Response From Two ATL Reps Asked to Step Down
#81
The other issue is even if you seat a completely new MEC, chairman and negotiating committee will you get a changed result. The answer is likely no. If they are intelligent they will get briefed by experts on the RLA, NMB, labor law and view all the real contract costing data. The NMB chairman will most likely also address the new MEC on how their involvement would work and potential timelines. Given all that it's very likely that they will come to similar conclusions as the previous MEC. Reality sometimes sucks but it's still reality.
I think the company will be willing to come to the table and address some of the third rail issues where they overreached if we can get back in and do it quickly. If we want to start all over again then we are looking at a long drawn out process that history shows is impossible to win.
I think the company will be willing to come to the table and address some of the third rail issues where they overreached if we can get back in and do it quickly. If we want to start all over again then we are looking at a long drawn out process that history shows is impossible to win.
These views are the reason we will be replacing all the yes voters.
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
#83
We haven't come this far as a group to simply let this continue any longer. A complete top to bottom regime change is needed. Any return to the bargaining table needs to happen after this is accomplished and the goal needs to be complete restoration with improvements. Will it be a long road? Nobody knows the answer to that question. Our vote comes with full knowledge of that possibility, and a willingness to endure. Things are as different today as they have ever been in this industry. The past is not prologue and those who say it is are doomed to a path that hasn't produced the results we desired. Calling upgrades raises and COLA increases after a 50% pay cut is the very definition of failure. That stops now. I'm definitely getting off my arse to do whatever it's going to take to get there, as we will all need to pull together on this. And when we get 'punched in the face by Mike Tyson' again, he's going to regret the day he took that swing.
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,960
Negotiations don't mean concessions are a given. We are sitting on a better contract than the TA.
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,740
#86
I think we have a unique set of circumstances at Delta. We have way more leverage than we think. The Moak crowd running DALPA does not want to use that leverage. They are afraid. They tried to make the Delta pilots afraid. They failed. Now they must go.
And prohibit the awful non-disclosure agreements.
If Richard Anderson is constantly whispering in the ear of our reps then its no wonder we got such a lousy TA.
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
No airline has tried what I "preach".
I think we have a unique set of circumstances at Delta. We have way more leverage than we think. The Moak crowd running DALPA does not want to use that leverage. They are afraid. They tried to make the Delta pilots afraid. They failed. Now they must go.
The first thing I would do is stop using management's data.
And prohibit the awful non-disclosure agreements.
If Richard Anderson is constantly whispering in the ear of our reps then its no wonder we got such a lousy TA.
I think we have a unique set of circumstances at Delta. We have way more leverage than we think. The Moak crowd running DALPA does not want to use that leverage. They are afraid. They tried to make the Delta pilots afraid. They failed. Now they must go.
The first thing I would do is stop using management's data.
And prohibit the awful non-disclosure agreements.
If Richard Anderson is constantly whispering in the ear of our reps then its no wonder we got such a lousy TA.
#88
We have several unique levers.
A big one is management's obsession with keeping all the other employees non-union.
We can lean hard on that lever without any RLA legal problems.
Another one is the profit sharing. Management desperately needs us to change that program so they can change it for all the other employees. We gave it up for way too little in the TA.
First we have to get Hamilton, Cook, Gomez and Nestor out of office.
They are digging in like ticks. Its not going to be easy but it must be done.
A big one is management's obsession with keeping all the other employees non-union.
We can lean hard on that lever without any RLA legal problems.
Another one is the profit sharing. Management desperately needs us to change that program so they can change it for all the other employees. We gave it up for way too little in the TA.
First we have to get Hamilton, Cook, Gomez and Nestor out of office.
They are digging in like ticks. Its not going to be easy but it must be done.
Last edited by Check Essential; 07-13-2015 at 07:55 AM.
#89
We have several unique levers.
A big one is management's obsession with keeping all the other employees non-union.
We can lean hard on that lever without any RLA legal problems.
First we have to get Hamilton, Cook, Gomez and Nestor out of office.
They are digging in like ticks. Its not going to be easy but it must be done.
A big one is management's obsession with keeping all the other employees non-union.
We can lean hard on that lever without any RLA legal problems.
First we have to get Hamilton, Cook, Gomez and Nestor out of office.
They are digging in like ticks. Its not going to be easy but it must be done.
As to keeping other unions off the property, I'll renew my comment that the only group who benefits from labor chaos is the company. We're in for a long struggle time wise.....but I realized this when I voted NO. I just hope everyone else did too.
Ferd
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
We have several unique levers.
A big one is management's obsession with keeping all the other employees non-union.
We can lean hard on that lever without any RLA legal problems.
I see only one organizing effort underway for the FA's via the IAM. I doubt management is worried much about it. If we do hopefully get a great contract that would seem to aide not impede efforts to organize other employees.
Another one is the profit sharing. Management desperately needs us to change that program so they can change it for all the other employees. We gave it up for way too little in the TA.
Why do they desperately need to change the profit sharing? They will give the other employees a offsetting pay raise if they do. Where is desperation?
First we have to get Hamilton, Cook, Gomez and Nestor out of office.
They are digging in like ticks. Its not going to be easy but it must be done.
A big one is management's obsession with keeping all the other employees non-union.
We can lean hard on that lever without any RLA legal problems.
I see only one organizing effort underway for the FA's via the IAM. I doubt management is worried much about it. If we do hopefully get a great contract that would seem to aide not impede efforts to organize other employees.
Another one is the profit sharing. Management desperately needs us to change that program so they can change it for all the other employees. We gave it up for way too little in the TA.
Why do they desperately need to change the profit sharing? They will give the other employees a offsetting pay raise if they do. Where is desperation?
First we have to get Hamilton, Cook, Gomez and Nestor out of office.
They are digging in like ticks. Its not going to be easy but it must be done.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post