|
Originally Posted by deceptibum
(Post 850447)
As per the Townhall Conference Call yesterday....The snapshot Has Not been taken yet. But, that is not to say that an arbitrator can select any date he wants to use as the snapshot date if it goes to arbitration.
Here it is from the rule book (not the old merger stuff Capt Bligh likes to quote). PID is the same as merger announcement date (2 May I believe). Remember, this is just the snap shot. Has nothing to do with the SLI but rather lays out the playing field to begin from. And, if you want to read the whole (new) merger/frag policy, you'll see that JCBA occurs before SLI period. While both MEC's are granted latitude to have a mutual agreement to stray from the guidlines, why would they want to? Based on the tTA, the new process seems to be working. Here's the link to the CURRENT policy manual. Alpa > Alpa Login Frats, Lee 3. Verification and Exchange of Employment Data a. The merger representatives will commence the verification and updating of employment data of those flight deck crew members not previously verified and updated no later than the PID. b. The merger representatives shall forward the individual employment data described in Part 3C 2 via certified mail, Return Receipt Requested, to each non verified and non updated flight deck crew member within twenty (20) days of the PID, provided that the merger representatives may forward such data by email, with provision for electronic return receipt, to those flight deck crew members who have designated electronic communications as their preference for receiving ALPA communications. The merger representatives shall also post such data as to all flight deck crew members on their MEC website in a manner providing for access by all flight deck crew members. c. It is the responsibility of the individual flight deck crew member to verify or challenge the findings of the merger representatives within twenty (20) days following receipt and to support his protest, if any, by written statement of fact. In addition, such protesting member may request a hearing before the merger representatives. All such timely requests shall be granted. Any flight deck crew member may transmit such verification or challenge or request for a hearing by email, in which case the merger representatives may use email to schedule a requested hearing and advise the flight deck crew member of their decision by email. d. The merger representatives will receive and evaluate all protests and will adjudge the validity of the claims. Their decision will be final and such decision shall be in writing and shall be forwarded to the flight deck crew member making the protest within ten (10) days following receipt or following completion of the hearing, if any, by the means outlined above. e. Upon completion of the processes outlined above, the merger representatives shall prepare a certified Flight Deck Crew Member Seniority List which shall reflect the proper relative position of each member thereon. Such list shall contain that data described in Part 3C 2b. f. Employment data verified as outlined above shall be exchanged no later than sixty (60) days following the PID. For purposes of this initial exchange of data, said data need not pertain to events more recent than the date of the first Company notification of intent to merge. g. Additional employment data pertinent to the solution of integration problems shall be made available to all merger representatives. |
Originally Posted by LeeFXDWG
(Post 850977)
I have no idea what world the CAL MEC is living in our what semantics they are playing.
Here it is from the rule book (not the old merger stuff Capt Bligh likes to quote). PID is the same as merger announcement date (2 May I believe). Remember, this is just the snap shot. Has nothing to do with the SLI but rather lays out the playing field to begin from. And, if you want to read the whole (new) merger/frag policy, you'll see that JCBA occurs before SLI period. While both MEC's are granted latitude to have a mutual agreement to stray from the guidlines, why would they want to? Based on the tTA, the new process seems to be working. Here's the link to the CURRENT policy manual. Alpa > Alpa Login Frats, Lee Not sure I understand your point?? If you thumb back in the thread, as of yesterday there was a UAL Pilot who stated that the "Snap Shot" has been taken.....Kinda interested where the UAL Camp pulls that intel?? It's been pointed before that Jay Pierce (CAL's MEC Chair) went on recorded record (with details) during the TownHall yesterday confirming that the above info is 'bunk'.....no Snap-Shot has been taken as of yesterday morning. During the same conference call, it was stated by the CAL MEC that the M.C.'s from both carrier's met up in SFO just this past week to exchange the verified lists......that being the case, along with simple math.....that exchange took place well outside the "60 Day" window ("MAD" of May 2nd or 3rd??) that's prescribed in the Merger/Frag Policy in which you high-lighted. I guess they are 'straying' from the prescribed policy already?? Just curious & NOT meant to come across as flame material.....If the CAL MEC is holding formal Q&A/info sessions for the the CAL pilot group, has the UAL MEC held any type of formal Informational Forum/Town Hall to address/or clarify what's been going on in the process up to this point?? If so, I'd be very interested to see if both MEC's are laying out 'like' factual info, and staying away from speculation. |
SoCalGuy-
I really think this all comes down to semantics. Our side (no I don't think Wendy is on record specifically saying the snapshot has been taken, yet) sees the definition of snapshot fulfilled, as defined by ALPA policy and EVERY OTHER merger ever done (I'm pretty sure of this, but somebody chime in if I'm wrong). For CAL to use any date after May 2 is just about as ridiculous as UAL using any date before and BOTH sides are smoking some serious crack if they think that anything other than May 2 will not create a major issue with the other. I'm NOT saying that both sides couldn't both agree on using something else, so long as it benefits both sides for some remote reason I can't think of. I truly don't think either MEC is trying to be misleading. For the most part it sounds like SLI is on pause as they focus on the JCBA so this may not even be addressed for awhile. As far as when they exchanged lists, don't think the exchange date matters, the lists were based on data as of May 2. Both sides have the same list and they are the same, with data from May 2. Not sure how one side could arbitrarily change either side at this point. Then again, I'm just a line guy and not a labor attorney. If you hear a better explanation from your side please post it here. We'll do the same. Hope this confusion gets cleared up before it creates an issue. Both MEC's should be doing a better job being VERY clear on this issue. We all really need to be pulling from the same end of the rope going forward. Fraternally- |
KC-
Thanks for the info/explanation. In the end, one things for sure....I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree, thus tipping back pints from there;)
Originally Posted by kc135driver
(Post 851155)
For CAL to use any date after May 2 is just about as ridiculous as UAL using any date before and BOTH sides are smoking some serious crack if they think that anything other than May 2 will not create a major issue with the other.
REGARDLESS....We both know that your argument, and my argument are MOOT points. The Arbitrator can/will choose some date that 'he/she' (the panel) feel appropriate in this case, and so arbitration will go.....pretty simple.
Originally Posted by kc135driver
(Post 851155)
As far as when they exchanged lists, don't think the exchange date matters, the lists were based on data as of May 2. Both sides have the same list and they are the same, with data from May 2. Not sure how one side could arbitrarily change either side at this point. Then again, I'm just a line guy and not a labor attorney.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify what's been said/heard within your Camp....I was just doing much the same from what we heard first hand 2 days ago. I'm sure as time evolves, there will be plenty of rumor/speculation mixed in with 'facts' that are directly disseminated from our respective MEC's. As hard as it can be, I for one will try my best to listen to what the MECs say as far as fact, and attempt to stay away from rumor/myth/or conjecture! Cheers....SC |
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
(Post 851182)
In what I wrote following that post, I was pointing out that if this was the case per policy, it was NOT being followed if the two groups just met last week in SFO to exchange the verified lists as confirmed my CAL's MEC Chair two days ago....nothing more, nothing less.
Cheers....SC |
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
(Post 851195)
This has been misinterpreted I believe. While the MCs did meet in SFO to discuss the list, the truth is the lists were exchanged sometime ago. I asked the CAL MEC chairman about this more than a week ago and he indicated the lists had already been exchanged. Both MCs were going over the lists to develop questions as to the methodology and information provided on the lists for when they next would meet (I guess this week in SFO).
Going back to the CAL MEC website and briefly reviewing the phone recording at the 51:00+ mark, "J.J." (caller) is speaking with JP on the M.C. process & meeting between the two groups in SFO. With that info, and along with local rep's info that I received, I was in the understanding that they met within the last week or two to exchange verified list's. As far as any firm future meeting scheduled in SFO, that was not directly touch on in the call, just the past meeting with the phone info above. With that said, we all know there will be some form of future meetings between the two M.C.'s involved. After all, future meetings are expected in a negotiating process process such as this. Either way, up to this point, we know the list have been exchanged and that's the bottom line......regardless if it was within the 60 Days or not. Appreciate the info and insight. |
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
(Post 851055)
Lee.....
Not sure I understand your point?? If you thumb back in the thread, as of yesterday there was a UAL Pilot who stated that the "Snap Shot" has been taken.....Kinda interested where the UAL Camp pulls that intel?? It's been pointed before that Jay Pierce (CAL's MEC Chair) went on recorded record (with details) during the TownHall yesterday confirming that the above info is 'bunk'.....no Snap-Shot has been taken as of yesterday morning. During the same conference call, it was stated by the CAL MEC that the M.C.'s from both carrier's met up in SFO just this past week to exchange the verified lists......that being the case, along with simple math.....that exchange took place well outside the "60 Day" window ("MAD" of May 2nd or 3rd??) that's prescribed in the Merger/Frag Policy in which you high-lighted. I guess they are 'straying' from the prescribed policy already?? Just curious & NOT meant to come across as flame material.....If the CAL MEC is holding formal Q&A/info sessions for the the CAL pilot group, has the UAL MEC held any type of formal Informational Forum/Town Hall to address/or clarify what's been going on in the process up to this point?? If so, I'd be very interested to see if both MEC's are laying out 'like' factual info, and staying away from speculation. Again, I think it is a matter of semantics. The snap shot, so to speak, has been taken. The lists on the MAD have been made, verified and exchanged. Those lists verified all active and furloughed pilots and there seat/status. There can be no change to that list. Any additions, such as new-hires, will be added after both those lists are combined on the ISL. Again, the MEC's can change the prescribed order/timeline of events, but based on the confirmation I provided about 2 weeks after the MAD, UAL MEC is going by the letter of the policy. The point of the snap shot has nothing to do with the ISL negotiation other than establish the playing field. It is to verify who is who (fleet, seat, seniority, active, furlough, etc.). Whether guys/gals like it or not, your status is what you verified for the exchanged lists. i.e. if your a voluntary furlough 97 UAL hire like me, then thats where you are on the list. If you are a 147 CAL furlough that gets recalled tomorrow, you're still a furloughed CAL pilot regarding the snap shot used for the ISL negotiation baseline from the snap-shot. Guys/gals, nothing is fair all the time. This is, however, the process. Personally, if I was on the UAL side of negotiations, I wouldn't care much about the 147 at CAL regarding their impact on ISL. THAT'S BECAUSE THE SCOPE RECOVERY AND FIXING SECTION 1 OF THE CONTRACT WOULD DO MORE FOR THE CONTRACT AND A PILOT'S CAREER THAN ANY NUMBER I COULD GET IN SECTION 3 AND REQUIRE EVERYONE TO BE RECALLED IN SHORT ORDER. Yes, I meant to yell! Not at you, just yell that out because that is why UA pilots are for the most part where they are today in the big scheme of things. Sure, BK and 911 did serious harm, which was only compounded by allowing the erosion of scope to continue and protect the senior...... Our first significant "enhancement" to outsourcing happened during the famed C2000 (voted no). We gave up more scope to help secure a 28% widebody raise (20ish for the narrowbody guys). It is either about all of us, equally, or in the end, it will be about none of us. Frats, and not trying to flame on anyone either. Lee |
WHO CARES about the snapshot!!!!! Seriously,
None of that matters until the joint contract is signed sealed and delivered.....Stay together now, fight it out later once you have the money and your QOL!!!! |
One thing for sure, a JCBA which pushes scope WAY they heck back, better work rules and a big fat raise can make any ISL easier to digest. We have to step back and look at the bigger picture rather than getting into "petty" (and I lose this word VERY delicately) arguments about who was hired when or who status is higher. Life doesn't work out exactly like everybody wants all the time. Personally I'm okay with a compromise and I think it is ALPA's best interest to keep the peace between the two sides. We all have given back to both of these companies over the past decade and it is time for repayment first!
Bottom line, without a good JCBA stopping the RJ menace it doesn't matter how the SIL goes for anybody! Cheers- |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:08 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands