![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Breadcream
(Post 3132679)
Sorry but this isn’t how it’s done. Sailing is right on this one and you’re dead wrong. DEAD WRONG.
|
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3132680)
Lol. Ok dokey sweetums.
|
Originally Posted by Breadcream
(Post 3132682)
Shoot, I meant to say that you’ve got it pegged. You’re absolutely right. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
|
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3132687)
Lol. A little sweet talking and i change your mind. You really do get more flies with honey *TMYK*.
|
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3132670)
No, theres no politics. If you dont file you set a past practice for no following the contract. What sailing might be trying to get at, and doesnt understand what hes saying, is that the union will file it knowing its at least 6 months for an arbitrator to be available for a new grievance AND the union continues pushing the grievance back for other "more important" items.
It isnt baseball. You cant let the pitch go by and swing on the next one. You must enforce your labor contract. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3132821)
There is no past practice. The company is following the contract. It specifically allows for circumstances beyond the control of the company in two sections.
Secondly you're making the companys argument for them, or at least trying, but they can make those arguments in front of the arbitrator. |
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3132834)
Firstly, you're not following. If you let the pitch go by without filing you CREATE the past practic. I'll say it another way. You fight every violation or else youve created a history of not following that part. Even alpa volunteers have a tough time understanding this concept so I'm not trying to bash your head in this, but you're not approaching this from a contract compliance standpoint.
Secondly you're making the companys argument for them, or at least trying, but they can make those arguments in front of the arbitrator. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3132838)
You can make the argument now and you will lose. In 18 months when we have a chance and might really need to have a hearing they will say the issue has already been heard. In addition the NMB is very busy with a limited number of arbitrators. Airlines get a reputation and bias gets injected in rulings. We might need the services of a NMB for something critically important like a seniority integration given the state of the industry.
The company is free to declare bankruptcy if the terms are too onerous. My old company had an idiot that made his way to contract enforcement that decided on his own "we" werent going to fight for min day any longer because the company was in dire straights. He almost lost min day for the whole pilot group if pilots hadnt gone up the chain to complain to the MEC. You can't get ahead of yourself on this stuff when you have a contract. You may feel its some sort of common sense, but this is way way more functionally organized. Both sides have to go through the steps. No exceptions. |
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3132878)
Arbitrators are calling balls and strikes (maybe not perfectly). If delta management wants to violate the contract we have to fight it, theres no consideration for state of the industry. You might have a grander point touching on bigger aspects but what I'm reading you look confused on what happens in arbitration.
The company is free to declare bankruptcy if the terms are too onerous. My old company had an idiot that made his way to contract enforcement that decided on his own "we" werent going to fight for min day any longer because the company was in dire straights. He almost lost min day for the whole pilot group if pilots hadnt gone up the chain to complain to the MEC. You can't get ahead of yourself on this stuff when you have a contract. You may feel its some sort of common sense, but this is way way more functionally organized. Both sides have to go through the steps. No exceptions. |
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
(Post 3132834)
Firstly, you're not following. If you let the pitch go by without filing you CREATE the past practic. I'll say it another way. You fight every violation or else youve created a history of not following that part. Even alpa volunteers have a tough time understanding this concept so I'm not trying to bash your head in this, but you're not approaching this from a contract compliance standpoint.
Secondly you're making the companys argument for them, or at least trying, but they can make those arguments in front of the arbitrator. You are assuming this is a violation.....but is it? If a grievance is pursued now, how do you think a neutral party would rule given the circumstances? Denny |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:22 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands