Originally Posted by
notEnuf
The language is simple and broad, too broad IMHO. The arbitrator would be settling the question of use. If he/she rules there is reason to invoke the language, then they have a green light to apply it to SCOPE. There is no timeframe or bounds that limit the amount of outsourcing Delta would be able to do and this would probably end up in front of a judge because it effectively eliminates all SCOPE protections.
This is what concerns me the most. Not that they need FM for survival (assuming that’s the case), but that there are little to no limits as applied to Scope, and there are no metrics to dictate when FM is concluded. IMO they’ll use FM for as long as they can, even past the point of profitability, and it will take arbitration to turn it off. It screams blank check. It’s like turning a kid loose in a candy store and saying, “text me when you’re done”. I actually don’t fault the company for this, I fault the ALPA attorneys that green lighted this broad and unbound language in the contract back in 2016. We shouldn’t be asking the question “what turns FM off” after it’s already been declared; the contract should already establish what constitutes recovery from FM. This is a glaring crater in an otherwise decent contract IMO.
And yes, I do believe we should grieve it. If we don’t win, then at least establish some boundaries in arbitration for what constitutes recovery (what turns FM off).