USAPA loses LOA93
#31
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
I have a rule of never answering your ignorant posts but i'll make an exeption here. The very people that negotiated loa 93 testified for the company, more importantly back when loa 93 was up for a vote the PIT reps put out a communication telling the pilots not to vote for it because no snapback provision existed. The east knows this, the company knows this too.
#32
Then you bring your negotiators notes that show there was no case. You don't show up without your notes. That's just an invitation for failure. Unless failure is exactly what ALPA wanted.
Never. But I do expect professionals to keep their negotiators notes when they are entrusted to negotiate on behalf of a group.
This was much like the Delta grievance on vacation. When the ALPA negotiators went before the system board they essentially supported the company position as what they had negotiated. I want all the help ALPA can provide in such a situation but I also want absolute integrity from those doing ALPA work. It becomes especially important if you go before a arbitrator or mediator. Feed them BS and you wont like the result. There is recent first hand experience with this.
If that really IS what happened, ALPA has some liability here.
Carl
#33
I have a rule of never answering your ignorant posts but i'll make an exeption here. The very people that negotiated loa 93 testified for the company, more importantly back when loa 93 was up for a vote the PIT reps put out a communication telling the pilots not to vote for it because no snapback provision existed. The east knows this, the company knows this too.
Carl
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
This was much like the Delta grievance on vacation. When the ALPA negotiators went before the system board they essentially supported the company position as what they had negotiated. I want all the help ALPA can provide in such a situation but I also want absolute integrity from those doing ALPA work. It becomes especially important if you go before a arbitrator or mediator. Feed them BS and you wont like the result. There is recent first hand experience with this.
I suspect very few on this thread are familiar with that grievance. Please correct any misstatements I make as I try and explain it....
The contract that DALPA negotiated with Delta in 1996 was a concessionary contract. One of those concessions was a reduction in vacation benefits for the pilots.
Delta's non-contract employees had also suffered a loss in vacation benefits during this time. The pilot contract however had a "me-too" clause that was explained to the pilots as "If the non-contract employees get an increase in their vacation benefits, that increase applies to the pilots as well." Sounds fairly simple...
Sure enough when Delta's fortunes turned, Delta restored the "taken" vacation benefits to the non-contract employees, however they failed to restore pilot vacation benefits. DALPA filed a grievance.
That grievance was decided in Delta's favor. In testimony, Delta brought contract documents from the 1972 contract as evidence to support their position.
Speaking only for myself, I found the Delta's actions disingenuous at best. I was in high school in 1972 and a significant percentage of Delta pilots in 1996 were not on the property in 1972.
If, as you say, ALPA had no evidence to support their claim, why was it explained to the Delta pilots as a "me too" clause in their presentations when voting on the 1996 contract?
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 581
What's getting lost in all the typical name calling is the statement that ALPA had ONE person testify at the hearing. That ONE person had no notes and no proof for the arbitrator to decide the case on the side of ALPA. The company had numerous people, all with their negotiators notes to "prove" the company position.
Question: Is THIS the kind of "representation" we would all hope for from ALPA?
Carl
Question: Is THIS the kind of "representation" we would all hope for from ALPA?
Carl
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 581
"It's good that we can at least get this far. Not a single post before mine said anything about this. The cactipeople were perfectly content to make people think that it was USAPA that negotiated LOA 93."-
Carl- please see post #5- But then I am not Cacti. Still, I posted this way back. They know it, they simply do not care. In fact they admit that they are celebrating "usapa and the east are closer to collapse."
Carl- please see post #5- But then I am not Cacti. Still, I posted this way back. They know it, they simply do not care. In fact they admit that they are celebrating "usapa and the east are closer to collapse."
#38
Incredibly sad and outrageously pathetic how the WEST pilots view this loa 93 loss, by the EAST, as a victory to their cause.. Anyone have any questions WHY these two pilot groups should be ETERNALLY isolated? I truly hope that the FAA ,and pertinent insurance Co., are paying attention. Putting these two groups together would be a HUGE liability.
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 581
Not to be a smart a- and I do hope someone else will add to this in more detail.
#40
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Anyone have any questions WHY these two pilot groups should be ETERNALLY isolated? I truly hope that the FAA ,and pertinent insurance Co., are paying attention. Putting these two groups together would be a HUGE liability.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post