LEROY

Albie's got it right; folks need to know that the interests of the few sometimes receive less support (06-02 passover pay vs. 02-02 grievance) or more support (anyone approaching age 60 ) depending on their influence on the MEC. It's disgusting, but true.

PCNUTT

I really don't get it. Protecting senority rights on age 60 is the "right thing to do". But telling the boys to bend over on passover pay....well, we at the mec don't have a problem with that.

TonyC

There was no asking the "junior" guys to bend over on the Passover Pay issue. If there was something in the Contract to stand on, it would have been defended. Unfortunately, there was not. Although the practice seems unfair, it is legal by the Contract. Given that set of facts, the Company was not going to spend money to do what we thought was fair, and an arbitrator would have never found the case in our favor. Bottom line, it would have been money wasted on a lost grievance.

Do I like the practice? No. Blame the Company, not our Association.




.

TonyC

By the way, how many of you were at the February 2007 Joint Memphis LEC meeting where this issue was discussed at length and a presentation given by the experts?


Go ahead, raise your hands.




.

Falconjet

Tony: The association signed the contract. They need to see that the loophole, if you will, has had a very negative impact on a fairly large number of folks and that maybe we need to get clearer wording in the next contract on base transfers.

That still doesn't explain the treatment the guys got from the union employees and points to the need for better education about the passover pay provisions in the contract. Yes its a two way street, the members need to be familiar with the contract and understand when passover is appropriate, but it wouldn't hurt for the union leaders to provide open info to the membership on these backdoor agreements with the company on 5 year old grievances either.

There is obviously a huge amount of misunderstanding among the newer hires about how and when and why passover is paid. We, as a union, need to address this to prevent issues like this coming up and fracturing the unity of the membership. We have too much of that already. You can point fingers back on the membership, but it has to be a two way street, the leaders can't just sit back and say you figure it out on your own.

I think the best way to educate the newer hires is through the mentor program (which I am a member of) to pass this info to the new hires. It would also be a way to pass info on the DP process so that we don't have newer hires out there wondering why nobody will talk to them because they picked up a DP. We need some info flow to the new hires during the first year because most if not all of the info passed during indoc is long flushed by the time they hit the line.

FJ

TonyC

The association (FPA at the time) signed the contract, and the members endorsed it with a vote. 87% of voters said "Yes." I was part of the 13% that voted "No", so do I get a different deal? Of course not. The Contract was ratified by the membership, so, for better or for worse, we live and die by it.

The loophole cuts both ways. When I was an ANC FO and bid back to MEM, junior pilots were awarded, trained, and activated in MEM before I was transferred. Should I have sued for the cost of commuting an extra three months? Those pilots junior to me got what I wanted before I got it. Unfair! Unfair!

You want to know why I didn't go screaming to the Contract folks at the union to demand they grieve my case? Because I read the Contract, and saw that what The Company did was legal. Fair or unfair is irrelevant at that point. The Contract was and is clear on the issue.


If you think there should be clearer or better or alternate language in the Contract the next time around, I encourage you to make your voice heard. Just be careful what you ask for.


In light of the facts, it's unfair to characterize the union as having "rolled over" on anyone. That simply did not happen.



.