More HKG Housing "Grey Area"
06-15-2012, 06:27 AM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
06-15-2012, 07:32 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: headbanging
Posts: 954
Gentlemen:
I implore you to Please stop this infighting.
While we do not always agree with each other, as Seniority # Line holding Pilots ,we are on the same side. Yes even if we have Polar opinions.
The Firings of the HKG 4 are Not the fault of DW or the MEC's past or present.
The Union did not fire these Pilots........Management Did.
The Union did not Invoke 4 A 2 B..........Management Did.
The Union doesn't tweek the Optimizer..Management does best which isn't always to our benefit.
While things are not always Utopian, Pilots step up to serve in
Union Positions, some Paid and some volunteers.
I thank them for doing it, even if I do not agree with them.
Why anyone volunteers to do UNION work is beyond me. (I sure do not want to)
Our pilots who take the job get it from both sides, Management and the Pilots they are working for.
If people do not step up to do the Job what then? Does anybody really think we are better off without a UNION.
Management will continue to do what it does best and that often isn't always to our benefit.
Again we are all on the same receiving end are we not?
It is ok to debate, but please do it Respectfully and think about who is really the common FOE here.
Please Chill and Have a nice evening.
I implore you to Please stop this infighting.
While we do not always agree with each other, as Seniority # Line holding Pilots ,we are on the same side. Yes even if we have Polar opinions.
The Firings of the HKG 4 are Not the fault of DW or the MEC's past or present.
The Union did not fire these Pilots........Management Did.
The Union did not Invoke 4 A 2 B..........Management Did.
The Union doesn't tweek the Optimizer..Management does best which isn't always to our benefit.
While things are not always Utopian, Pilots step up to serve in
Union Positions, some Paid and some volunteers.
I thank them for doing it, even if I do not agree with them.
Why anyone volunteers to do UNION work is beyond me. (I sure do not want to)
Our pilots who take the job get it from both sides, Management and the Pilots they are working for.
If people do not step up to do the Job what then? Does anybody really think we are better off without a UNION.
Management will continue to do what it does best and that often isn't always to our benefit.
Again we are all on the same receiving end are we not?
It is ok to debate, but please do it Respectfully and think about who is really the common FOE here.
Please Chill and Have a nice evening.
06-15-2012, 10:25 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
The 1st step in recovery is admitting your problem. Yes management is taking advantage of a weak agreement. But we cant pretend that we passed a strong agreement. I mean the best hope these guys have is either an arbitrator will gut the current agreement to make almost everyone eligible for the housing allowance or some court will.
Tony has a unique perspective on this agreement. I believe he was originally against LOA1, I know he was strongly supportive of LOA2, and one of the few people who had a say that must now abide by the agreements. I think FDD would just like to hear his perspective. Cant say I blame him.
While I am still cautiously optimistic that we are doing everything we can to help the pilots, I sure would like to hear the MEC opinion on the logic of submitting weak LOAs to the membership hoping that we can trust management to do the right thing.
Tony has a unique perspective on this agreement. I believe he was originally against LOA1, I know he was strongly supportive of LOA2, and one of the few people who had a say that must now abide by the agreements. I think FDD would just like to hear his perspective. Cant say I blame him.
While I am still cautiously optimistic that we are doing everything we can to help the pilots, I sure would like to hear the MEC opinion on the logic of submitting weak LOAs to the membership hoping that we can trust management to do the right thing.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 06-15-2012 at 10:47 AM.
06-15-2012, 10:51 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
06-15-2012, 10:55 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
06-15-2012, 11:51 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
1. arbitrators don't "gut" agreements under the RLA - they are a neutral 3rd party who settles disputes between the parties - (see System Board in our CBA) - and make a ruling based on the agreed-upon language of the CBA - they don't "gut" or change the agreed-upon (ratified) language
2. NO court has jurisdiction in disputes between parties under the RLA - the SOLE REMEDY is arbitration (see System Board) - both parties have agreed to this method of resolving disputes in advance under the terms of the CBA
(with VERY limited exceptions under EXTREMELY rare circumstances when one of the parties has COMPLETELY disregarded the terms of the CBA)
at least that's the way I understand it.....I could be wrong......
06-15-2012, 12:19 PM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Doesn't matter anyway. As was pointed out, someone in management has come up with their own interpretation.
06-15-2012, 12:25 PM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
In response to AFW:
Well let us see if I can explain it to you. If the arrbitrator reinstates the HKG 4 a little scales of justice will go on the CBA page and explain that the company position on what constitutes relocation is out the window. Thus gutting the company's understanding of the agreement.
If a state or federal court thinks that ALPA and FDX have violated equal protection clauses they most certainly can throw out all or part of the agreement. As an example fdx and ALPA can not agree to deny atheist pilots the opportunity to bid for captain unless there is a compelling reason. It would be up to a court to determine if there were compelling reasons.
At least that is the way I understand it.
Well let us see if I can explain it to you. If the arrbitrator reinstates the HKG 4 a little scales of justice will go on the CBA page and explain that the company position on what constitutes relocation is out the window. Thus gutting the company's understanding of the agreement.
If a state or federal court thinks that ALPA and FDX have violated equal protection clauses they most certainly can throw out all or part of the agreement. As an example fdx and ALPA can not agree to deny atheist pilots the opportunity to bid for captain unless there is a compelling reason. It would be up to a court to determine if there were compelling reasons.
At least that is the way I understand it.
06-15-2012, 02:57 PM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
I think we're talking apples & oranges here.
To clarify my statement - sole remedy in disputes over CONTRACT LANGUAGE is arbitration/System Board - under the RLA
The HKG 4 may have a case involving the terms of their employment OUTSIDE the terms of the CBA - if so, FDX ALPA cannot represent them in that case.
So, I believe that FDX ALPA is doing all they (we) can to defend the HKG 4 in arbitration.
I was taking exception to FDXLAG's characterization that somehow an arbitrator or "other court" could or would alter the terms of our FDA LOA (CBA) - they cannot/do not do that - arbitrators/System Board only rules on interpretation - "other courts" have no jurisdiction over the implementation/interpretation of our CBA
Federal or State employment laws are apples to our agreement (CBA) under the RLA (oranges)
Again - I'm not a lawyer & just putting out there my understanding of how CBA language/interpretation disputes are resolved - not in State or Federal court - but I could be wrong (as I stated previously)
To clarify my statement - sole remedy in disputes over CONTRACT LANGUAGE is arbitration/System Board - under the RLA
The HKG 4 may have a case involving the terms of their employment OUTSIDE the terms of the CBA - if so, FDX ALPA cannot represent them in that case.
So, I believe that FDX ALPA is doing all they (we) can to defend the HKG 4 in arbitration.
I was taking exception to FDXLAG's characterization that somehow an arbitrator or "other court" could or would alter the terms of our FDA LOA (CBA) - they cannot/do not do that - arbitrators/System Board only rules on interpretation - "other courts" have no jurisdiction over the implementation/interpretation of our CBA
Federal or State employment laws are apples to our agreement (CBA) under the RLA (oranges)
Again - I'm not a lawyer & just putting out there my understanding of how CBA language/interpretation disputes are resolved - not in State or Federal court - but I could be wrong (as I stated previously)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
