Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
No, their responses didn't change my mind, and in fact I didn't get the impression they agreed that the reserve rules in the NNP were concessionary or would result in fewer pilots. However, I did give them another datapoint for their consideration on representing their constituency, and did tell them I'd absolutely vote "no" if a single 76 seater was increased, no matter what the pay increase was. But, at least they read my email and replied quickly, personally, at length, and not via a form reply. As far as feeling "represented" by my LEC, I actually felt pretty good with the responsiveness. Better than I do with my tenants...
Scambo, I looked into it and I'll be darned if when I grabbed my contract off the book shelf there it was right in the front of the PWA, Section 1. As far as whether or not we can strike over scope I don't buy his claim that we can't. Don't tell me you believe that DAL could force DCI 100 seaters into section 1without our pilot group having any recourse? I don't buy that for a minute and I think the NMB would be in our corner if it came to striking over it. Prove me wrong but in the mean time I maintain that Mesabah has no clue what he is talking about.
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Scambo, I looked into it and I'll be darned if when I grabbed my contract off the book shelf there it was right in the front of the PWA, Section 1. As far as whether or not we can strike over scope I don't buy his claim that we can't. Don't tell me you believe that DAL could force DCI 100 seaters into section 1without our pilot group having any recourse? I don't buy that for a minute and I think the NMB would be in our corner if it came to striking over it. Prove me wrong but in the mean time I maintain that Mesabah has no clue what he is talking about.
Edit: I'm not saying that is going to happen at Delta, but it's interesting to look at.
Last edited by Mesabah; 05-09-2012 at 03:41 PM.
A contract item as defined by the NMB, is pay, work rules, filing of vacancies etc. Scope is not one of them, it's simply who is to be covered by that agreement. You can't strike over 76 jet flying at DCI, once you give it up, it's gone. The only way to put it back is to get management to volunteer it back. How do you plan to do that? Voting NO repeatedly on a contract isn't going to do that.
At that point it becomes about leverage.
As to DAL1067's last. The statement was once negotiated.
Scambo, I looked into it and I'll be darned if when I grabbed my contract off the book shelf there it was right in the front of the PWA, Section 1. As far as whether or not we can strike over scope I don't buy his claim that we can't. Don't tell me you believe that DAL could force DCI 100 seaters into section 1without our pilot group having any recourse? I don't buy that for a minute and I think the NMB would be in our corner if it came to striking over it. Prove me wrong but in the mean time I maintain that Mesabah has no clue what he is talking about.
He is not saying anything else.
We cannot strike over status quo - no changes from what is already in section 1.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,030
This post really irritates me. You and many other RJ guys used to be regular posters calling us major pilots greedy bastards for selling scope to line our own pockets. Now you come here and post this? Seriously? So if we were all stupid enough to buy in to Mesabah's attempt to make us think we're in a no-win situation, we sell more scope...then you come back and screech at us for ruining your life...again?
Seems like every one of you RJ guys say: "I'm not a lifer" and "I don't want you guys to give up more scope". Yet when it comes to us fighting to do what you've expressly asked us to do, you post this kind of drivel that sounds like something directly from a management cubicle.
Un-freakin-real.
Carl
Seems like every one of you RJ guys say: "I'm not a lifer" and "I don't want you guys to give up more scope". Yet when it comes to us fighting to do what you've expressly asked us to do, you post this kind of drivel that sounds like something directly from a management cubicle.
Un-freakin-real.
Carl
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
That is still possibly a step in the wrong direction. A 100% NO vote, no matter how good the first TA is, is what's needed to start taking steps in the right direction.
You have to read what he is actually saying. He is saying basically once we allow something to be outsourced, we have agreed that it is gone...It is no longer our job, it is the other guys.
He is not saying anything else.
We cannot strike over status quo - no changes from what is already in section 1.
He is not saying anything else.
We cannot strike over status quo - no changes from what is already in section 1.
Definition of Major Dispute. Major disputes involve the creation or changing of collective bargaining agreements on rates of pay, work rules and working conditions, and are subject to conciliation procedures that are purposely long and drawn-out. Unlike other industries, collective bargaining agreements under the RLA do not expire on certain dates, but remain in full force and effect until changed in accordance with the procedures of the RLA.
RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:
- A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, work rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice (so called "Section 6 notices").
- The parties must confer, and if they fail to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the NMB. The NMB may also offer its services if it finds a labor emergency to exist.
- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.
- If arbitration is rejected, the parties must maintain the status quo for a 30-day period. If the NMB determines that the dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the NMB shall notify the President, who may create a PEB to investigate the dispute for a 30-day period and issue non-binding recommendations for resolving the dispute. The parties typically agree to PEB requests for extensions of time to further study a dispute. The last stages of the conciliation procedures differ slightly for publicly funded and operated rail commuter carriers.
- While the dispute is working its way through these stages, and for an additional 30 days following the issuance of the PEB's report, the parties must maintain the status quo , and cannot utilize self-help measures. Although not specifically provided for in the RLA, the NMB typically works with the parties to try to induce a last-minute settlement or voluntary extension of the status quo.
- If, after the final 30-day status quo period has expired, a settlement has not been reached, the parties are free to resort to self-help and cannot be enjoined from doing so.
Self-help. The RLA is silent on the scope of allowable self-help available to the parties after they have exhausted the major dispute resolution procedures. However, court decisions have made clear that the scope of permissible self-help is broad, extending considerably beyond the bounds of self-help that would be permitted to employers and unions covered by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). Courts have ruled, for example, that an RLA union may strike and peacefully picket a carrier with which it has a primary dispute, engage in intermittent work stoppages ( e.g ., "selective" or "rolling strikes"), and secondarily picket other neutral RLA employers (a practice prohibited under the NLRA). For carriers, self-help includes: implementing their proposed contract changes; making a national response to defend against a selective strike that jeopardizes national bargaining, including locking out striking workers and, if the labor contract with non-striking workers permits, other workers; and replacing striking workers. The courts cannot enjoin such self-help activity.
RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:
- A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, work rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice (so called "Section 6 notices").
- The parties must confer, and if they fail to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the NMB. The NMB may also offer its services if it finds a labor emergency to exist.
- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.
- If arbitration is rejected, the parties must maintain the status quo for a 30-day period. If the NMB determines that the dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the NMB shall notify the President, who may create a PEB to investigate the dispute for a 30-day period and issue non-binding recommendations for resolving the dispute. The parties typically agree to PEB requests for extensions of time to further study a dispute. The last stages of the conciliation procedures differ slightly for publicly funded and operated rail commuter carriers.
- While the dispute is working its way through these stages, and for an additional 30 days following the issuance of the PEB's report, the parties must maintain the status quo , and cannot utilize self-help measures. Although not specifically provided for in the RLA, the NMB typically works with the parties to try to induce a last-minute settlement or voluntary extension of the status quo.
- If, after the final 30-day status quo period has expired, a settlement has not been reached, the parties are free to resort to self-help and cannot be enjoined from doing so.
Self-help. The RLA is silent on the scope of allowable self-help available to the parties after they have exhausted the major dispute resolution procedures. However, court decisions have made clear that the scope of permissible self-help is broad, extending considerably beyond the bounds of self-help that would be permitted to employers and unions covered by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). Courts have ruled, for example, that an RLA union may strike and peacefully picket a carrier with which it has a primary dispute, engage in intermittent work stoppages ( e.g ., "selective" or "rolling strikes"), and secondarily picket other neutral RLA employers (a practice prohibited under the NLRA). For carriers, self-help includes: implementing their proposed contract changes; making a national response to defend against a selective strike that jeopardizes national bargaining, including locking out striking workers and, if the labor contract with non-striking workers permits, other workers; and replacing striking workers. The courts cannot enjoin such self-help activity.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post