Well, originally there were at least 3 lawsuits. The TK group, the management group, and the Cal side military guy. So I reserve the "whiny biches" comment for the management group. . If the CAL MEC did indeed 'carve out' some military bros, then how will they be made whole? Pass the hat?? Nope. With the holdback fund as outlined in LOA24, that's how. Held by the company until the last suit is settled. IOW, the reason we have not seen that money is b/c of the lawsuits by our own members. Let's put the blame where it belongs.

Respectfully,
Sled

 

I'm sure there are pilots in both seats who are spineless. you've had spineless caps. i've had spineless fo's. yep i agree with ya the cap should probably and normally set the tone for the trip and what's acceptable. not sure you really had a beef with me here, old shark.
my point was more to the union pin. in the last 20 yrs, I've specially noticed how many fo's, all adorned with pins and stickers, want to push back when i try to "set the demeanor", as you put it in your pretty good attempt to avoid the appearance of improper collective actions

too bored already to list several examples but any pilot who has any SA at all knows the ways pilots can have the right demeanor- or be too much of company men. ( actually, it's not usually so much that they're company men as that they don't want to inconvenience their own little butts)

just seen it far too many times. so still not impressed with pins and strike preparedness shields. that's all

 

Yes and twenty years in the right seat we have seen numerous examples of turning an airplane down for certain MELs. Except for on that last leg to catch the commuter flight home. Then there can be stickers slapped all over the cockpit and it suddenly doesn't matter anymore.

 

Yes its just a symbol, but if not the pin where do we begin? I'd bet beers that our recently departed mr's smisek and mcdonald hated seeing a symbol of unity and ALPA displayed. That would make it a pretty good place to start.

Section 6 is coming. My guess is that Mr Kirby is looking for them.

But, let's get this thread back to *****ing about ALPA.

 

I see.

However, these causes of action were pre-merger and pre-dated this policy. Interesting it was "retroactive".

It sure would have been wise for someone to hold CAL management accountable when Contract '02 was put in place. Prior to this CBA no issues were noted in any contributions to any pilots retirements. As for the other 4 or so parts of the lawsuit, none of those portions had any component to B fund, etc. However, some had to do with wrongful termination, inappropriate extension of probation, and harassment. I am sure it was OK for those aggrieved pilots to seek remedy then in those cases.....

If there had been no merger, those pilots affected would still be entitled to remedy. The "hold back." would not even be an issue, CAL would have to simply write them a check. CAL management knew this was an issue prior to and during the joint cba, so I wonder why CAL management didn't do it's own independent set-aside in preparation for this?

They knew they had an obligation, especially when they compared the UAL CBA and it's B fund implementation they could see the disparity. Interesting how the CAL MEC and CAL management decided to do their own thing. I wonder if there was some sort of collusion or some sort of ultra friendly environment they were "working together" in.

 

??? This tread is about the allocation payment and the lawsuit(s) that are holding up our 5%.

https://www.law360.com/articles/4142...military-leave

 

That was a follow on law suit that resulted from the original law suit.

The university of Pennsylvania law school wrote a great article about it and all of the causes of action. I can't find it, but it has a better explanation. I believe a few of those went to the US Supreme Court. It's just been so many years ago I can't locate it. The Duffer suit was filed in a different jurisdiction because of the merger (ie HQ moved from Houston to Chicago.). Duffer was on the CAL MEC military liaison committee and he got frustrated with the CAL mgt and the CAL MEC's stupidity. He was not on the original suit.

 

<sigh> Duffer is a stand alone lawsuit about the distribution of the allocation money. Specifically, the 175M that was distributed to the CAL side. It was one of the 3 lawsuits that are/were holding up our money. I have no idea where they stand as of today. There is a May 2014 MEC update on the MEC website in the Library section. Do a search for "5% holdback".

 

well, fair enough. good points.

i guess I'm saying, hey, if you're gonna wear a tie tac and put stickers on your bag, at least avoid doing what the guy mentions in the post above - zooming home in broke jets just to get home.
i've seen many a many an fo whining about wanting to get home on last leg and sprinting inbound gate to outbound gate to beat the john wayne curfew because his car was in the lot there - all while proudly wearing his tie tac

but i do see your point there mr shark
it's a starting point anyway

 

The status of the suits is hard to keep track of. The trouble that ALPA members, who were also military guard-reserve members started in 2005. It has been highly talked about how the CAL MEC was sort of a milk-toast group that was too cozy with management.

in Contract '02, which was ratified in 05 brought about the problems that resulted in the suits. CAL management thought it could run fast and loose on federal law and the dues paying ALPA brothers and sisters who were CAL pilots were getting no relief within the formal grievance structure. They were shot down by the CAL MEC left and right. The CAL MEC was non confrontational and did not want any disagreements with CAL management. Their inability and unwillingness to represent pilots who happened to be military members is why all this blew up.

Section 25, the scheduling section was negotiated blank. It said "to be inserted at a later date." That was what the MEC voted on. A blank slate. So, when military members started taking MLLV after PBS came on to property the company freaked out. Why? Because the company forgot to account for military leave when it dreamed of PBS. They ran 3 mock bids after PBS came alive. Not one mock bid included drill weekends, or military leave, or vacation, or sick leave, or LTD, etc. So, the absence management system had no absences to manage or deconflict. Then it went live. The company couldn't cover the schedule. The military guys got slammed by management and where was the CAL MEC? The MEC sucked. So, the military guys and girls had to fend for themselves. It didn't stop there. It soon showed up in other areas as a way to pressure military pilots into NOT taking military leave.

The suit, and suits could have been avoided if the CAL MEC had simply represented and defended the rights of the CAL pilots who were full ALPA members and who paid their dues in more ways than one. But, if the normal avenues of conflict resolution were closed, then the ones that exist for every other US citizen are still open.

CAL management is where the problem was. I think the passage of time shows us that these suits were justified considering the lack of options available to the military ALPA members at the time of contract '02 implementation and the heavy-handed tactics employed by CAL management were outright illegal.

We actually had a check airman authorized by Abbot himself calling the pentagon to verify a Navy reservists status. This guy's source was not a credible source. Not only did the source goof up when trying to verify orders, but he declared that the military member wasn't even in the US Navy reserve. CAL tried to fire the guy based on third hand reports from the so-called source. The check airman was used to give Flight Ops plausible denyability. The Check Airman just recently retired btw. The SEC/NAV had to get involved. This is just one example of the insanity that CAL pilots had to deal with.

It was always about using and abusing relationships to get what CAL management wanted. Pressure the military guys directly and indirectly to get their way.

It was never brought up, but I feel the biggest reason CAL management didn't want to properly and legally fund the B fund for the military pilots was simply to discourage the taking of military leave. If you received NO credit in the B fund, then you were less likely to take MLLV. If you got called every month for taking MLLV, then you were less likely to take MLLV. If your commander got harassed every month, then you were less likely to take MLLV.