couple better questions would be, 1.) does draft, volunteer, all makeup, carryover w/o min days off protected end if one guy/gal is f-lo'ed? and 2.) can the company operate under those circumstances without all the CH hounds we currently have? Just thoughts.

FXDX

VLT has to stop contractually. Of course the company could ignore that part of the contract too. You'd think that nobody would accept VLT, but we've got those who fly DPs at straight pay, so I'm not optimistic about that.

The contract only says that it is not the company's intent to rely on DFT to fill trips, doesn't prevent it. Again, are we collectively strong enough to refuse DFT in the event of a furlough? Hmmmm. I would hope so, again, not so optimistic. In fact, I wonder what an arbitrator or labor judge would think about that in terms of an illegal work action if it suddenly went away. I would hope we would be ok because of the intent language, but who knows what types of strings Mr. Smith could pull on that type of decision.

FR8Hauler

What I was told is that the union's stance once one guy gets furloughed all the volunteer...will be looked upon as struck work. Also, back to the question of the BLG bouncing back, what is to keep the company from just implementing it again by saying we are going to furlough some more? This whole section 4a2b (or whatever it is) really has us by the b@!!$.

MalteseX

My wife's ENTIRE family (it seems) are in law. She is an attorney all her brothers, cousin's etc (and she hasn't taken 80% of my earnings----yet!).

Her father is a retired labor law judge and her uncle is a current federal judge and former NMB mediator. Last week, we were all at a relative's wedding and before they started drinking, I let them read portions of the contract.

In their opinion, (and they all have many years of experience in labor law), they all indicated that the intent is clear that if ANYONE is furloughed, the BLGs go back to the contracted guarantee of 68/88. Also, the section can't be used to "prevent or delay" ANOTHER round of furloughs or additional guys to be furloughed---until all of the furloughed guys have been recalled. Only then does the seciton become "valid" again. And the part I didn't understand very well, they indicated that "case law" that they remembered, supports the union's position on BLGs "snapping back" up---I guess there was a similar ruling in the union's (some other union, not ours) favor on this type issue a few years back.

A side note: It was also their opinion that the language is not clear as to whether the reduced BLGs must be spread across all the aircraft equally. That part is not spelled out clearly---so the union may have a bit of trouble winning that issue/grievance (in their opinion).

FR8Hauler

Interesting. I hope they are right. Thanks.

FXDX

4a2b is a blessing in disguise because it (even though it was improperly implemented by the company according those who thought they had to drop lines to 48 first) is keeping all of us on the property. It is having the intended effect if not the one envisioned by those who drafted the language. There is only flying for say 4200 pilots. We have nearly 4700. The only way to distribute the work is to lower BLGs. If the company had to buy up the lines they would simply furlough 500 guys and then bump up the BLGs to more normal levels.

Should they buy up the lines and keep everybody onboard when they only need 4200? That would be great, but I don't see it happening. (Of course my numbers are simply for illustrative purposes) Sharing the pain is what we say we're all about as a union. If we didn't have this provision in our contract we'd be like the UPS guys with a 50M+ gun at our head for contractual concessions in lieu of a furlough.

The only problem I see with 4a2b (other than I agree that the company improperly implemented it) is that there is no language on when it snaps back. But if the company can unilaterally implement it, we seem to be stuck with them unilaterally retracting it. Hopefully the economy will rebound, the freight will pick up, and that day will come soon.

Meantime I'm glad that there is a way for us to share the pain and keep everybody on the seniority list. I also hope that the union and the company are able to agree on some carryover limitations and monthly caps (to also snap back at the appropriate time) to better share the pain of the reduced BLGs.

P Gibbons

I believe that the company would say they are keeping BLGs low because they are mitigating another round of furloughs. But if the company does furlough, they would probably cut down to the level where they would pay normal BLGs. They pay alot less benefits this way.

FXDX -- I agree with you about 4a2b. My only gripe is reserves still working maximum days..