If there is anyone who wants to understand where we are with the RAH / DALPA situation, Bar's opening is the place to start.
In the world of contract, the most important thing is the intent of the parties when the contract was made. The language of the contract itself is only an indicator of what the intent was.
Example:
If you enter into an agreement with Mc Donalds that states that you will give them $365 if they give you a cheeseburger everyday for a year when you show up to the counter, you have a contract.
Now, when you go to the counter for the first six months, if they give you a quarter pound of beef, with cheese, and onions, and the bun with sesame seeds on it (a Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese), it would appear to you, Mc Donalds, and the courts that a cheeseburger was a "Quarter Pounder/ w Cheese."
But, let's say that after six months, they give you that shabby, slim piece of beef, with the crappy cheese, and no onions, and plain bun. Your first reaction would be, "Hey! This is not a cheeseburger!!" And, if Mc Donalds protests and says it is, you would be ****ed, get into an argument with them, and then take them to court, and demand that they force Mc Donalds to start giving you -- from what your understanding of Mc Donalds past conduct -- what a cheeseburger was.
But, let's take a look at what we have with RAH. When RAH merged with Frontier, our union was not surprised. They were not angry. They didn't go to court.
When the NMB later told them that as far as cheeseburgers go, the thin cheeseburger wasn't the same as the Quarter Pounder for hamburger negotiating purposes, instead of using that as evidence of a breach of contract by Mc Donalds, our union sends us an email telling us that it is
NOT a breach, and they even give us examples of how Mc Donalds has screwed us in the past, substituting hash browns for french fries, and coffee for chocolate shakes, as if it makes the crappy cheeseburger ok.
If you intend to leave the door open for a subsequent legal challenge, you don't send an email to 12,000 people stating that the NMB ruling does not give rise to a breach of our agreement, you keep that ruling in your pocket for use later on, if necessary.
That email pretty much says all that needs to be said. Most informative is what is in between the lines.
As I said, intent of the parties is the most important thing in contract law, and our union is showing that they intended for the occurrence of an RAH type of situation by their inaction and rationalization of what, in my opinion, is inexcusable.
I guess my next question is, what are we showing our union leaders when we continue to allow them to do this?
New K Now
Maybe K should = Leadership.
Is anyone hungry after that?
