Originally Posted by NuGuy (Post 1020221)

There is considerable internal rancor involved with this meeting.

Unless there is some REAL reason to close the meeting, like discussion of negotiating strategy or tactics, I was assured that it will be held in open session, with any attempts to close the meeting otherwise to be held to a recorded vote. Anyone in ATL who can make it, should make it.

There is considerable upset going on here. We should watch the outcome closely, and everyone should contact their reps after the fact for the blow-by-blow. There are agendas at work here, folks....if it was a simple election to confirm the committee members, as some who are quoting the letter of the policy manual imply, that can be done with a conference call.

But 2/3s of the LEC reps called for a special meeting, and only 1/3 is required.

The current NC has been working very well together, and has provided some acceptable gains and have worked with their corporate counterparts. Any change in the game plan at this point, and you defeat what the cheerleaders principal complaint against the DPA is...that is changing the players before the big game.

Nu

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1020227)

In a way it has to do exactly with this, because certain people want the NC changed. Certain people feel there is too level of a playing field. I agree with you Nu. If they change the NC this close to Sec 6, then bring on DPA because they just chopped off the only leg holding themselves up.

I want to know WHY the NC needs to be changed so close to Sec 6? Why change a NC that has made significant improvements to a contract with crummy work rules at a price of no cost? What did it cost to get our pay system changed? Nothing. What did it cost to get PS DH's on deviations? Nothing. What did it take to get some Sec 23K areas changed? Nothing. That's just a few things that have been done. Why change the NC now?

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1020167)

I disagree with your LBP analysis. You are wrong about how seniority will be affected.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1020235)

We've talked about this before, Johnso. Where do you come up with all this conspiracy stuff? And what is "too level of a playing field"? Why don't you just state the real reason you're concerned vice obfuscating?:confused:

The current negotiating committee was elected in March of 2010, and I believe their term of office began July 1, 2010. According to the PWA, management and ALPA can exchange Section 6 openers 270 days prior to the expiration of the current contract (April 5, 2011). The following is from the MEC Policy Manual (in the DALPA site file library). Note that the MEC can waive or amend policy (it is their manual) at their discretion.

SECTION 7 − COMMITTEES OF THE MEC

d. The Negotiating Committee will normally serve for a period:
1) Commencing six months before the Opening Letter may be presented by either party to commence Section 6 negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, in which case the committee will serve for a period not to exceed six months after the signing of the new Section 6 Agreement (or its equivalent), or
2) Commencing no later than six months after the signing of an Agreement in Section 6 negotiations (or its equivalent), and for a term not to exceed two years.

e. Within the constraints of d.1) and 2) above and in order to provide for an orderly transition, the MEC chairman may choose to schedule the election of a new committee within the 90-day period (or at the regularly scheduled MEC meeting immediately prior to the 90-day period) prior to the expiration of the term of the incumbent committee. The newly elected committee will take office at the expiration of the incumbent committee’s term.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1020217)

Yes, but the issue is pilots receive this after using the UTCP only ONE time. This letter comes of as a disciplinary letter with an almost scolding tone. It's has a 'We will let it slide this time, but don't let it happen again' feel to it. Bottom line, that's not something that makes people feel comfortable using it.

The original intent of this program was for it to be mutually beneficial, and if the company comes across with this attitude the 1st time you use it, it is likely that guys will not use it in fear of reprimand. It's silly you receive this letter after you've used it ONCE. I can understand if there is a pattern of abuse by a particular individual, but this letter is over the top IMO.

It may not be the companies intent to come off the way they do, but I think many will perceive it as a threat.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1020235)

We've talked about this before, Johnso. Where do you come up with all this conspiracy stuff? And what is "too level of a playing field"? Why don't you just state the real reason you're concerned vice obfuscating?:confused:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1020251)

A special MEC meeting is not needed to keep the current NC intact. Why fix something that isn't broke? I don't see a need. Do you?

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1020261)

My opinion isn't material to the mechanics of the discussion, as it's the MEC's decision. I have never provided my opinion to any member of the MEC, including my elected Rep. It's their call. The NC and MEC Administration work for them. As I suggested before, if you have an opinion you should voice it to your Rep.

One question, however...if I made the same argument to you regarding the upcoming elections of the Pilot Director, LEC Reps or MEC Administration, would it ring a bit hollow? All the things you said were accomplished by the NC were accomplished with all those other folks in office as well.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1020261)

My opinion isn't material to the mechanics of the discussion, as it's the MEC's decision. I have never provided my opinion to any member of the MEC, including my elected Rep. It's their call. The NC and MEC Administration work for them. As I suggested before, if you have an opinion you should voice it to your Rep.

One question, however...if I made the same argument to you regarding the upcoming elections of the Pilot Director, LEC Reps or MEC Administration, would it ring a bit hollow? All the things you said were accomplished by the NC were accomplished with all those other folks in office as well.