My Negotiating Committee Still Speaks for Me

By now you should have received the Negotiating Committee’s latest update (From the Negotiating Committee – Apr 6, 2009) regarding the “Global Solution” effort to negotiate solutions to a number of outstanding issues: B-777 compensation and ULR work rules, B-757 instructor issues, Combat Zone flying, ICAO over/under 60 manning, and the imposition of CBA §4.A.2.b. Once again, management has completely rejected a negotiated solution.



Well based on the latest correspondence from our MEC officers and the reinstatement of our slogan, "My Negotiating Committee Still Speaks For Me", how can anyone bid the 777 with a clear conscience?

 

So the Association has initiated a lawsuit against the company regarding 757 Instructors? Nice... I know, I know, the Party Line is "the company operated outside the CBA in how they treated the 757 Instructors." Before you jump on this like a duck on a June bug, remember these are the same people who also said "this is the best we can get" and "it'll go senior".

Show me the section of the CBA that covers new aircraft introduction. Oh, there isn't one? So who will do the over 12 months of work to stand up a new program and then stick around as the only qualified Instructors? There is no language in the contract that covers this situation, so for the Association to reward the guys who did the work with a punch in the gut (lawsuit) is bogus. How can you sue for violating language that doesn't exist? They are attempting to apply sections that cover existing airframes to the introduction of the 757.

What is the ultimate goal of the lawsuit? To force the company to comply with a CBA that doesn't cover this situation? Seems like it would be better for them to sit and write a LOA for Section 11 called 'New Aircraft Introduction', but I guess since I'm not getting 98 hrs/month my ideas couldn't possibly be that good. Kind of like way back when and I said the LOA was a POS. I was wrong about that, too...

 

So what are you worried about. Is the union going to demand you pay back money? I don't see how it hurts you.

 

No, it wouldn't apply to me. What it would do, however, is force the guys who are getting passover and who are the only fully qualled Instructors off the aircraft. How does it help the crewforce as a whole to force these guys to go back to WB aircraft because they didn't meet the 'jump through the hoops' passover requirements imposed on Flex Instructors? All this would do is dramitically slow 757 training. Since them getting WB pay in no way negatively impacts any crewmember and by them staying the crewforce is trained for a new aircraft, I can't see any possible benefit gained by this lawsuit. These guys did a tremendous job, so I feel this is a slap in their faces from our Association.

That's a fine attitude you have, though, only worry about it if it hurts you...

 

As I said I was just curious. I didn't understand your grievance. Now that I do, I think your problem is with the company. Are there any other sections of the CBA you think we should look the other way on?

 

Section 26.K.. It doesn't cover how instructors will be picked or how the training program will be developed, but it does address new aircraft in service and specifically mentions the 757. I would say that without further guidance, flying or instructing on the 757 would be determined by whether your seniority could hold the aircraft, just like all of the other planes covered by the CBA. Just my 2 cents.

 

The bottom line is that the company has known that the 757 was coming for quite some time, and that there were situations pertaining to introduction that were not covered by the CBA. They should have addressed these problems with the union, and negotiated changes to the CBA to accommodate these areas. Instead, they decided to negotiate directly with the instructors. It is not that people do not want to see you guys get good deals, it is just that it shouldn't be done outside of the lines. Hopefully, the company will decide to do the right thing and address these issues in the correct venue, and the instructors will befefit greatly from having it in our CBA.

 

Great point, but incorrect. The company did not negotiate with any instructors and the instructors attempted many, many times to get the Association to address the issues. The response from the 'leadership' was "You're on your own". They flat out refused to help.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. What exactly is the lawsuit about Mike?

 

No one can!