AFW_MD11

The Company will lose all the arbitrations & all the pilots who chose the arbitration process will be reinstated - this is how The Company will "save face".

Of course they are not going to stop the process at this point and admit they were "wrong" - the Arbitrator(s) will give The Company the out they need and are too proud to admit openly.

From today's LEC 7 message: The Pilots Emergency Relief Fund totals $X,XXX,XXX.XX as of July 31, 2012, with six loans outstanding totaling $XXX,XXX.XX.

These funds are available to any Member in Good Standing to help "bridge the gap" - this is a portion of our dues money that is set aside to support our union members in need (in lieu of specific event "assessments" or voluntary relief funds sponsored/created by the union)

AFW_MD11

This statement is where you, TonyC, and those that are of your same mentality are fundamentally WRONG!

This mentality/mindset/mantra is what got you and the other former Block Reps recalled.

The NMB (federal mediator as you call them) is ABSOLUTELY interested in our "interim discussions" - as are other pilot labor groups like Delta ALPA. They used our model of "interim discussions" to achieve a new contract 6 months before their amendable date.

Read today's Council 7 message to see just how "interested"/involved the NMB already is in our "interim discussions" (and have been from the beginning)

Whether you want to admit it or not, this new model is, in effect, contract negotiations.

Unless the MEC and Negotiating Chairman are outright & openly lying, we are "closing"/TA-ing previously opened sections of the contract within the framework of the interim discussions in order to greatly condense the process once the amendable date actually arrives.

Get over it - this is how we're doing it this time & the NMB likes it!!

P.S. it's a slow process and so ALL the sections aren't going to magically get TA'd over night (not even the Retirement section) - especially when the Negotiating Committee has to expend a lot of their time dealing with all the ancillary issues that keep coming up.

MaxKts

I understand the process and I understand it may be slow, but since we agreed to sell out for two 3% raises how many sections have been TA'd??

trashhauler

Really Max, SELLOUT for 6%? I guess your still angry about the sellout. My advice, take a deep breath and move on. But of course, you are entitled to your opinion. Just my 2 centavos.

FLMD11CAPT

Hmmmm..........MAXKTS.......Sold out for a 6% pay raise? I think not. How many crew forces have achieved a 6% pay raise in the last 24 months? What did you expect during this time frame? The economy was in the toilet (still is). Are you one of the "burn the house down" guys? What were your expectations?

TonyC

You're trying to put words in my mouth when I beieve I was clear with the words that I actually spoke (typed). I didn't call the NMB the federal mediator. I am well aware of the difference. Gunter claimed that a federal mediator would look dimly upon us stepping away from Interim Discussions until our hostage crisis is resolved. I pointed out that a federal mediator has no interest in the Interim Discussion process. There is no vehicle to involve a federal mediator in the Interim Discussion process. We will never get to a mediator until we have reached an impasse in RLA Section Six negotiations.

If you know of a recent change to the RLA which contradicts that, please illuminate us.

The NMB is interested in dealing with cases where the bulk of the work is done and there are only a handful of unresolved issues remaining. If the Interim Discussion process gets us there, we're all happy. Is the NMB interested in the success of this process? Of course. Is a federal mediator interested? Nah.






There will be no Tentative Agreements (TAs) on sections during this process. We may come to agreements and conclude negotiations on sections, but the TA process is part of the Section 6 process, not this one.

Which previously opened section of the CBA have we closed?


It's funny how the ancillary issues started popping up as soon as we ratified this CBA. In fact, it's funny that the very first issue, the one which has consumed, in the words of the MEC Chairman, the majority of our union resources, was the Hong Kong housing allowance ancillary issue.




I wish I shared your confidence in the judgment of paid arbitrators.

Reinstatement would be a step in the right direction. It will take a lot more to make them whole.






.

MaxKts

Still haven't answered the question

Gunter

Sorry to cause such a ruckus with the improper "mediator" terminology. You'all knew what I meant. Can you see the forest from the trees? I wonder.

Tony, the CBA is a big document. Trying to tackle the entire thing in such a short period of time as happens in old school section 6 negotiation leads to exhaustion. Which I believe BC suffered from and created errors in judgment.

Have patience. Retirement will be addressed.

Gunter

Management hopes others will make errors due to lack of patience....

TonyC

You're not going to get an answer because you've worded the question improperly. What you're going to get is an explanation that we don't "TA" sections during Interim Discussions -- that's what we do in RLA Section 6 negotiations. By the time they finish explaining that, they'll act like they've spoken enough words already, so they won't answer the question they knew you really meant to ask.

So let's get away from the "verb" that we use, "TA". We're not going to TA any sections during Interim Discussions. Let's use another verb, another word or phrase which conveys the same thought, the concept of coming to agreement on the details of a particular section so that we can set it aside and move on to another section, intending to gather together all the TA'd sections at the end to produce a Tentative Agreement, a document needing only membership ratification to become a new CBA.

Instead of "TA", let's use the verb phrase "Agreed Upon". When we have a section which is "Agreed Upon," we can set in on a shelf, and when we open RLA Section 6 negotiations, we should be able to pull it off the shelf, affix signatures, and call it a TA. Theoretically it's the same level of commitment by both parties, it's just not in a RLA Section 6 bargaining environment.

So, let's ask the question a different way, using the new verb phrase.

How many CBA Sections have been agreed upon in the Interim Discussion process?

Taking a look at the FDX ALPA Homepage, there's a little button labeled "Interim Talks."

I've copied it here, along with its functionality.



When you go to the FDX ALPA Home Page and click on it (or click on it here in my post), it takes you to a page where you can view the "C-Grid." (You'll have to log in, so that may result in a few extra clicks.) Now, I may be reading the C-Grid wrong, but I don't see any sections marked that we have Agreed Upon anything. I see 4 asterisks, which mean we intend to "readdress [the section] in upcoming negotiations." I see 8 instances of "Working Group in Progress", including for Section 28 Retirement. Since we have yet to see The Company's initial proposal for this section, I have to wonder what "Working Group in Progress" even means. Except for the sections which neither party intends to open, I don't see any sections marked to indicate we have reached an agreement which would allow us to take the document off the shelf when Section Six negotiations begin and call it a TA.

So ... in a long-winded, roundabout way, I now offer you my answer to your question, rephrased.

Since we agreed to [inflammatory verbiage deleted to make this more objective] two 3% raises how many sections have been agreed upon??

The answer: Zero






.