DW Letter - Part Deux
12-17-2007 | 10:19 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Did anyone else find this line in out Chairman’s 16 Dec 07 message a real hoot:
Management agreed to incorporate existing and future enhancements to the FDA LOA through the negotiating and implementation process and work ….
How many times were we told by management and our Union during the many ‘slip and slide sales meetings’ that the FDA LOA was the best deal available? Let me count, well I’m all out of fingers and toes!!
Now on Dec 16, we are informed by our MEC Chairman that future enhancements to the FDA LOA are on the horizon.
To paraphrase a popular parental saying: "Any job worth doing half a$$ed, is worth doing over 2 or 3 times."
This cracks me up..
Management agreed to incorporate existing and future enhancements to the FDA LOA through the negotiating and implementation process and work ….
How many times were we told by management and our Union during the many ‘slip and slide sales meetings’ that the FDA LOA was the best deal available? Let me count, well I’m all out of fingers and toes!!
Now on Dec 16, we are informed by our MEC Chairman that future enhancements to the FDA LOA are on the horizon.
To paraphrase a popular parental saying: "Any job worth doing half a$$ed, is worth doing over 2 or 3 times."
This cracks me up..
12-17-2007 | 11:51 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
From: A300 CAP FDX
I haven't spoken to anyone in the training dept, or management, or the MEC about this issue. AV8rmike obviously has. But the amount of info otherwise is insufficient to draw a conclusion about anything one way or the other. I read you guys taking a stand - so what are the pieces of info you are using to make your determinations?
If the impetus for that email was a singular or collective push by those cadre to put the verbal conditions in writing, or if it was in reaction to ALPA, I don't know.
As for AV8RMike: IF. If, indeed, we had some of these guys massaging certain QOL issues (which you seem to admit was going on)... without using the union to do so, then seems to me they were acting independent (read contractors). That may sting a bit, but. If the "IF" is true, so is the "then"
12-17-2007 | 12:36 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
From: unskilled laborer
AV8rmike-
just trying to gather facts. Were guys all setting up individual deals (even if they got the same deal)?
If so, (and this question gets ahead of the facts as I KNOW them) is it these instructors belief that they should negotiate their own deal and then have the union get them in writing later because the outcome (a 757 program) is good for us?
Is this the whole argument? I must be missing something-just trying to get informed.
just trying to gather facts. Were guys all setting up individual deals (even if they got the same deal)?
If so, (and this question gets ahead of the facts as I KNOW them) is it these instructors belief that they should negotiate their own deal and then have the union get them in writing later because the outcome (a 757 program) is good for us?
Is this the whole argument? I must be missing something-just trying to get informed.
12-17-2007 | 12:37 PM
#24
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
I'm confused.
Are we angry at out MEC chair because he didn't roll over on the 757 LCA/FLEX issue, when the company realized their lack of foresight?
I am certainly not against these pilots getting passover, if they can hold WB. And, I'm sure no one in the MEC is, either. However, in this situation, new narrow-bodies, it's not possible under our current CBA. That's the way it is. If the company, or FAA, feels its necessary to have these guys. Then, the CBA needs to be amended.
How many grievances have we lost, due to what is written in the CBA? Too many!! Did the company arbitrarily change the CBA to help us out? NO!!! This is one of those moments that, doesn't come along very often, that we have non-jeopardy leverage.
Shut down the 757 program? That's up to the company. I'm sure that our union is willing to make the necessary amendments to the CBA to keep the program going. Is the company willing to actually negotiate? We'll see.
I, for one, am proud of the stance we are taking...And, hope that we use this to full extent possible.
Are we angry at out MEC chair because he didn't roll over on the 757 LCA/FLEX issue, when the company realized their lack of foresight?
I am certainly not against these pilots getting passover, if they can hold WB. And, I'm sure no one in the MEC is, either. However, in this situation, new narrow-bodies, it's not possible under our current CBA. That's the way it is. If the company, or FAA, feels its necessary to have these guys. Then, the CBA needs to be amended.
How many grievances have we lost, due to what is written in the CBA? Too many!! Did the company arbitrarily change the CBA to help us out? NO!!! This is one of those moments that, doesn't come along very often, that we have non-jeopardy leverage.
Shut down the 757 program? That's up to the company. I'm sure that our union is willing to make the necessary amendments to the CBA to keep the program going. Is the company willing to actually negotiate? We'll see.
I, for one, am proud of the stance we are taking...And, hope that we use this to full extent possible.
Last edited by MD11Fr8Dog; 12-17-2007 at 12:48 PM.
12-17-2007 | 01:41 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
From: A300/310 Capt
Mike,
When the initial cadre of Flex/Lca guys agreed to go to training to get checked out in the 757, they obviously knew that the CBA did not protect their interests in this situation. My question would be, Did they go to the union to have them negotiate pay protections for them, or did they just wander off to training with promises from the company to something that is not covered in the CBA?
If the latter is true, then they were acting as independent contractors.
If they did go to the union to have representation with the company, then did the union turn them down? If so, then this stink should have been brought up a long time ago.
Or, did the company decided at that point that they didn't want to negotiate with the union? If that is the case, then the guys should have not gone to training.
We all want the company to prosper, and the 757 program to be manned by the right people, but the company must go through the union for "wavers" from the CBA, and "guarantees for 2 years worth of WB passover pay" as well as "Qol issues" for Flexes and Lcas. If not, then everyone suffers in the long run.
When the initial cadre of Flex/Lca guys agreed to go to training to get checked out in the 757, they obviously knew that the CBA did not protect their interests in this situation. My question would be, Did they go to the union to have them negotiate pay protections for them, or did they just wander off to training with promises from the company to something that is not covered in the CBA?
If the latter is true, then they were acting as independent contractors.
If they did go to the union to have representation with the company, then did the union turn them down? If so, then this stink should have been brought up a long time ago.
Or, did the company decided at that point that they didn't want to negotiate with the union? If that is the case, then the guys should have not gone to training.
We all want the company to prosper, and the 757 program to be manned by the right people, but the company must go through the union for "wavers" from the CBA, and "guarantees for 2 years worth of WB passover pay" as well as "Qol issues" for Flexes and Lcas. If not, then everyone suffers in the long run.
12-17-2007 | 03:18 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
Hello McFly?????
The system is working just like it's supposed to work! At most other airlines, if the company wants something that's not in the CBA, they come to the union and NEGOTIATE FOR IT!!!!! They say , we want this, and the union says, well then, we want that in exchange. For some very strange reason our union usually just gives it to them (maybe so the union guys might get a senior management job later, i.e. PC?).
This is how labor relations was designed to work. I'm glad to see our union has finally broken the code! And ... I'm just a little bit happy those training guys are getting treated like the rest of us get treated every day, "Where in the contract does it say you can do that?"
Mark
The system is working just like it's supposed to work! At most other airlines, if the company wants something that's not in the CBA, they come to the union and NEGOTIATE FOR IT!!!!! They say , we want this, and the union says, well then, we want that in exchange. For some very strange reason our union usually just gives it to them (maybe so the union guys might get a senior management job later, i.e. PC?).
This is how labor relations was designed to work. I'm glad to see our union has finally broken the code! And ... I'm just a little bit happy those training guys are getting treated like the rest of us get treated every day, "Where in the contract does it say you can do that?"
Mark
12-17-2007 | 04:35 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
