Originally Posted by ancman

Except that the choice wasn’t really binary — there were plenty of options. They could take the deal, reject the deal, make a suitable counter-offer, or wait on it while building up enforcement resources (making the problem more costly for the company). Every option except the one that the MEC took was a better option.

Instead, the used car salesman convinced them that he was offering the lowest price they would EVER find a Miata for. If they left the dealership that day, the price would never be available to them again. A slim MEC majority fell for that - hook, line, and sinker.

SK knows the PWA, particularly section 23, probably better than anyone else here. He’s a pilot advocate. I trust his character more than many other current MEC members. But as a candidate, I think he needs to answer some tough questions regarding that settlement and its timing. He may be a PWA expert, but that doesn’t automatically make him a negotiating expert. I honestly think he was best suited in his former role.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

I think his endorsement was in his former role as a manager of the scheduling commitee and its exploding work and limited resources. The solution fixed (supposedly) his problems. That said, it was a huge loss to the pilot group as a whole which the MEC either failed to recognize, or disregarded. Either of which is a fireable offence. The MEC should have been relieved of duty not the most effective scheduling chair we have ever had.

Originally Posted by CRJphlyer

So what you are effectively saying is that everyone else is the problem, not him?

Originally Posted by CRJphlyer

So what you are effectively saying is that everyone else is the problem, not him?

Originally Posted by sailingfun

The RLA trumps state law and requires disputes to be settled in arbitration. The issues has gone through the courts many times. You can't sue the company for anything considered a minor dispute which this absolutely would be classified.

Originally Posted by notEnuf

Wrong, minor is undefined. Wage theft by a fortune 100 compamy on a corporate scale targeting a specific work group is anything but minor.

Originally Posted by bugman61

The RLA doesn’t exempt you from compliance with all state laws, even though management would like that to be the case. There are a number of state laws that still apply, the most noticeable are state sick any disability programs. Whether or not state laws about wage recoupment apply to us is still in debate, but there is a strong argument to be made that they do.

Originally Posted by crewdawg

Flew with an FO recently that said they tried to go back and recoup a chunk of change from an error that hit his entire indoc class. But Michigan state law says that you can only go back 6 months, and that stopped the company from collecting, as the error was >6 months prior. Not sure if it was just pilots with state laws like that who were save or not, I just got the basic cliff notes.

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy

Shilling for Archer already? Maybe Eickhoff too?

Originally Posted by CRJphlyer

No, I was against recall (and still am). But I'm not sure I'll support DA for reelection. Not sure who Eickhoff is...