Let the (FDX) concessions begin ...
 

CBA Section 25.Y.5. states.Not half pay protection, or half pay protections and some make-up credit.


Positive Rate Weekly, 4/22/14
Call-In Jury Duty Settlement Agreement

"On effective date of next CBA,WHY are we agreeing to half pay for a whole day of work?




Who made this agreement? Did the MEC know about it and agree to it, or did the MEC Chairman sign it and brief them afterwards on a teleconference?


What's next? Half pay on R-days where you don't actually fly? Third pay for airport standbys when you don't launch?






.

Why can't we ever just get a ruling on a grievance without a new agreement? I guess if we don't like this concession we have to vote down the next contract as that is the only time it goes to the membership.

1. All in-person jury service paid at 100%
2. All call-in jury duty pay protection paid at 50%
o the CH value of the dropped trip/R-day that will go into make-up will not be deducted from the pilot’s pay until the paycheck issued on the 15th day of the third ensuing calendar month (e.g. – if January bid period trip dropped, the deduction will be on April 15 paycheck if hours not made up)
3. If call-in becomes in-person, paid at 100%


So...if I get called in one day, that one day of trip/reserve is paid 100%?? or the the current block of reserve or trip???? or all reserve days/trips in conflict with jury duty??? What happens if jury duty reverts back to "call-in"??? That does happen.

I think this is terrible language...thought the previous language was very clear. :mad:

Is the company requiring a note from the judge?

Well we don't want to rock the boat. Better take what we can get. :rolleyes:

Maybe we could place blame on the pilot in charge of contract enforcement and the non union chief pilot. THEY are the ones who decided not to follow the contract. Just saying....

We do get an answer without new agreement(s), and in most cases the first denial is from the Company (Step 1) and then the second denial comes from the arbitrator if we file (step 2).

The assumption is that our elected and appointed office workers in conjunction with the appropriate legal advice made the call that the result in a step 1, step 2 approach had a high probability of being a denial which would confirm the current Company "position" on call in Jury Duty.

So the risk/reward equation must have tilted towards this new deal being better than the possible other outcome(s).

It was clear cut contract language that was being violated. All we have done over the last few years is give up things that were ours in the CBA.

Time for our leadership to take a stand or be replaced!

That's our FUTURE SCP you are talking about.

Many of our "can't loose" grievances were purported to be clear cut language. There is much more to contracts than the written words, not ideal, but simply true.

Is it better to confirm a distasteful Company practice or "interpretation" ? Or to agree to a solution that at least retains or controls a partial win? That is the type of call the people in the trenches have to make.

We have spent lots off hard earned dues dollars to only get slapped down because we chose to fight battles with no chance of winning. If we might feel better off fighting the good fight and taking the loss as a badge of honor, I understand that, but personally I hope we start to learn from things and prevent the next one.