Noworkallplay

So says the fat balding dude. Well at least I’m one of those young handsome dudes that senioritas trip over. Haha

hoya saxa

Damn your impudence! I may indeed be “fattening” but I still have a glorious head of hair. And am clearly vain about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adlerdriver

QUOTE=FXLAX;2947361] 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. [/QUOTE]
Ok. How about Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co. v. United Transportation Union
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/396/142

Here's an excerpt from the ruling below:
We have stressed that the status quo extends to those actual, objective working conditions out of which the dispute arose, and clearly these conditions need not be covered in an existing agreement. Thus, the mere fact that the collective agreement before us does not expressly prohibit outlying assignments would not have barred the railroad from ordering the assignments that gave rise to the present dispute if, apart from the agreement, such assignments had occurred for a sufficient period of time with the knowledge and acquiescence of the employees to become in reality a part of the actual working conditions.

FXLAX

This just means that something has become common practice, even though it’s not in the contract. For example, if management starts interpreting a work rule a certain way and the union does nothing, it becomes common practice.

It’s in the sentence right before the part you quoted:


“The railroad contends that a party is bound to preserve the status quo in only those working conditions covered in the parties' existing collective agreement, but nothing in the status quo provisions of §§ 5, 6, or 10 suggests this restriction.”

Interestingly, the same case you quoted actually pertains to the union saying that management cannot force them on to trips because that wasn’t part of the established working conditions (common practice). The court opinion seems to agree. This case cuts against your argument.

{Maybe that’s the way to do it, negotiate language in which management can never force a trip on us. Of course this is all theoretical. I highly doubt management would ever agree to these types of work rules for the price we would be willing to pay. But I digress.}

“Here, however, the dispute over the railroad's establishment of the Trenton assignments arose at a time when actual working conditions did not include such assignments. It was therefore incumbent upon the railroad by virtue of § 6 to refrain from making outlying assignments at Trenton or any other place in which there had previously been none, regardless of the fact that the railroad was not precluded from making these assignments under the existing agreement.”

This says nothing about not being able to negotiate restrictions during a certain time. In this case, there wasn’t any language precluding them to assign these trips but since it wasn’t an established norm, they were prohibited from assignment them that way.

What I’m saying is the nothing in the law prohibits negotiating specific work rules. And IF there was a work rule prohibiting overtime during section 6, by definition, complying with that work rule, wouldn’t violate status quo.

This seems to me to be another one of those cases where people just get in their mind that, well that’s just the way we’ve always done it before. Just because something has always been done a certain way before, logically, doesn’t mean it cannot be done a different way. When asked, where does that come from, I usually get the, well it’s just the way it is, type answer without anyone being able to give me an actual reference on why it HAS to be the way it is.

The one thing I don’t like about APC, it seems to congregate pilots who have this sort of mentality. The kind that says, we have it good so just be quiet. As if just because we have it good doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it better or simply do the same good thing differently in order to make it better.

FXLAX

I resemble that remark.

But seriously, that’s all that I’m saying. That the actual law that specifically governs HOW we negotiate doesn’t say anything on WHAT we can/cannot negotiate. That is all I’m saying. And until someone can show something otherwise, why should we just take the word of that person rather than the words of the actual law?

pinseeker

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Status quo had been defined in court rulings as being the rules that are in effect prior to entering section 6. If you make a rule that only takes effect after you enter section 6, then that rule wasn’t the standard practice or work rule prior to entering section 6. You are arguing to place a catch 22 into the contract.

Arguing that I have to prove you wrong on this is like me saying that aliens exist and you have to prove me wrong. It’s not my responsibility to provide an alien as proof. The RLA has been around for over 100 years. Airlines have been under it for over 80 years. If it was ok to put something like you are proposing into a contract, don’t you think it would have been done by now.

As I said at the start of this post, we are going to have to agree to disagree. If you feel so strongly that you are correct, contact your LEC and tell them you would like to see that in the next contract. I wish you luck.

FXLAX

I just believe you are getting the definition to status quo incorrect. Applying the contract the same way it was applied before section 6 is the basic definition of status quo. So completing with something that is already in the contract, by definition, cannot violate status quo, regardless of when it takes effect. The case that Alder provided is actually the perfect example and one in which management wasn’t able to assign trips to employees during section 6 because it wasn’t normal practice before.

The other thing I said is that nothing in the RLA says what you can/cannot negotiate. And I provided the RLA to prove what I said. You are the one making a different claim, that is that even though it doesn’t say that, you are prohibited from negotiating that work rule because it violates status quo. I provided my proof of my claim. You aren’t providing any proof of your claim. The RLA is a law that only provides the way in which negotiations happen.

Like I said before, just because you may not see this in contracts (although apparently the UTU had it in their contract) doesn’t mean it cannot be negotiated. It probably means that it’s more costly than any work group has been willing to use negotiating capital for.

By the way, I have a long list of things I keep adding to, that I plan on emailing my local reps and negotiating committee when the time comes. I will add this idea. But I know that not everything in my list or any list will be successfully negotiated. These things are negotiated in priority order and only those we have enough negotiating capital to get are the ones we will get. The union email says the pilot group wants a focused negotiations. That sort of disappointing to me. So I doubt that things like scope and things like these types of work rules are going to be high enough on the priority list.

NoHaz

Scooby snacks for my kids

BluePAX

And so many spare FedEx branded napkins you can stop buying them altogether, or donate to friends who work for brown.