Alan Shore

Because 7ER is an int'l category, the DOA buckets are 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more. So a 4-day trip will always go to a legal and available 4-day pilot, regardless of seniority or RAW bucket, before it goes to a 5 or more day pilot.

OTOH, a 6-day trip in your example would go to the junior 10-day pilot, assuming that both pilots are in the same RAW bucket and the senior pilot does not have a YS in for the trip.

newKnow

Come on man! I can't challenge everything. I'm in Aruba and about to head to the beach. C-ya!

UGBSM

Never heard of retro pay? As in retroactive to the amendable date? We've had that before.

Alan Shore

Based on discussions with my reps, this is my understanding:

Because they were working simultaneous deals with various entities to try to make the whole RJ piece work, and they needed an answer from us sooner rather than later.

In the hope of more $$$ sooner rather than later.

Because there's nothing in particular that they need from us right now.

Apparently not.

Because there's nothing we're offering the Company to entice them to come to the table early, other than paying us more than they are today.

Alan Shore

Read the context of my post, my brother. My point was that management saying that the other employees being back to pre-BK wages is as meaningless as saying that we are.

Totally misleading.

Check Essential

Here's the way I read the RLA:
A contract under the RLA has to have an amendable date.
You can sign a contract that provides for annual raises after the amendable date.
That can go on forever if neither party wants to stop it.

HOWEVER-
Any time after the amendable date, either party can file a "Section Six notice" stating that they intend to change the agreement. At that point there can be no more changes in rates of pay, rules or working conditions. (the so called "status quo")

Its pretty clear right in the Act:

45 U.S. Code § 156 - Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions

Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board.

index

I disagree with what you call "pretty clear in the act." You'd have to pull up the entire legislative history of the act as well as case law to confirm your position.

I read the code provision as limiting managemeny's ability to UNILATERALLY change the pay, rules, or working conditions. What possible benefit would congress have intended by prohibiting parties to agree, ahead if time, that a COLA will apply absent an agreement?

This is more about a failure to secure such an agreement with management than it is being "prohibited" by law.

Jughead135

The complete checklist reads:

• Act Surprised
• Admit Nothing
• Deny Everything
• Make Counter-Accusations
• Demand an Apology

index

Thanks Jughead!

Hillbilly

Was 65 when you became Medicare eligible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk