Airline Pilot Forums

Is there any truth to rumor about CAL/UAL MEC voted and tried to send the JCBA to binding arbitration??? PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT TRUE!

Instead of asking an anonymous web board why don't you call or email your rep? I think you will pleased with their answer.

not going to happen. end thread

Is there any truth to rumor about CAL/UAL MEC voted and tried to send the JCBA to binding arbitration??? PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT TRUE!

Well...I spent 10 minutes typing you a private response but you are not allowed to receive private messages.

Your not referring to this are ya...............?:D



United, AFA to try expedited mediation
Posted September 2, 2011

United and the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) have agreed on a new expedited mediation process modeled on the National Mediation Board’s Expedited Mediation Program.

The company and the AFA will start an intense mediation focusing on limited issues. The negotiations will aim to reach agreement for a new contract covering approximately 12,000 flight attendants working at the UA subsidiary. An agreement is already in effect covering flight attendants at the CO subsidiary

Your not referring to this are ya...............?:D



United, AFA to try expedited mediation
Posted September 2, 2011

United and the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) have agreed on a new expedited mediation process modeled on the National Mediation Board’s Expedited Mediation Program.

The company and the AFA will start an intense mediation focusing on limited issues. The negotiations will aim to reach agreement for a new contract covering approximately 12,000 flight attendants working at the UA subsidiary. An agreement is already in effect covering flight attendants at the CO subsidiary

No. I was going to answer your question above in some detail.

No this is probably what the rumor is about:

September 1, 2011

Last week’s Special MEC Meeting

I have heard many convoluted speculative twists to a very simple meeting. Some were even laughable. So let me set the record straight and calm down the tabloids. Your MEC met on August 23rd in Chicago to discuss a proposal from the company. I am not at liberty to discuss the proposal at this time, but that is not important. The MEC did its due diligence and as usual beat the topic to death; this should not come as a shock to anyone.

In the end the MEC had a vote that has been published in our minutes and has aided in more false speculation. The vote was 7 in favor, 7 against and 1 abstention. A roll call was requested and the abstaining vote, during the roll call, voted in favor. The vote was about who would do the heavy lifting on working on our response to the companies proposal. Before the response, if any is given, the voting members of the MEC will make a decision. Let’s also not forget that the voting members of the CAL MEC will also have a say about this company proposal. We are not the only carrier in this negotiation and we have a Joint Negotiation Committee that is working on behalf of the pilots from both carriers.

While I am sensitive to the concerns pilots are having on the many versions being rumored by pilots claiming to have insider information, the majority is speculative, lacking important details, or just plain wrong. I am also sensitive about the pilots wanting some information from their union, thus the reason it was time for someone to speak. With that said let me also offer this advice- It is not what happens to us in life or this negotiation, but how we react to it that counts. I believe, that despite the process, the MEC is doing its diligence properly on your behalf. Although, over reaction by our pilots to speculative rumors will not help our fight for a new contract.

I know that last comment will invite angry responses from some pilots about how we should have been more transparent on this issue sooner and thus it would not have spun up the pilots or gotten out of control. Save your e-mail, I agree.

To those pilots that took the time to call, e-mail or text, thank you for checking before running down the path of tabloid fever. I have not gotten back to many of you and I hope this e-mails helps to calm your concerns. I also personally believe the pilots will learn more about this meeting sooner than later.

I hope this helps,

Rick Perry
Chairman - DEN Council 33

More union mumbo jumbo. What a crock of ******. Tell us what is really happening, 1+ years after the merger. The little spreadsheet stays the same every time I check it!!! I have an idea, but I better not say it on this forum because I'll risk being labeled as "disgruntled". Well, stay happy, all you suckas!

The vote was 7 in favor, 7 against and 1 abstention.


I have to believe that this is the real reason for the lack of progress on anything at the MEC. That vote is like a broken record.

More union mumbo jumbo. What a crock of ******. Tell us what is really happening, 1+ years after the merger. The little spreadsheet stays the same every time I check it!!! I have an idea, but I better not say it on this forum because I'll risk being labeled as "disgruntled". Well, stay happy, all you suckas!
They will tell you what is happening when they want to smear someone else. Actually, they will get a third level minion to do the work for them so they are above the fray. Then they will open their tortilla chute giving you dates, names, and recollections with amazing clarity.

When it comes to what matters to us, they are about as transparent as a lead pipe.

Instead of asking an anonymous web board why don't you call or email your rep? I think you will pleased with their answer.

Maybe. It depends which one you ask. They are not giving the same story.

I have to believe that this is the real reason for the lack of progress on anything at the MEC. That vote is like a broken record.

Really, and management has nothing to do with it?

More union mumbo jumbo. What a crock of ******. Tell us what is really happening, 1+ years after the merger. The little spreadsheet stays the same every time I check it!!! I have an idea, but I better not say it on this forum because I'll risk being labeled as "disgruntled". Well, stay happy, all you suckas!

You ask, OK, this is what happened. Management floats the idea of binding arbitration, as they alway do in negotiations. This is standard negotiations 101, designed to make them appear reasonable while shaking the tree to see who the weak sisters may be. It worked perfectly, they now know that 6 MEC members are so adverse to a strike that they will give away their unions leverage when given the BA alternative.

Normally this type proposal never gets beyond the negotiators or the MEC Chair, however this time, nearly half of the UAL MEC members are also the MEC Chair's politicos and are looking for any way possible to avoid a major confrontation with the company. So, she, being an egalitarian surrounded by weak labor advisers, decides to have an off the record meeting so as not to embarrass her partisans.

She is smart enough that she knows the pilot group would tear her's and the MEC's heart out if they let a third party decide things like; 90 seat RJ's, CAL work rules, DAL pay scales etc. So, to give her cronies cover, she naively tries to limited communications (confidentiality and all that) and just to be safe, her communications guy leaked the notion that this was not a vote on BA but on a process that could possibly lead to some sort of BA. Well, it reminds me of the story of Pierre the bridge builder.

Management is having a stitch, CAL MEC is incredulous, even the MEC's Chair's supporters are saying ****. Alas, the membership gets what they deserve and it will not be an industry leading contract.

How do I know all of this? I don't, I just made it all up.

Baron

Baron,

THANKS. Geeeezus the lack of knowledge around this place is stunning. The number of guys who place 100% of the blame on the union is sophomoric and the number of company sycophant's wearing FOUR stripes makes me want to PUKE!

Rant over. Carry on.

Normally this type proposal never gets beyond the negotiators or the MEC Chair, however this time, nearly half of the UAL MEC members are also the MEC Chair's politicos and are looking for any way possible to avoid a major confrontation with the company. So, she, being an egalitarian surrounded by weak labor advisers, decides to have an off the record meeting so as not to embarrass her partisans.

And this is one of the MANY reasons she (and the ORD LEC) needs to be gone. Yesterday.

Without any direct knowledge of the MEC meeting, another systemic reason for binding arbitration to begin to rear it's head is, no indication from the NMB of any kind of release in the foreseeable future.

When one takes into consideration the sheer size (about 21%) of the UAL domestic US market share (SWA and DAL about the same), the relatively short time in mediation to date, the possibility of an administration change next year, and AMR being ahead of us, I would not be surprised.

If one buys into the notion that we may never be released based upon our size and other factors, binding arbitration gains traction as an argument...read that again...just an argument. I'm certainly not advocating.

Perhaps the MEC is just looking ahead and conducting due diligence for a number of contingencies? Speculation only. I do not know.

Perhaps the MEC is just looking ahead and conducting due diligence for a number of contingencies? Speculation only. I do not know.

I have no problem with any MEC conducting due diligence and "listening" to what a company proposes. That's part of their job.

However, given the fact that binding arbitration, the RLA, and almost two decades of court cases (from bankruptcy to labor injunctions) have favored management for so long, an offer of binding arbitration from this company and this management team for this contract? I'd say "no, thank you" would be appropriate. There are still too many open issues to be worked out that the company has shown little movement on. If we are down to a couple of items here and there after some real good-faith effort on their part, then MAYBE, depending on those items, it is something to consider at that time.

If true that the company offered binding arbitration now, it is in the same playbook as breaking their word with the mediator, publishing their opening proposal and calling it DL + $1. The company can spin it as their attempt to make a good-faith effort to resolve the issue that the pilots aren't interested in after they allegedly already tried to offer us a DL + contract.

Either way, not sure what this vote was really about at the UAL MEC level, but such a split leaves me wondering what the goals and motives are for the UAL MEC.

When one takes into consideration the sheer size (about 21%) of the UAL domestic US market share (SWA and DAL about the same)

Too bad 49% of it is flown by our regional partners. In reality, during a strike, only around 11% of the domestic market would be affected.

Too bad 49% of it is flown by our regional partners. In reality, during a strike, only around 11% of the domestic market would be affected.


In terms of pure block hours your % numbers may be close, but where do most of the RJ pax connect to? Mainline domestic and International flights. If a pax buys a ticket BOI to HKG during a strike, they will only get from BOI to SFO on a scab flown RJ.

And this is one of the MANY reasons she (and the ORD LEC) needs to be gone. Yesterday.

We all need to take a deep breath and stop thinking we know more than our leadership. Constantly berating our ALPA Leadership is exactly what the Company wants the hear! The failed recall attempt, the constant Tea Party-esque political bickering is playing right into the Company's hands AND shows a lack of unitiy amongst the pilots.

The Company knows they've been dragging their feet. The Company knows the Mediator knows this as well. To take heat off themselves (the Company), they attempt to put ALPA in a box by allegedly offering arbitration. If this was the case, there are three options for ALPA Leadership:
1) Outright refuse arbitration
2) Outright accept it, or
3) Put conditionals on it to make the Company reject the conditional arbitration and call the Company's bluff.

If ALPA outright refuses (1), they've played into the Company's hands and taken the heat off themselves and put the heat right back on ALPA.

If ALPA outright accepts (2), the pilots are going to be rightfully pi$$'d and the contract gets voted down.

If ALPA puts conditionals and makes the Company refuse the conditions, then ALPA is out of the box and the heat is back on the Company for dragging their feet.

That all is Negotiations 101. Also in Labor 101, a great contract is the result of a unified pilot group which means to STOP backbiting the Leadership with the idiotic political agendas!

The Arbitration proffer is nothing new. American Eagle and Alaska both dealt with it in different ways. I'm sure our ALPA leadership reviewed the historical results of both of those arbitrations. Now, can we all get behind our leadership and stop the politics?

Ok here's what is going on (according to a good source) management offered "expedited" mediation like they did with the FAs. The FAs agreed to it but so far none of us know the actual response of the two pilot, UAL/CAL, MECs.

Now as far as BA goes the offer will happen if an empass is reached at the end of normal mediation or expedited mediation, it's part of the RLA process.

I hope this answers those who have posted some vile stuff here about their reps. They are doing the right thing.

Now as far as BA goes the offer will happen if an empass is reached at the end of normal mediation or expedited mediation, it's part of the RLA process.
So your saying that within the RLA constraints, after normal mediation (which is presently being fostered in our case) or expedited mediation takes place and impasse is reached, a Binding Arbitration is the next step via the RLA process??

Where does the/a "Cooling Off Period", prior to a release to "Self-Help", factor into the equation drawn above?? That too is a step within the process of the RLA decided by the NMB concerning a 'release'.

Is your statement above assuming that the combine Pilot Group(s) are too big to release to "Self-Help" via the NMB discretion??

Confused.....please clarify.

So your saying that within the RLA constraints, after normal mediation (which is presently being fostered in our case) or expedited mediation takes place and impasse is reached, a Binding Arbitration is the next step via the RLA process??

Where does the/a "Cooling Off Period", prior to a release to "Self-Help", factor into the equation drawn above?? That too is a step within the process of the RLA decided by the NMB concerning a 'release'.

Is your statement above assuming that the combine Pilot Group(s) are too big to release to "Self-Help" via the NMB discretion??

Confused.....please clarify.

I believe BA, in lieu of the normal release for self-help, would only happen if BOTH parties agree to that process.

No, in the RLA BA is always proffered by the mediator after the empass and before the cooling off period (count down to self help/strike).

At the end of mediation (expedited or normal) both parties must agree to BA and if either party rejects BA then the cooling off period begins.

So if the two MECs agree to expedited mediation anchor fails to get an agreement with UAL then BA will be proferred by the mediator. This is normal RLA process.

anchor= and either
Darn iPhone

Let me make more sense if either forms of mediation fails to get an agreement between UAL and the ALPA represented pilots (UAL and CAL pilots) the BA will be proffered by the mediator...

I hope this answers those who have posted some vile stuff here about their reps. They are doing the right thing.

I don't think non-representation, conflicting interests, and incompetence are vile.

Let me make more sense if either forms of mediation fails to get an agreement between UAL and the ALPA represented pilots (UAL and CAL pilots) the BA will be proffered by the mediator...

But this is during a "normal" mediation, correct? As I understand it, in this case, the company was asking for "expedited negotiations" of 60 days, followed by BA. To me, this means that we wouldn't have the option of accepting BA, but that it would be required. This effectively takes self help off the table.

I was told the BA part was the same, but my info could be wrong. However, since the MECs seem to have said NO then the question is a mute one.

I was told the BA part was the same, but my info could be wrong. However, since the MECs seem to have said NO then the question is a mute one.

Moot.

There are no "mute" pilots about anything...quite the contrary. ;)

I was told the BA part was the same, but my info could be wrong. However, since the MECs seem to have said NO then the question is a mute one.

Huh. I was under the impression that the offer on the table was 60 day expedited negotiations (and we can guess how hard the company would work at THAT one) followed by Binding Arbitration, period. No option to decline like you would in a normal Section 6 and then be released for a cooling off period.

If the option WERE on the table for 60 day Expedited with an OFFER for BA, but the right to refuse and seek self help, I'm pretty sure the MEC would have jumped all over it.

You're right though... it is moot/mute now. :)

PS.

It's "mute" not "moot" because you didn't hear about it from the MECs.

;)

So let me guess this straight:

The company wants to negotiate and get this done. It really would like our contract settled and settled quickly.

They offer a rapid negotiating environment (i.e. let's meet more often to get this done) but ONLY if all sides agree to binding arbitration first. If ALPA doesn't, then we will just stick to our current negotiating schedule? Uh, are they available to negotiate more often or not??

Hmmm, seriously scratching my head trying to figure out if the company wants our contract finished or not. Again, management trying to have it both ways.

Am I the only one who sees this hypocritical posturing?

So let me guess this straight:

The company wants to negotiate and get this done. It really would like our contract settled and settled quickly.

They offer a rapid negotiating environment (i.e. let's meet more often to get this done) but ONLY if all sides agree to binding arbitration first. If ALPA doesn't, then we will just stick to our current negotiating schedule? Uh, are they available to negotiate more often or not??

Hmmm, seriously scratching my head trying to figure out if the company wants our contract finished or not. Again, management trying to have it both ways.

Am I the only one who sees this hypocritical posturing?


....................No............

Hmmm, seriously scratching my head trying to figure out if the company wants our contract finished or not. Again, management trying to have it both ways.
Plain & Simple.....This has been the case all along, even prior to the Merger as CAL Mgt delt with CAL-ALPA NC at the table.

This is just a classic example of case-n-point as to where "Jo-Lo" & Fred's words don't meet their actions.

Say what you mean, mean what you do???....Crickets.

Mgt's Soup Chiller's continue to flap in the wind on the slow train to no where.....Nothing to see here.....at least not yet.

Stating the obvious....Sorry, rant off....Happy hour in less than 5 hrs.

The Arbitration proffer is nothing new. American Eagle and Alaska both dealt with it in different ways. I'm sure our ALPA leadership reviewed the historical results of both of those arbitrations. Now, can we all get behind our leadership and stop the politics?


Coach,

You are obviously informed and educated so I hope you will continue to post frequently to keep the hyperbole at bay. Having said that I wish to disagree with the fundamentals of your belief.

As I understand the facts, our MEC was one vote shy of agreeing to BA. The power to affect change lies in our rights under the RLA. Abrogating said rights by giving in to BA is almost as bad as talking to a bankruptcy judge. This requires high level political influence to make the company believe that we will be released before Nov. of 2012. (That assuming, of course, that one believes the Republicans will sweep the 2012 elections). Clearly our leadership doesn't know how to "get 'er done" as evidenced by this MEC vote, and if they dared to make this information public to the entire pilot group they would find that a 7 to 7 vote represents neither the senitments of the group nor the best action possible. Transparency is better because so far they (the MEC) are getting it VERY wrong.


Joe Peck
IADFO - UAL

Coach,

You are obviously informed and educated so I hope you will continue to post frequently to keep the hyperbole at bay. Having said that I wish to disagree with the fundamentals of your belief.

As I understand the facts, our MEC was one vote shy of agreeing to BA. The power to affect change lies in our rights under the RLA. Abrogating said rights by giving in to BA is almost as bad as talking to a bankruptcy judge. This requires high level political influence to make the company believe that we will be released before Nov. of 2012. (That assuming, of course, that one believes the Republicans will sweep the 2012 elections). Clearly our leadership doesn't know how to "get 'er done" as evidenced by this MEC vote, and if they dared to make this information public to the entire pilot group they would find that a 7 to 7 vote represents neither the senitments of the group nor the best action possible. Transparency is better because so far they (the MEC) are getting it VERY wrong.


Joe Peck
IADFO - UAL

I would think a recall of the yes voters for BA would be appropriate or at the least, a trip to the woodshed.

Coach,

You are obviously informed and educated so I hope you will continue to post frequently to keep the hyperbole at bay. Having said that I wish to disagree with the fundamentals of your belief.

As I understand the facts, our MEC was one vote shy of agreeing to BA. The power to affect change lies in our rights under the RLA. Abrogating said rights by giving in to BA is almost as bad as talking to a bankruptcy judge. This requires high level political influence to make the company believe that we will be released before Nov. of 2012. (That assuming, of course, that one believes the Republicans will sweep the 2012 elections). Clearly our leadership doesn't know how to "get 'er done" as evidenced by this MEC vote, and if they dared to make this information public to the entire pilot group they would find that a 7 to 7 vote represents neither the senitments of the group nor the best action possible. Transparency is better because so far they (the MEC) are getting it VERY wrong.


Joe Peck
IADFO - UAL

We are all entitled to our opinions. I agree transparency is better but not always possible. As far as being "one vote away", again we all need to take a deep breath. Our ALPA National AND MEC Policy both require membership ratification. To change that would require a membership vote or at the very least a 2/3rds majority vote of the MEC ... not a 7-7 vote even by roll call. Check the MEC Policy Manual and section 40 of the ALPA Admin manual.

As was said in a previous post:
The Company knows they've been dragging their feet. The Company knows the Mediator knows this as well. To take heat off themselves (the Company), they attempt to put ALPA in a box by allegedly offering arbitration. If this was the case, there are three options for ALPA Leadership:
1) Outright refuse arbitration
2) Outright accept it, or
3) Put conditionals on it to make the Company reject the conditional arbitration and call the Company's bluff.

If ALPA outright refuses (1), they've played into the Company's hands and taken the heat off themselves and put the heat right back on ALPA.

If ALPA outright accepts (2), the pilots are going to be rightfully pi$$'d and the contract gets voted down.

If ALPA puts conditionals and makes the Company refuse the conditions, then ALPA is out of the box and the heat is back on the Company for dragging their feet.

Since I don't know what kind of conditions were put on the "7-7" vote for or against arbitration, and since no one has put it out publically, I highly doubt it was an "unconditional binding arbitration vote" bypassing membership ratification. If it was ... then I would agree with you, but until then ... let's all take a breath. It 'tis silly season after all.

I would think a recall of the yes voters for BA would be appropriate or at the least, a trip to the woodshed.

As was also said in a previous post:
Now, can we all get behind our leadership and stop the politics?

The vote was not to "accept" binding arbitration. The vote was to determine if we should even "discuss" binding arbitration with the company. I believe that the correct decision was made. Why even discuss it with management unless it is an option?

Fortunately, a role call took that option away (4000-2000) but the scary thing is Wendy WANTED to do it and 7 LEC officers agreed. Very scary indeed.