|
Originally Posted by Flaps50
(Post 529263)
I have to agree with you that this is total BS on the part of the company. We cannot let them make this precedence stick. We need to take them to court on this. Like you said the way the company is interpreting this, they can lower and raise our Contractually Guaranteed pay hours at will to any amount between 40/60 to 68/85 (by saying they are trying to prevent a furlough).
It makes no sense that this is the thought process behind the agreement. It only makes sense that the company has the choice of our normal 68/85 BLG or 40/60 to prevent a furlough with nothing in between; otherwise we have no real pay Guarantee at all which is crazy. What union would agree to that? Venting as well!! |
Past
I think you are correct. The Union is contending that the company cannot unilaterally reduce BLG numbers to the contract language in 4.A.2.b. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong - but the section reads plainly enough and they can lower BLG as they see fit to prevent or delay a furlough. We will have a great burden to prove the company is not preventing or delaying a furlough. Very disappointing that this section wasn't scrubbed for loopholes. Curby |
Originally Posted by Curby
(Post 529683)
Very disappointing that this section wasn't scrubbed for loopholes.
*Cough* Professional negotiators at the table for the next contract *Cough* I'm just sayin... |
Language and intent
Originally Posted by Curby
(Post 529683)
Past
I think you are correct. The Union is contending that the company cannot unilaterally reduce BLG numbers to the contract language in 4.A.2.b. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong - but the section reads plainly enough and they can lower BLG as they see fit to prevent or delay a furlough. We will have a great burden to prove the company is not preventing or delaying a furlough. Very disappointing that this section wasn't scrubbed for loopholes. Curby |
Originally Posted by JohnnyViper
(Post 529734)
*Cough* Professional negotiators at the table for the next contract *Cough*
I'm just sayin... A pilot, on the seniority list, needs to be working a pilot contract. If he or she doesn't feel comfortable with a section or if supporting lawyers reviewing the section express concern, they need to work thru some worst case scenarios with the help of counsel. Then, if the language is deemed unsuitable, this pilot negotiator needs to put their foot down and sound the alarm. If you think you know it all the above would look silly. |
Originally Posted by Gunter
(Post 529779)
Like a professional Home buyer? How do those work out? :rolleyes:
Pilots will talk about silly things such as "intent of the language during negotiations" and "that is not how they meant it" while lawyers will say stuff like "but the judge/arbitrator will interpret it as it is written" and "why did they write it that way". |
This majority of this contract contains language that wasn't written by ALPA lawyers, but FPA with a lot of 'strike through' amendments/additions in the last deal. I'm not saying ALPA contracts are bulletproof(really nothing is with RLA but that's another story), however most of them are written with language that is far more concise and expansive language than ours is. A rewrite of the language was ruled out last time because they wanted to get it out for ratification quickly, but perhaps it should be reconsidered going forward.
|
So I guess you just want this "Professional lawyer/negotiator" to put out a poll or two to the membership then let him go negotiate?
I bet the give a hoot factor will be relatively low. He'll be thinking about collecting his fee and lining up his next job. If it is a flat fee, I bet he makes "deals" to get done early. If he is paid by the hour I bet he drags it on forever. I don't think we can do as well as you think with a lawyer in charge. I think they are critical but better in a supporting role. I want someone who will have to live with the CBA to make choices about it. |
How about we mimic what the company does. Do you think Meliniak is making all of the calls? No, he is given his marching orders by the execs and he tries to write the language to make that hapen. When it comes to concessions, he reports to the execs and sees what they are willing to give up.
With professional negotiators/lawyers, the lawyers are doing the majority of talking and writing, but the negotiating committee drives the show. If the company sees fit to have the lawyers do the leg work instead of the managers, there must be a reason. The managers here won't even discuss actual manager related material without input from the attorney. |
I hope JG uses the lawyers at his disposal wisely.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:44 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands