Occupational date
12-12-2015 | 01:36 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
What seems pertinent to me is the effective date of the JCBA.
Seems to me that there is no legal leg for the union to stand on. Not only was the JCBA not in effect when most of us were hired, but another contract was in force until the JCBA was implemented.
If they want to change the process retroactively, I really don't think there is any legal basis for it. And they better believe we will file a DFR PDQ over that kind of mess.
This isn't even some question of a fair application of a policy. It looks like an attempt to retroactively apply a contract which didn't exist.
Seems to me that there is no legal leg for the union to stand on. Not only was the JCBA not in effect when most of us were hired, but another contract was in force until the JCBA was implemented.
If they want to change the process retroactively, I really don't think there is any legal basis for it. And they better believe we will file a DFR PDQ over that kind of mess.
This isn't even some question of a fair application of a policy. It looks like an attempt to retroactively apply a contract which didn't exist.
12-12-2015 | 07:30 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
If it were up to me, I would move both sides to one seniority date..... It should be the first day they set foot on property.
The whole "occupational date" crap has never made any sense. If you are awarded a fleet with a long training backlog, you will get screwed out of hundreds of numbers-through no fault of your own. (I know guys who had to sit for two months before training. That is simply not right.)
Changing to a policy of first date on property would have been good for everyone.
Instead, our union is making sure to go out of its way to screw one side.
12-12-2015 | 07:35 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 0
I would propose what is enforceable.
That is pretty simple. The JCBA has an effective date. That date is when the new seniority policy took effect. Prior to that date it was not in effect.
There is simply no such thing as a retroactive seniority policy. The guys on the LUS side were not governed by the JCBA. The JCBA didn't even get voted on for well over a year for some of us.
That is pretty simple. The JCBA has an effective date. That date is when the new seniority policy took effect. Prior to that date it was not in effect.
There is simply no such thing as a retroactive seniority policy. The guys on the LUS side were not governed by the JCBA. The JCBA didn't even get voted on for well over a year for some of us.
12-12-2015 | 10:39 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,707
Likes: 0
12-13-2015 | 04:43 PM
#16
Line Holder
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 26
From: B777/CA retired
12-14-2015 | 06:13 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 293
Maybe the APA can take our 1st year's 401k 16% contribution away as well.
If you change our seniority date wouldn't you have to change every pilot on the LUS side as well?
Why just the few of us hired in Jan 2014 to Jan 2015?
Unfortunately, there isn't a huge group of people affected so if it gets rammed through it would have little opposition. I'm assuming the company would actually be for this, because it saves them money.
At least my "new" AA badge says my DOH on the back of it still.
If we had known how our seniority would be based back when I was hired I wouldn't have bid for such a long break in training, either. I understand fair is fair, however, and it's not right that I would get placed in front of a LAA hired prior to me, look at it from both points of view.
If you change our seniority date wouldn't you have to change every pilot on the LUS side as well?
Why just the few of us hired in Jan 2014 to Jan 2015?
Unfortunately, there isn't a huge group of people affected so if it gets rammed through it would have little opposition. I'm assuming the company would actually be for this, because it saves them money.
At least my "new" AA badge says my DOH on the back of it still.
If we had known how our seniority would be based back when I was hired I wouldn't have bid for such a long break in training, either. I understand fair is fair, however, and it's not right that I would get placed in front of a LAA hired prior to me, look at it from both points of view.
Last edited by Name User; 12-14-2015 at 06:27 AM.
12-14-2015 | 06:23 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 293
If it were up to me, I would move both sides to one seniority date..... It should be the first day they set foot on property.
The whole "occupational date" crap has never made any sense. If you are awarded a fleet with a long training backlog, you will get screwed out of hundreds of numbers-through no fault of your own. (I know guys who had to sit for two months before training. That is simply not right.)
Changing to a policy of first date on property would have been good for everyone.
Instead, our union is making sure to go out of its way to screw one side.
The whole "occupational date" crap has never made any sense. If you are awarded a fleet with a long training backlog, you will get screwed out of hundreds of numbers-through no fault of your own. (I know guys who had to sit for two months before training. That is simply not right.)
Changing to a policy of first date on property would have been good for everyone.
Instead, our union is making sure to go out of its way to screw one side.
12-14-2015 | 07:05 AM
#20
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
....If we had known how our seniority would be based back when I was hired I wouldn't have bid for such a long break in training, either. I understand fair is fair, however, and it's not right that I would get placed in front of a LAA hired prior to me, look at it from both points of view.
Unfortunately, in the real world, revisionist history and subjective interpretation always seems to muddy up stagnant ponds that previously appeared clear.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
