|
|
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1675738)
Come on Newk. Don't accept that at face value. He may be right, but then again he may be dead wrong. Let's hear his source before giving up on that idea.
|
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1675727)
From the way I understand it, a lot of guys signed of on C2012, and the low pay raises, because we would be right back at the table for another bite at the apple in 2015. If we don't actually get to bite until 2017, or 2018, then maybe we should have held out for bigger pay raises. At some point, the streams cross. :)
|
Based on discussions with my reps, this is my understanding:
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1675552)
Question 1.) Why did the company want an expedited process in 2012?
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1675552)
Question 2.) Why did we agree to an expedited process in 2012?
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1675552)
Question 3.) Why hasn't the company shown interest in an expedited process, so far?
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1675552)
Question 4.) Are we pushing for an expedited process in 2015?
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1675552)
Question 5.) Why is it not good for the gander this time?
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1675462)
Misleading Dalpa talking point. Does not account for inflation or reduced buying power.
Care to use constant dollars and recompute? Didn't think so. Totally misleading. |
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1675740)
Fair enough.��
Admit nothing. Deny everything. Demand positive proof.�� 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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1675740)
Admit nothing. Deny everything. Demand positive proof.
|
Thanks Jughead!
|
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 1675382)
At 65, DPMP automatically became my secondary coverage and the premium decreased about 50%.
Was 65 when you became Medicare eligible? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1675080)
I'm not trying to change the topic, but I do have a proposal for C2015:
While our reserve system is much better than it has been, it still isn't as good as I think it can/should be. I would love it if reserves could: 1.) Pick up trips from open time before they are assigned a day out. I think United pilots can pick up trips 3 days out. 2.) Yellow slip for trips that are not in their silos and get them over pilots who have no yellow slip preference in. While #1 might be a longshot, #2 shouldn't be. I know the company thinks they want to match with reserves according to what silo they are, but in my category, I've seen a lot of pilots get assigned trip back to back to back, while others just sit there. There were three trips I YS'ed last week that went to reserves in the 4 day silo while I sat in the 5 day silo. All three of them were later called in fatigued (and after looking at the pilots schedules, I don't blame them.). What I'm seeing is that FAR117 is making fatigue calls more likely. Maybe allowing pilots to YS trips outside of their SILO might help everyone. Any thoughts? On date of signing-2015, ADG goes from 5:15 to 6:00. At end of 2016, ADG goes to 6:45. At end of 2017, ADG goes to 7:30. At end of 2018, ADG goes to 8:00. Simple easy argument to make with the public and the NMB. Pilots will be guaranteed at least 8 hours of pay for the days they work. I would mention scope, but that can't get better with ALPA. But fate (read RJ experiment and JV experiment collapsing) could always intervene. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:08 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands