757Driver

The ignore feature on here can work wonders. What's that Catan, Dexim, Dumbfounded? Huh? What?

Blissful silence from the peaNUT gallery.

oldmako

That beaver eats Taco Bell

EWRflyr

These aren't my "thoughts" or even my math as you state. SlickMachine asked how "adding" employees to the pool doesn't dilute the payout. I was trying to give a simple explanation as to how it works without bogging down with extra info as the principle is the same. EVERYONE is in the pool for calculation purposes...doesn't mean they are entitled to a distribution. Even under the percentage you mention, that doesn't mean employees aren't included in the pool. It just shifts the money around to determine distribution and the left over money from the non-participating employees gets returned to the company.

(BTW, I mentioned the 40% thing in regards to L-CAL pilots as an example of how the OLD profit sharing calculations worked...but it was part of a much bigger explanation and calculation process under the old plan.)

I also asked on one of these threads if the 43.5% that has been mentioned is contractually in effect still for L-UAL pilots. The response I read was no it is not, unless I didn't understand the response correctly. If it is in effect, it is clear where you are coming from. If it isn't, then it would seem we are all part of the same 15% pool on equal footing with all other employees.

EWRflyr

Yes, I do. Proud third generation union in my family. This is my second union. Went on strike at one of my previous jobs in another industry with another union and didn't cross the picket line then. I'd be proud to walk the line again with you and any of my other brothers and sisters at the new UAL if it ever comes to that. My strike fund has been ready for years.

SpecialTracking

Yes, extend the TPA for another period of time that the company doesn't desire to complete the JCBA. Signing an agreement with a termination date is an insult. If management was serious about getting contract, they wouldn't need TPA with a termination date. A termination date gives management leverage.

Management said they would terminate base protections but we could have furlough and ratio protections. Why would they let us have furlough and ratio
protections? They don't intend to furlough or materially change the fleet ratios. Therefore those offers for a time limited TPA are worthless.

SpecialTracking

Certainly you are not going to argue that there was even the slightest possibility that the sale of a few 767-200's would harm the CAL pilots to the tune of $8500/pilot? That is so void of rational thought that only the inexperienced would remotely accept that as a possibility.

Yes, J Pos received instructions from the CAL mec, and he rightfully attempted to gain profit sharing within the confines of the TPA. Your MEC was well within their right to seek benefits for the CAL pilots. You are not going to find many UAL pilots who don't think you should get $40 million. The issue arises when there is a belief the status quo was violated at the hand of UCH management vis a vis J Pos.


So it's okay to renew a TPA giving CAL pilots profit sharing. A TPA that currently does not include profit sharing for CAL pilots. But it is not okay to ask for a monetary gain for the UAL pilots. A financial benefit which is not currently included for the UAL pilots. It's called status quo.

Unrealistic demands presented to management? They are called opening requests. Negotiations usually ensue. Amazing how quick it was for UCH management to walk away, only to return to J Pos to craft a nifty little side deal.

Profit sharing was a negotiated benefit for the UAL to partially offset the pay losses we incurred in bankruptcy. Yes, you incurred a pay cut as well, but not like the haircut we took. You make how much more than us? Right.

ualratt

FWIW, In the UAL Contract 2003 bankruptcy rewrite (current contract) "Success Sharing" was included under Section 3 Compensation language and reflected in two bonus programs.
1. Performance Incentive Program - Quarterly performance bonuses
2. Profit Sharing Program - Annual profit sharing bonuses

The Performance Incentive Program was terminated by Steve Wallach (MC before Wendy) by a Supplemental Agreement in April 2008, in exchange for a 1% pay increase on 2008 and 2009 hourly pay rates. As part of the language in that Agreement, the Profit Sharing Program remains in full force and in effect.

There is some confusion as the Supplemental Agreement incorrectly references Section 3-L (Paid Absences) rather than 3-M (Success Sharing) which pertains to profit sharing. However, the language clearly reflected the intent of the Agreement as a modifications of the Success Sharing Agreement. Not sure if that discrepancy was ever addressed.

Of course when dealing with a contract that's past its amendable date one can speculate on sections which are no longer applicable but in the absence of sunset clauses the language remain in force until a new contract is signed. So yes 43.5% remains L-UAL's pilots contractually negotiated claim of the total distribution in the Profit Sharing Program.

XHooker

The TPA didn't terminate as a whole, only certain provisions. What was the leverage to extend all portions of the TPA indefinitely?

This is all hearsay as neither one of us was there, but it sounds like we agree here. The offer made to us jointly was to extend the expiring provisions of the TPA minus base protections, which affected both sides roughly equally (tough to know exactly). Your MEC decided that wasn't good enough and wanted more. We played along for a while, until there obviously wasn't going to be movement. Our MEC then used a grievance to get the CAL pilots included in CY2011 profit sharing, which wouldn't have been possible after December 31st. Our MECs are currently jointly working on provisions in the TPA.

In my eyes, your MEC bravely (yes, that's sarcasm) was willing to leverage the CAL pilots chance for profit sharing in order to make a political stand for something they knew they weren't going to get. I didn't expect profit sharing, but the more I heard from those in a position to know about what happened behind the scenes, the more I'm glad we got it.

Our MECs still have primary responsibility to represent our respective pilot groups. Sometimes the goals and direction are exactly the same. In some areas they'll be different, with the SLI being the prime example.

EWRflyr

Special,

If I haven't made it clear before, I respect the position of the UAL pilots in regards to how this profit sharing came about. That doesn't mean I agree with the view that is a violation of status quo, but I understand and respect it. I don't respect name calling and personal attacks though.

I know that the majority of UAL pilots are glad to see CAL pilots get profit sharing. I say the majority because I had at least one tell me that the CAL pilot group was stealing the UAL pilots' rightfully earned money.

Just playing devil's advocate here if I can. Status quo also involves the current CBAs as well. Since our contract has a grievance process to include how to settle those grievances, status quo (i.e. the use of the CBA language) allowed the CAL MEC to get profit sharing for the CAL pilots.

I for one want this JCBA done, done now and done correctly so that we can all move forward. I can't wait for Age 65 to kick in the fall so we finally get some movement at OUR NEW UAL company and hire new blood to fill our ranks. All of us have very similar goals and I hope some of these side issues don't deflect us from that finish line.

APC225

March 6

Dear United Pilots:

On Monday afternoon, the UAL-MEC Grievance Committee, in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement covering United Pilots and pursuant to Section 17 of the Agreement, filed a grievance on behalf of all the United Councils. This grievance claims a violation of Section 3-L and Letter of Agreement 05-02 “when the company disbursed profit sharing on or about February 14, 2012, contrary to the negotiated terms and established past practice of the United Pilots Collective Bargaining Agreement.” Therein, ALPA is seeking that the company be ordered to determine the profit sharing entitlements to be paid to United Pilots for 2011 and subsequent years based on the current contractual language in the United Pilots’ CBA.

This grievance is related strictly to the company’s Document Plan for 2011 Profit Sharing which restructured the way employees were paid profit sharing but did not conform to the United Pilots’ CBA.

Additionally, the Grievance Committee today triggered the timeline under the dispute process of the Transition and Process Agreement (TPA) Section 12 stating that management violated Section 4-A of the TPA when it entered into bilateral negotiations and a purported agreement outside the scope of the TPA which states,

The Continental CBA and United CBA will remain in effect for the respective Airlines and Pilot groups in accordance with the RLA except as modified by this Transition and Process Agreement or by the JCBA, or except as an Airline Party or Airline Parties and ALPA otherwise agree with respect to their particular CRA. Until the effective date of the JCBA, each of Continental and United will continue to operate under their respective Pilot CBAs as modified by this Transition and Process Agreement and by other agreements that may be entered into by ALPA and one or more Airline Parties with respect to their particular CBA. Until the effective date of the JCBA, each of Continental and United will continue to operate under their respective Pilot CBAs as modified by this Transition and Process Agreement and by other agreements that may be entered into by ALPA and one or more Airline Parties with respect to their particular CBA. The Continental CBA and United CBA will remain in effect for the respective Airlines and Pilot groups in accordance with the RLA except as modified by this Transition and Process Agreement or by the JCBA, or except as an Airline Party or Airline Parties and ALPA otherwise agree with respect to their particular CBA.

Allow me to again emphasize that this grievance is over management’s process of bypassing trilateral negotiations that are prescribed in the TPA. This grievance is not about the Continental Pilots or their MEC or its leadership. It is management that erroneously completed bilateral negotiations over an item that should have been addressed only in proper trilateral negotiations, such as for a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) or for an extension of the TPA.

Both of these grievances will go through an expedited process and be heard by the System Board of Adjustment. Because they are open cases and involve outside legal counsel, no further details may be given prior to their hearings, but it was important for the United Pilots to know that they had been filed. We will keep you advised of their progress through the legal and grievance systems.

We are United
Chairman, United Master Executive Council