FDX - B-767 - LOA or ELSE!
03-18-2013 | 05:06 PM
#171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
Let's just ignore the Fact of Section 26K A. The Company can place any new aircraft in service at any category they deem with clause for Arbitration on Aircraft Category if no agreement is reached.
We all saw how this worked in our favor for the 777.
The only left here is for the MEC officers to Bid it.
03-18-2013 | 05:09 PM
#172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: 767 CA
I'm not talking about whether the LOA is good or bad, but whether the wording is sound proof. We should only have to vote yes or no based upon whether we agree or disagree with LOA. We shouldn't have to vote no just because there are obvious loopholes left open. I realize we can not come up with every way the company can manipulate the contract to their favor, however, in just a couple of days, several people have already come up with poor wording in this LOA. And if it isn't specifically worded in the LOA, then it doesn't have to be done by the company. We have found that out the hard way too many times.
03-18-2013 | 05:16 PM
#173
Part Time Employee
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
From: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
And so the threats continue.
From the Council 22 Message, 18 Apr 2013:
We operate under the Railway Labor Act, where disputes are submitted to a process which may lead to arbitration. Only when we believe that there is a complete disregard for the CBA, a gross violation of the CBA with intent to violate (not just a disagreement about what the CBA says) can we litigate, i.e., sue The Company.
If we believe The Company will act in such bad faith as to create a situation ripe for litigation, I want to hear more about that threat. Notice, LEC 22 did not say "possible" -- they said "probable." Either approve this LOA, or we will PROBABLY be involved in a lawsuit.
I feel like I'm on a car lot and the salesman has given me an ultimatum. This deal is only good now. If you wait until tomorrow, I can't guarantee the deal will still be valid.
Add to this what the P-2-P folks are being told in bullet points. They are told that if we reject the standalone LOA, we will have to renegotiate the B-767 in its entirety as part of CBA 201X. Then, they're told that The Company will introduce the B-767 per the 2011 CBA.
Well, if they're going to introduce the B-767 according to our current CBA, what will provoke the litigation?
If I started hearing this kind of talk on the car lot, I'd walk away.
.
From the Council 22 Message, 18 Apr 2013:
We operate under the Railway Labor Act, where disputes are submitted to a process which may lead to arbitration. Only when we believe that there is a complete disregard for the CBA, a gross violation of the CBA with intent to violate (not just a disagreement about what the CBA says) can we litigate, i.e., sue The Company.
If we believe The Company will act in such bad faith as to create a situation ripe for litigation, I want to hear more about that threat. Notice, LEC 22 did not say "possible" -- they said "probable." Either approve this LOA, or we will PROBABLY be involved in a lawsuit.
I feel like I'm on a car lot and the salesman has given me an ultimatum. This deal is only good now. If you wait until tomorrow, I can't guarantee the deal will still be valid.
Add to this what the P-2-P folks are being told in bullet points. They are told that if we reject the standalone LOA, we will have to renegotiate the B-767 in its entirety as part of CBA 201X. Then, they're told that The Company will introduce the B-767 per the 2011 CBA.
Well, if they're going to introduce the B-767 according to our current CBA, what will provoke the litigation?
If I started hearing this kind of talk on the car lot, I'd walk away.
.
Tony, what if the company held a bid with openings in all seats and all a/c. They agree to pay the 76 as a widebody a/c but, state their intentions to place the 75/76 in a common bidpack, the only time you will receive WB pay is if you actually fly a 76 and all vacation, training, sick, etc would be paid at NB rates - so, bid accordingly. What in the CBA we currently work under would prevent this? Where would the violations be that would generate the lawsuit?
03-18-2013 | 05:18 PM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
You know Lag, I really hate it when I see blanket statements like that. Do you know anybody on the MEC? Have you talked to any of them on why they voted for the LOA? You know it's a tough job that they have to do and a lot of times they are made to be the villain. I wouldn't want to do the job, would you? In the end we make the decision wether this LOA passes or not.
No, you're just impatient The union will do their best to answer all the questions out there. The LOA only came out Friday, it takes a couple of days. But, if you don't want to wait, you could always call the union, block rep. But you are right that we need to be informed to make the right decision! Good luck!
But since we are on the subject, I do not think it is too much of a stretch to expect that before the MEC vote someone would have asked the reserve questions. I guess your point is it takes more than 3 days for them to massage the answers into something the ignorant masses will accept.
03-18-2013 | 05:20 PM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
Tony, what if the company held a bid with openings in all seats and all a/c. They agree to pay the 76 as a widebody a/c but, state their intentions to place the 75/76 in a common bidpack, the only time you will receive WB pay is if you actually fly a 76 and all vacation, training, sick, etc would be paid at NB rates - so, bid accordingly. What in the CBA we currently work under would prevent this? Where would the violations be that would generate the lawsuit?
03-18-2013 | 05:40 PM
#176
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: B-777
Yes I do know some and have talked to some, certainly not on this LOA. I am actually ambivalent on it. My comment was in response to your comment:
The LOA has been in negotiation for 6 months. To think they have only had 3 days to think about reserve implications are absurd. My comment is simply in response to yours.
But since we are on the subject, I do not think it is too much of a stretch to expect that before the MEC vote someone would have asked the reserve questions. I guess your point is it takes more than 3 days for them to massage the answers into something the ignorant masses will accept.
The LOA has been in negotiation for 6 months. To think they have only had 3 days to think about reserve implications are absurd. My comment is simply in response to yours.
But since we are on the subject, I do not think it is too much of a stretch to expect that before the MEC vote someone would have asked the reserve questions. I guess your point is it takes more than 3 days for them to massage the answers into something the ignorant masses will accept.
You also said you haven't talked to any MEC member about this LOA, so how do you know what was said and talked about? The answer is, you don't, so don't make any assumptions.
Good luck on your ambivalence Lag!
03-18-2013 | 06:14 PM
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
I also don't think it's a good idea to walk away just yet. I don't think you are retirement eligible
03-18-2013 | 06:25 PM
#178
Thread Starter
Organizational Learning
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
Tony, what if the company held a bid with openings in all seats and all a/c. They agree to pay the 76 as a widebody a/c but, state their intentions to place the 75/76 in a common bidpack, the only time you will receive WB pay is if you actually fly a 76 and all vacation, training, sick, etc would be paid at NB rates - so, bid accordingly. What in the CBA we currently work under would prevent this? Where would the violations be that would generate the lawsuit?
So why the threat of a lawsuit?
.
03-18-2013 | 06:38 PM
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
I may be missing something, but is it April already? Man I need some more sleep.
03-18-2013 | 06:55 PM
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,065
Likes: 40
From: 767 Captain
I'm not talking about whether the LOA is good or bad, but whether the wording is sound proof. We should only have to vote yes or no based upon whether we agree or disagree with LOA. We shouldn't have to vote no just because there are obvious loopholes left open. I realize we can not come up with every way the company can manipulate the contract to their favor, however, in just a couple of days, several people have already come up with poor wording in this LOA. And if it isn't specifically worded in the LOA, then it doesn't have to be done by the company. We have found that out the hard way too many times.
If the company views negotiating a contract or an LOA as a challenge to see if they can slip a loophole into the language or mask their true intent with a particular section's language then I think it's impossible to trust them at all. How can we call what we're doing negotiating when it seems like all we really do is try to minimize opportunities for the company to exploit whatever language ends up being "final".
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
