|
Originally Posted by gringo
(Post 2357183)
That darned weather must really be having an effect on operations.
Offers for triple pay apparently now going out to LAS crews. |
Originally Posted by gringo
(Post 2357183)
That darned weather must really be having an effect on operations.
Offers for triple pay apparently now going out to LAS crews. |
Originally Posted by Qotsaautopilot
(Post 2357186)
Our contract doesn't have provisions for triple pay. I'd like specifics so I can file an NCC
Either way, I really hope the pilot group bands together on this one here and helps out. This could be serious. Someone's bonus is on the line! |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2356853)
First off I agree with you 100% about forcing you to work, and I argued the same things with my union reps at DAL. They told me what I am now telling you. The issue is not what you as an individual do, but what the group collectively does. This is fairly easy for the company to prove even without the paper/electronic trail that has already been promulgated.
As to what would happen - who knows, each situation is different but if the past is any indication this is my best guess. First off - the company will take legal action to try to win a judgement and/or injunction. Eventually both sides will come together and conclude a deal and the judgment will be waived as part of the agreement. This is how most other cases have gone but it does not mean that Spirit will follow this path. So far so good, now here is the bad part. If the company does win a judgement that will go directly to the companies side of the ledger. For example if the company wins (and I am just pulling numbers out of thin air) a $10Million suit your union will start bargaining from a hole. So what you don't want to do is give your company additional leverage that will be used against you. This is why I say follow your unions advice. The market and supply and demand are clearly and strongly on your side. Hell I bet even your management team (despite what they say publicly) knows that they will be greatly increasing compensation to attract/retain Pilots. I know its hard advice to follow in the heated section 6 environment but a little patience and discipline will bring far greater rewards then blowing off steam on a forum. Good Luck Guys! Scoop:) |
Originally Posted by stanthecaddy
(Post 2357315)
Can't sue the group for not working on their days off.
If the amount of open time being covered by folks on days off has significantly changed from prior to negotiations they sure can. In addition if it's causing the company financial duress today they can. It's not suing one individual for not working on a day off. The suit goes against the entire group. I posted the link to the DAL suit against the pilots. Here's a copy of a portion of the findings. "(4) There has been a substantial reduction in overtime requests since August of 2000. This reduction dramatically increased throughout November and the first days of December, 2000. The reduction has resulted in the cancellation of hundreds of flights which has seriously inconvenienced tens of thousands of passengers. When compared to the requests for overtime during the same months of 1999, the statistics differ so substantially that the difference can only be explained by the efforts of an undisclosed number of pilots to undermine contract negotiations, seeking leverage for a salary increase. (5) An undisclosed number of pilots are actively encouraging, through e-mail and other means, the rejection of overtime opportunities. This "no-overtime" campaign has primarily been effectuated through e-mails, many of which rise to the level of intimidation and harassment. These communications include messages encouraging pilots not to respond to phone calls from Delta regarding inverse assignments. Not answering these calls effectively forecloses Delta's ability to staff the flights that are normally staffed by the pilots electing to fly overtime but are suddenly electing not to. (6) This reduction in requests for over-time is causing harm to Delta and the traveling public. Delta has lost millions of dollars in revenues, rerouting expenses, extra operating costs, and overnight hotel and meal vouchers. Additionally, Delta has suffered loss in the form of good will and traffic which is immeasurable. The public has suffered loss in time and money from the delays and cancellations which is also immeasurable. (7) Neither the Union leadership nor the present Delta Master Executive Council ("MEC") of ALPA supports this effort and both have, in fact, counseled against it. The Delta MEC serves as ALPA's coordinating council for Delta pilots. Pilots at pilot bases are represented through ALPA Local Executive Councils ("LECs"), whose elected representatives constitute the Delta MEC." |
The difference that you're not understanding is that the Delta thing was union sanctioned if I read it correctly. I think that makes a big difference. Maybe not.
|
Originally Posted by ovrtake92
(Post 2357481)
The difference that you're not understanding is that the Delta thing was union sanctioned if I read it correctly. I think that makes a big difference. Maybe not.
Whether they'll win is a topic of another debate, but the idea that a company can't sue to force people to work on days off is just incorrect. |
Originally Posted by Trowserchilli
(Post 2357445)
Yes they can. It's already been done.
If the amount of open time being covered by folks on days off has significantly changed from prior to negotiations they sure can. In addition if it's causing the company financial duress today they can. It's not suing one individual for not working on a day off. The suit goes against the entire group. I posted the link to the DAL suit against the pilots. Here's a copy of a portion of the findings. "(4) There has been a substantial reduction in overtime requests since August of 2000. This reduction dramatically increased throughout November and the first days of December, 2000. The reduction has resulted in the cancellation of hundreds of flights which has seriously inconvenienced tens of thousands of passengers. When compared to the requests for overtime during the same months of 1999, the statistics differ so substantially that the difference can only be explained by the efforts of an undisclosed number of pilots to undermine contract negotiations, seeking leverage for a salary increase. (5) An undisclosed number of pilots are actively encouraging, through e-mail and other means, the rejection of overtime opportunities. This "no-overtime" campaign has primarily been effectuated through e-mails, many of which rise to the level of intimidation and harassment. These communications include messages encouraging pilots not to respond to phone calls from Delta regarding inverse assignments. Not answering these calls effectively forecloses Delta's ability to staff the flights that are normally staffed by the pilots electing to fly overtime but are suddenly electing not to. (6) This reduction in requests for over-time is causing harm to Delta and the traveling public. Delta has lost millions of dollars in revenues, rerouting expenses, extra operating costs, and overnight hotel and meal vouchers. Additionally, Delta has suffered loss in the form of good will and traffic which is immeasurable. The public has suffered loss in time and money from the delays and cancellations which is also immeasurable. (7) Neither the Union leadership nor the present Delta Master Executive Council ("MEC") of ALPA supports this effort and both have, in fact, counseled against it. The Delta MEC serves as ALPA's coordinating council for Delta pilots. Pilots at pilot bases are represented through ALPA Local Executive Councils ("LECs"), whose elected representatives constitute the Delta MEC." Bring on the lawsuit...54 cancellations can easily turn into 154 cancellations. Ladies and gents, I believe things are about to get very ugly... |
They're also telling the passengers it's all weather related so they don't have to pay them. I'd like to hear the conversation when they go to blame this on us and sue. Things that make you go hmmmmm
|
Originally Posted by ovrtake92
(Post 2357481)
The difference that you're not understanding is that the Delta thing was union sanctioned if I read it correctly. I think that makes a big difference. Maybe not.
Here's one section of the findings I posted which clearly illustrates the union did not support it nor was it backed by the union. "(7) Neither the Union leadership nor the present Delta Master Executive Council ("MEC") of ALPA supports this effort and both have, in fact, counseled against it. The Delta MEC serves as ALPA's coordinating council for Delta pilots. Pilots at pilot bases are represented through ALPA Local Executive Councils ("LECs"), whose elected representatives constitute the Delta MEC." |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:55 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands