Things you LOVE about FedEx
#131
Exactly.
Guess what is considered self help and has been ruled illegal job actions violating status quo in past labor disputes?
Coordinated union actions like:
Sick outs
Mx write up campaigns
Working to rule
Opting to not pick up overtime if that’s been normal Ops up to entering section 6
Hmm,,,, that last one sounds a lot like restricting M/U
Check out the ruling against Atlas pilots just this year:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...-Slowdown.html
No one is going to put a provision in a CBA that allows immediate commencement of self help measures at the start of negotiations. It simply defies common sense and the whole concept of the RLA negotiation process. I appreciate your optimism, but there’s a limit where that just passes into fantasy.
Guess what is considered self help and has been ruled illegal job actions violating status quo in past labor disputes?
Coordinated union actions like:
Sick outs
Mx write up campaigns
Working to rule
Opting to not pick up overtime if that’s been normal Ops up to entering section 6
Hmm,,,, that last one sounds a lot like restricting M/U
Check out the ruling against Atlas pilots just this year:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...-Slowdown.html
No one is going to put a provision in a CBA that allows immediate commencement of self help measures at the start of negotiations. It simply defies common sense and the whole concept of the RLA negotiation process. I appreciate your optimism, but there’s a limit where that just passes into fantasy.
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
You said I was wrong. Since you are making that claim, show me how I’m wrong.
I’ve read the relevant sections of the RLA before. But I went back and read it again just to make sure I wasn’t remembering wrong. Here is a link to the RLA. Show me where in the law does it restrict either party to negotiate anything in particular, much less something as specific as what provisions take effect during section 6 negotiations?
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-4...-sect-152.html
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-4...-sect-156.html
Where did you hear or read this?
Status quo simply means that employees cannot seek self-help and the employer cannot unilaterally change rates of pay or working conditions. Well, if one of the working conditions doesn’t allow overtime during negotiations, then prohibiting it during negotiations wouldn’t violate status quo.
I’ve read the relevant sections of the RLA before. But I went back and read it again just to make sure I wasn’t remembering wrong. Here is a link to the RLA. Show me where in the law does it restrict either party to negotiate anything in particular, much less something as specific as what provisions take effect during section 6 negotiations?
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-4...-sect-152.html
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-4...-sect-156.html
Where did you hear or read this?
Status quo simply means that employees cannot seek self-help and the employer cannot unilaterally change rates of pay or working conditions. Well, if one of the working conditions doesn’t allow overtime during negotiations, then prohibiting it during negotiations wouldn’t violate status quo.
Just because the RLA doesn't specifically say what can be negotiated and what can't doesn't mean that you can add language that would be considered illegal.
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 857
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Things you LOVE about FedEx
So in other words, you’ve got nothing. I provided the actual law. You disagree. So show me the court opinion, federal regulation, other law, etc that says other than what I’ve pointed out in the RLA itself. Where did you hear this or read this? Where? Show me!
As soon as you do, I will admit I was wrong.
Exactly.
Guess what is considered self help and has been ruled illegal job actions violating status quo in past labor disputes?
Coordinated union actions like:
Sick outs
Mx write up campaigns
Working to rule
Opting to not pick up overtime if that’s been normal Ops up to entering section 6
Hmm,,,, that last one sounds a lot like restricting M/U
Check out the ruling against Atlas pilots just this year:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...-Slowdown.html
No one is going to put a provision in a CBA that allows immediate commencement of self help measures at the start of negotiations. It simply defies common sense and the whole concept of the RLA negotiation process. I appreciate your optimism, but there’s a limit where that just passes into fantasy.
Guess what is considered self help and has been ruled illegal job actions violating status quo in past labor disputes?
Coordinated union actions like:
Sick outs
Mx write up campaigns
Working to rule
Opting to not pick up overtime if that’s been normal Ops up to entering section 6
Hmm,,,, that last one sounds a lot like restricting M/U
Check out the ruling against Atlas pilots just this year:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...-Slowdown.html
No one is going to put a provision in a CBA that allows immediate commencement of self help measures at the start of negotiations. It simply defies common sense and the whole concept of the RLA negotiation process. I appreciate your optimism, but there’s a limit where that just passes into fantasy.
No one is arguing any of that. What I’m saying is that having a work rule negotiated that says no overtime pick up by pilots during negotiations is not violating status quo. This is not a complex concept. That is, if something is in the contract, it’s not violating status quo by complying with it. That is common sense.
Doesn't UPS have a requirement in their contract that says if the company goes past the amendable date, they get a 3% raise each year on the anniversary?
I think someone told me they do.
If so, we need to get that.
We are getting pennies on the dollar from the signing bonus, so the company always seems to drag it out at least 2 years late, making a 6 year contract, in reality, an 8 year contract.
I think someone told me they do.
If so, we need to get that.
We are getting pennies on the dollar from the signing bonus, so the company always seems to drag it out at least 2 years late, making a 6 year contract, in reality, an 8 year contract.
Air wisconsin has had that in their contract for over ten years. And their new contract they just ratified a couple of weeks ago has retained that exact language.
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
So in other words, you’ve got nothing. I provided the actual law. You disagree. So show me the court opinion, federal regulation, other law, etc that says other than what I’ve pointed out in the RLA itself. Where did you hear this or read this? Where? Show me!
As soon as you do, I will admit I was wrong.
As soon as you do, I will admit I was wrong.
Show me something more concrete than your interpretation of the RLA. Show me a court ruling that says you can have rules in the contract that only apply while in section 6. Show me a contract that has special work rules that are only applicable during section 6. If you can’t do that, show my your law degree and what tell me what state you are licensed to practice law and what type of law you practice, and I will weigh your opinion more than that of Adler.
Contract law and the RLA can be tricky. I have read the RLA, and tend to agree with Adler. Sorry to burst your bubble.
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Things you LOVE about FedEx
Lay off the coffee dude. People who are in the profession of interpreting the law, you know, lawyers, disagree all the time. That’s why they go to court. You said that the RLA doesn’t say what you can and can’t negotiate. I simply pointed out that that doesn’t give you permission to include items that are illegal. Whether it’s legal or not is up to the courts to decide if it ever got that far.
Show me something more concrete than your interpretation of the RLA. Show me a court ruling that says you can have rules in the contract that only apply while in section 6. Show me a contract that has special work rules that are only applicable during section 6. If you can’t do that, show my your law degree and what tell me what state you are licensed to practice law and what type of law you practice, and I will weigh your opinion more than that of Adler.
Contract law and the RLA can be tricky. I have read the RLA, and tend to agree with Adler. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Show me something more concrete than your interpretation of the RLA. Show me a court ruling that says you can have rules in the contract that only apply while in section 6. Show me a contract that has special work rules that are only applicable during section 6. If you can’t do that, show my your law degree and what tell me what state you are licensed to practice law and what type of law you practice, and I will weigh your opinion more than that of Adler.
Contract law and the RLA can be tricky. I have read the RLA, and tend to agree with Adler. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I simply said the RLA doesn’t prevent negotiating specific contract terms, in this case, overtime during negotiations. I provided links to the RLA. So it’s up to anyone trying to say that something that isn’t in the law is what current practice is. So show me how something that isn’t in the law, lawful. Show me a legal interpretation from the NMB, or a court opinion, or a regulation. I’m simply saying the RLA doesn’t prevent what you say it prevents and showed you how that is fact. You say that simply because it doesn’t say you can’t, means you can’t. So where did you hear that? Where did you read it? Where?
Simply saying that just because there isn’t a contract with certain language, doesn’t mean it’s illegal. More than likely it means that it’s too costly to attain.
Until then, I’ll continue to say, you’ve got nothing, like Alder. When you do, I’ll admit I’m wrong. Which I will freely admit it can happen...again.
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
I simply said the RLA doesn’t prevent negotiating specific contract terms, in this case, overtime during negotiations. I provided links to the RLA. So it’s up to anyone trying to say that something that isn’t in the law is what current practice is. So show me how something that isn’t in the law, lawful. Show me a legal interpretation from the NMB, or a court opinion, or a regulation. I’m simply saying the RLA doesn’t prevent what you say it prevents and showed you how that is fact. You say that simply because it doesn’t say you can’t, means you can’t. So where did you hear that? Where did you read it? Where?
Simply saying that just because there isn’t a contract with certain language, doesn’t mean it’s illegal. More than likely it means that it’s too costly to attain.
Until then, I’ll continue to say, you’ve got nothing, like Alder. When you do, I’ll admit I’m wrong. Which I will freely admit it can happen...again.
Simply saying that just because there isn’t a contract with certain language, doesn’t mean it’s illegal. More than likely it means that it’s too costly to attain.
Until then, I’ll continue to say, you’ve got nothing, like Alder. When you do, I’ll admit I’m wrong. Which I will freely admit it can happen...again.
I’ll take legal advice from you when you let me handle your financial advice. Until then, I’ll stick to flying airplanes and thinking that you are wrong.
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 279
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post