Fflllooooowwwwww.......

Subscribe
1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
Page 3 of 9
Go to
Quote: I do agree with dera on this.
So we can melt down twice!
Reply
Quote: I am concerned that the union just accepted the deal that the company proposed without a counter. Certainly sounds that way to me. Literally nothing from the original AIP was included beside the pay increase. From the information we have now I am disappointed.
We aren't in contract negotiations. more than likely the company said take it, or get
Reply
Quote: We aren't in contract negotiations. more than likely the company said take it, or get
then tell them we'll get _____ until they run out of new hires. Envoy's reputation was circling the drain.
Reply
From the MEC email last evening - long call and other reserve changes where included in the company’s framework communique from the weekend. It is a bit vague in the email, however it seems to me that the company later provided a comprehensive proposal that was approved Tuesday night.

Hopefully that means in the next week we can review the actual language.
Reply
Quote: I think it was less of a grievance settlement and more of an agreement to withdraw grievances and an agreement that the company can meter to 50%.

But I guess that’s just splitting hairs.
That’s what a grievance settlement is. Withdraw the grievance in exchange for something.

In this case there was no grievance pending and there is no section six.

They are saying big changes to the reserve rules including long call; new pay rates with up to 15% changes, and changes to the career flow thru program.

If those aren’t “significant” changes to the CBA I don’t know what ever would be. Per the by-laws Significant changes is what triggers a pilot vote over a simple MEC vote. The last time reserve rules were in the table all by itself it was to be a pilot vote. I do not see how adding even more to it can then be done without a pilot vote.
Reply
Quote: I agree with you. But it was an LOA voted on by the MEC to get increased flow and other items. In the LOA included the requirement to withdraw the flow grievance.
So it was a settlement of a grievance... done in LOA format. That isn’t unheard of.
Negotiating significant changes outside of section six and outside the grievance resolution process without a pilot vote is different.
Reply
Quote: So it was a settlement of a grievance... done in LOA format. That isn’t unheard of.
Negotiating significant changes outside of section six and outside the grievance resolution process without a pilot vote is different.
So what would be the recourse?
Reply
I've now seen a few people reference reserve rules as being a part of this. The email I read said management intended to continue discussing reserve rule changes. Is there another message I'm missing?

Reply
Quote: I've now seen a few people reference reserve rules as being a part of this. The email I read said management intended to continue discussing reserve rule changes. Is there another message I'm missing?

Once again, we are left in the dark by our union. Does anyone have hard and accurate information regarding this deal? The way it seems as of now is pretty lackluster without all the details.
Reply
Quote: I've now seen a few people reference reserve rules as being a part of this. The email I read said management intended to continue discussing reserve rule changes. Is there another message I'm missing?

I’ve lost track, is this the 10th time, or the 11th time they’ve “announced intentions to discuss changing RSV rules”?
Reply
1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
Page 3 of 9
Go to