IA1125

99% of the F9 pilots have never heard of Seabury. If you want to hear what they're like, ask a former Midwest pilot what they think about Seabury and Michael Cox.

There's a great, sad story about what RAH, TPG, Seabury and maybe NWA did to Midwest that no one will ever be able to prove. It's all in one email chain, RAH claims they lost it (they're lying), Seabury admits they have it but will never release it - that's a direct quote from Michael Cox. I'll never understand why that e-mail chain wasn't legally discoverable and how RAH avoided SOX.

Just one more reason that NOBODY should EVER use Arbitrator Eischen again. NEVER accept a single Arbitrator, demand a panel of three Arbitrators.

Is 357 going to walk out on Mediation and strike? That will cost hundreds of thousands. Is everyone ready for yet another assessment, this one could be BIG money, unless National steps up again.

The Company didn't go backwards from their position, just from 357's proposal. Crossing out language isn't the same as taking pay and scheduling rules away. Joke of the day, all RAH wants is status quo - from 2003.

Speaking of things I don't understand, WHY do you have the same negotiation Chair for this contract as you did for the 2003 contract?

Good luck everyone, glad I'm outside of this cluster, not that our time isn't coming.

FAULTPUSH

Like I said, I could hold E190 FO, IF no RAH pilot wanted it (which isn't inconceivable given the pay difference). I think I like Airbus captain better though.

Purely a hypothetical situation.


I didn't realize that your contract prohibits that - where is that spelled out?

sticky

its not in the contract, hence the "status quo" rule. another example would be the union cannot say "stop using your cell phones for company needs" because it would violate the status quo.

Mulva

Stinky,

Can't we all just keep NOT getting along?

Suddenly feeling a sense of mutual respect between you and FroBro #1 and FroBro #2. Maybe the unicorns and hearts on my avatar are starting to wear you down, huh?

Just joking dude. Nice to see you back in the fray throwing out some food for thought.

Sounds like some crazy shizzle brewing over on your side this week. If it is what it sounds like then I hope it works out for you all.

As for unemployment line, I think we can do better than that. Personally, I'm studying to be a Barista and, if I'm lucky enough to score a job, will be trading in my LandCruiser for a 71 VW and going with a new image similar to one of my heros:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qdqsRL-oef...ff+spicoli.jpg

Mulva

I've been having a hard time reading this guy too. Not sure what to make of him. Seems like a RAHbro, but kind of a renegade. The stuff he threw out in his OMG post in not inconsistent from what is floating around. Sounds like the drum beat is getting louder.

FAULTPUSH

It's a bit grey there - if you change current practice and it's clear that you're doing it to hurt the "other side", and would clearly be self-help (e.g. the AA pilots' sick-out that resulted in a fine against APA).

If the company engages in a practice that is contrary to the contract (changing the pay scale that is spelled out), that is a clear violation of the contract, and the status quo, even if it's not harmful to the other side.

But to offer incentives, which are neither prohibited by the contract or clearly harmful or adding pressure to the pilot group, then it's a little hard to argue that it's self-help. It's a bit like if the company were to change the scheduling phone number or adjust the staffing levels (provided the contract didn't address those) - it's not spelled out, and it's not clearly damaging to the "other side". An arbitrator may disagree, but they may not. I can't think of an example of something like this happening in the past, but perhaps it has.

TillerEnvy

I should have copyrighted FROBros...you guys are using it like crazy.

Mehh

Mulva

Where are you 3662? Throw your curious FroBros© a bone and tell us about any good nuggets in the pay day update you were talking about. Sounded to me like it was all leading up to some big crescendo with the possibility of you all (you are RAH, right?) taking things into your own hands and walking out on the company soon. All want silent though so I'm assuming my assumption was wrong.

Tiller, I copyrighted FroBros© for you. I'll forward all the paperwork to you soon. Best RAHbro term ever!

mooney

Pinnacle used Seabury too. Take a look at their aviation page on their website. It basically brags about how they are able to give it to labor up the *ss and reap all the rewards for the higher ups.

Sidestrike

Already been tried, and the cycle of violating status quo continues......

ALPA Files Suit Against Pinnacle Airlines for Violating Labor Law
ALPA filed suit in U.S. District Court on Thursday against Pinnacle management, asserting that Pinnacle management violated the Railway Labor Act by unilaterally implementing pilot bonus programs and thus changing the status quo pay and working conditions of the pilots without first bargaining and reaching agreement with ALPA.

“Pinnacle management is circumventing the law and this union in its attempt to address our pilot shortage, which is caused by low pay and inferior working conditions," says Capt. John Prater, ALPA's president. "Management should be focused on working cooperatively with ALPA at the bargaining table for a comprehensive solution to improve pay and working conditions for all Pinnacle pilots as quickly as possible. We cannot and will not allow any management team to undermine our Union’s legal right to negotiate fair wages and work rules for pilots.”

Pinnacle pilots and management have been negotiating for a new contract since February 2005 and have been in federally mediated negotiations since September 2006.

Pinnacle management met with union leaders a few months ago to discuss the implementation of bonus programs--one to recruit new pilots and one to reward existing employees who referred a pilot who was ultimately hired. The MEC leaders informed Pinnacle management that implementing such bonus programs without first bargaining and reaching agreement with ALPA would impermissibly alter the current “rates of pay, rules and working conditions of Pinnacle pilots without prior negotiation,” which is a violation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

The MEC made clear that it was quite willing to help management with its serious pilot recruitment and retention problems, which are the result of substandard pay and working conditions, by properly negotiating a bonus program as part of overall pay and working condition improvements in the negotiations for a new contract, but management summarily rejected that request and unilaterally implemented the bonus programs. ALPA has since reiterated its demand that Pinnacle management first bargain and reach agreement over these issues, which management again rejected.

ALPA believes that management’s actions violate numerous provisions of the RLA and are obviously designed to evade the union and management’s collective bargaining obligations. ALPA is therefore asking the court to direct Pinnacle management to properly deal with ALPA as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of Pinnacle pilots, to bargain in good faith, and to complete all required mediation procedures under the RLA before implementing such changes to Pinnacle pilots’ pay and working conditions, to refrain from otherwise undermining ALPA as the bargaining representative of the Pinnacle pilots, and to require Pinnacle management to cease and desist from using these bonus programs in the future unless it first bargains with and secures ALPA’s agreement.