![]() |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1943435)
Can you post his comments or provide a link?
Even your Outgoing NC, Outgoing MEC-Chair and soon to be ousted YES Voting Reps, said the same thing. TEN |
Originally Posted by TenYearsGone
(Post 1943717)
Are you serious or being a smart donkey?
Even your Outgoing NC, Outgoing MEC-Chair and soon to be ousted YES Voting Reps, said the same thing. TEN I think the words coming from sleepy Ed's mouth are significantly different than coming from the union guys. Given the history with him in BKrptcy, now that we are making Billions, he's still giving the finger. This is not the time to play hardball. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1943719)
Ten,
I think the words coming from sleepy Ed's mouth are significantly different than coming from the union guys. Given the history with him in BKrptcy, now that we are making Billions, he's still giving the finger. This is not the time to play hardball. 1) Tried to sell us on Management's phrase "Last, Best and Final Offer" 2) Tried to sell us on a concessionary, self funding TA1 Both are saying the same thing, in different ways. Both are getting paid handsomely too. Sleepy ED=Steenland Cheers Brother, TEN |
Originally Posted by ImTumbleweed
(Post 1943559)
I've heard the same.
The quote I heard was: "We'll get a new TA"...then almost under his breath said "but the economics will not change". He won't settle for anything other than a "cost neutral contract". "Constructive Engagement" was an interesting approach to negotiations. Obviously, we've learned that this approach is not working. It's time for a new approach to negotiations. The company needs to learn that it's in their financial best interests to pay us an honest wage, for honest work, while we are forced to spend almost half our lives away from home. It's probably true that the failed TA had costed gains of 1.1 billion for the term of the TA. It's also true however that company believes the value of the failed TA's CONCESSIONS were also worth 1.1 billion... making it cost neutral. We'll never get anywhere when our own union communicates a constant stream of deception. Carl |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1943410)
Sleepy Ed has been quoted as saying there is "no more money" in any deal. Frankly, I'm surprised RA is letting him anywhere near this deal after his incompetence with NA15.
Anyway, the RLA requires both parties to continue to negotiate in good faith. I'm trying to figure out how a Ed's statement reflects a "good faith" position. And if his statement is legal, then we need to deliver an equally inflammatory (and highly public) response. Why haven't we? The reason I ask is, once we are -in negotiations- we are bound to behave in a 'status quo' manner, when it comes to flying overtime, sick leave usage, and other parts of our contract. If we are no longer in negotiations (and how could we be, with no NC?) then we are NOT bound by Status Quo, so, party on Garth!:D |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1943853)
I'm wondering what our "Official Negotiation Status" is right now, since we turned down the TA, and both the MEC Chairman and the Negotiating Committee have resigned, have 'Negotiations' ceased for now?
The reason I ask is, once we are -in negotiations- we are bound to behave in a 'status quo' manner, when it comes to flying overtime, sick leave usage, and other parts of our contract. If we are no longer in negotiations (and how could we be, with no NC?) then we are NOT bound by Status Quo, so, party on Garth!:D Carl |
It's status quo since openers have already been exchanged.
|
Good-Faith Bargaining Law & Legal Definition
Good-faith bargaining generally refers to the duty of the parties to meet and negotiate at reasonable times with willingness to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation; however, neither party is required to make a concession or agree to any proposal. Good faith bargaining requires employers and unions involved in collective bargaining to:
|
I've heard a lot of talk from both the union and the company about us getting pay out of line with our peers (AA, UAL) Well that doesn't seem to cut both ways. Here is the total CEO compensations for 2014 from Airline Biz Blog
Delta CEO $17.59 million United CEO $12.76 million American CEO $12.3 million So it only seems to be a problem if it has to do with pilot pay. Additionally we are the only employee group that has not reached their pre give back payrates. I know that old Lee M didn't do us any favors by saying that we have reached our pre-BK payrates, however that does not count the 32% paycut that we took to try and stay out of BK. The FA's are now 6% above their pre give back payrates while we trail ours by about 15-18%. I would think that we could make a case that the company is being punitive as we have been singled out. |
Originally Posted by DALMD88FO
(Post 1945679)
I've heard a lot of talk from both the union and the company about us getting pay out of line with our peers (AA, UAL) Well that doesn't seem to cut both ways. Here is the total CEO compensations for 2014 from Airline Biz Blog
Delta CEO $17.59 million United CEO $12.76 million American CEO $12.3 million So it only seems to be a problem if it has to do with pilot pay. Additionally we are the only employee group that has not reached their pre give back payrates. I know that old Lee M didn't do us any favors by saying that we have reached our pre-BK payrates, however that does not count the 32% paycut that we took to try and stay out of BK. The FA's are now 6% above their pre give back payrates while we trail ours by about 15-18%. I would think that we could make a case that the company is being punitive as we have been singled out. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:34 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands