Originally Posted by
JoeMerchant
I answered your question...Care to shed some light on the questions I just asked?
What part of "out of pure curiosity" is not registering???
I asked a benign question as to who you work for, and you gave me a minor resume of your accolades. I am not here to play charades with you. I merely asked a question....nothing more, nothing less!
As far as answering your 'questions', or taking your opinion as "fact".....I believe I was more than clear on how I will go about this issue and let those who are a 'bit more qualified' (let the legal council interrupt the language) to make those decisions in direction that my Union/MEC will follow....just so there's no confusion, that would be CAL ALPA. It appears that your are looking for answers, did you fail to read what I wrote to YOU earlier concerning this issue during the course of the thread?? If you 'missed' that, I'll cut-n-paste it for you.....
Originally Posted by
SoCalGuy
We have all read our contracts (I would hope), and can see how at times there are things/sections that are "up for interpretation" depending on 'whos' reading it. CAL ALPA is presently going through the proper channels to have it's current Section 1 in their CBA reviewed closely (along with the company's explanation) with the individuals who are qualified to decipher if there is any violation of the subject. I can appreciate your 'zest' to want to analysis CAL's Section 1 to make your 'own ruling' (which holds about as much water as a paper bag).....but just b/c your operator puts you up at a "Holiday Inn Express", does NOT make you a seasoned/qualified Labor Contract Attorney. I for one will sit back and wait to see the outcome on this as reasoned by individuals who are a heck of a lot more qualified to call a spade a spade on the issue of 70 seaters out of IAH.