and the HINTS keep coming!!!
04-25-2012, 04:10 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
OU...You are aware that the agreement for a mid june TA completion a day before JH unilateral decison ( with all partners, to include our lead NMB rep and his boss) potentially violated good faith.
In fact my concern now is if the NMB states no to the request, which is highly likely, then JH just gave the company an out to delay negotiations further and the mid JUne agreement is off the table.
They can ask for it to be removed BTW...hiring lobbyist? The company has lobbyist also, so the impact on the NMB is fools gold.
Our leverage was the timeline that all agreed upon, with the NMB leadership in the room..and if the company delayed or backed out, give us greater leverage and the NMB for release...
Hope is not a strategy, and it appears that's exactly what JH is resting upon...Hoping the NMB will say yes...
I can understand where you're coming from if you think the company is negotiating in good faith. But if that's what you think then we have bigger problems than agreeing on strategy. If, on the other hand, you believe the company has not been negotiating in good faith, then why would you object to asking for release?
04-25-2012, 04:57 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
"I can understand where you're coming from if you think the company is negotiating in good faith."
Granted, I may not be very smart...but for the life of me I can't understand where anyone thinks that the company has been negotiating in good faith.
We are being stalled. We are being taken advantage of. And I, for one, am damn tired of it. They can't run the airline without us. If people can't see that after 2+ years...they will never be in agreement with us. Don't waste energy on them.
Granted, I may not be very smart...but for the life of me I can't understand where anyone thinks that the company has been negotiating in good faith.
We are being stalled. We are being taken advantage of. And I, for one, am damn tired of it. They can't run the airline without us. If people can't see that after 2+ years...they will never be in agreement with us. Don't waste energy on them.
04-25-2012, 05:17 PM
#44
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
Originally Posted by CALFO
The last time I checked there were two Unions negotiating against management. Hence the J in JCBA. Both parties (yes, BOTH) agree that the process is too slow. One party has decided to take matters into their own hands and is demanding the other party come along for the ride. One party has declined to brief the other party on its strategy.
I am ready and anxious to wrap this up, so we can all integrate seniority and sign KumBaYa. However, I am not anxious to blindly follow the leader of UMEC into battle when he isn't even confident enough in his plan to brief his ALLY at CalMEC. If this is such a great plan, then why not share it with the other party that you are supposed to be working with?
I am ready and anxious to wrap this up, so we can all integrate seniority and sign KumBaYa. However, I am not anxious to blindly follow the leader of UMEC into battle when he isn't even confident enough in his plan to brief his ALLY at CalMEC. If this is such a great plan, then why not share it with the other party that you are supposed to be working with?
CALFO~
The points/facts above are spot on. After conversing with the MEC member who went on record, and forwent signing JP's letter last week echoed exactly what you stated. He stated that the entire CAL-MEC was NOT briefed, thus his motion to NOT endorse the summary w/o being directly briefed by JH's gang (open discussion/Q & A) would have been disingenuous on his part.
I will be he FIRST to admit, having the respective MEC's display a public unwillingness to work in concert is appalling. Hopefully both J's (and their gang's) will get "lock-step" before pulling the aforementioned "release" trigger in a matter of weeks.
Clocks tick'in.
04-25-2012, 05:23 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: EWR B737FO
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by AxlF16
Was there really a legal agreement?
If they say 'no', what is the companies basis for further delay and removing the alleged mid Jun 'agreement'? Spite?
That's all the more reason for US to have 'lobbyists'.
I'm confused. Which timeline? We've all agreed on so many that I lose track.
You really need to think this through in more detail. This isn't a one shot Hail Mary.... Even if they say 'no', there is no harm or jeopardy in asking. Last I checked the RLA doesn't limit the number of times we can ask.
I can understand where you're coming from if you think the company is negotiating in good faith. But if that's what you think then we have bigger problems than agreeing on strategy. If, on the other hand, you believe the company has not been negotiating in good faith, then why would you object to asking for release?
If they say 'no', what is the companies basis for further delay and removing the alleged mid Jun 'agreement'? Spite?
That's all the more reason for US to have 'lobbyists'.
I'm confused. Which timeline? We've all agreed on so many that I lose track.
You really need to think this through in more detail. This isn't a one shot Hail Mary.... Even if they say 'no', there is no harm or jeopardy in asking. Last I checked the RLA doesn't limit the number of times we can ask.
I can understand where you're coming from if you think the company is negotiating in good faith. But if that's what you think then we have bigger problems than agreeing on strategy. If, on the other hand, you believe the company has not been negotiating in good faith, then why would you object to asking for release?
F16....Don't object to a release at all and of couse the company hasnt negotiates in good faith..But I do object to your MCs finger to the CAL pilots by not communicating with my leadership on what is clearly a joint decison. In fact, i like the intent and aggressiveness... if it doesnt screw up a better approach/ strategy to getting a JCBA sooner. No one but UA knows and thats not good enough..UA MEC may have done this level of strategy development but no one on the CAL side is yet briefed. iIf he has a gameplan that will work, then count me in...but dont expect CAL guys to blindly trust your leadership above our own until he communicates with us. If he wants our support then talk with the other half of joint...
04-25-2012, 05:26 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
Shack!
CALFO~
The points/facts above are spot on. After conversing with the MEC member who went on record, and forwent signing JP's letter last week echoed exactly what you stated. He stated that the entire CAL-MEC was NOT briefed, thus his motion to NOT endorse the summary w/o being directly briefed by JH's gang (open discussion/Q & A) would have been disingenuous on his part.
I will be he FIRST to admit, having the respective MEC's display a public unwillingness to work in concert is appalling. Hopefully both J's (and their gang's) will get "lock-step" before pulling the aforementioned "release" trigger in a matter of weeks.
Clocks tick'in.
CALFO~
The points/facts above are spot on. After conversing with the MEC member who went on record, and forwent signing JP's letter last week echoed exactly what you stated. He stated that the entire CAL-MEC was NOT briefed, thus his motion to NOT endorse the summary w/o being directly briefed by JH's gang (open discussion/Q & A) would have been disingenuous on his part.
I will be he FIRST to admit, having the respective MEC's display a public unwillingness to work in concert is appalling. Hopefully both J's (and their gang's) will get "lock-step" before pulling the aforementioned "release" trigger in a matter of weeks.
Clocks tick'in.
04-25-2012, 05:29 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by Slammer
F16....Don't object to a release at all and of couse the company hasnt negotiates in good faith..But I do object to your MCs finger to the CAL pilots by not communicating with my leadership on what is clearly a joint decison. In fact, i like the intent and aggressiveness... if it doesnt screw up a better approach/ strategy to getting a JCBA sooner. No one but UA knows and thats not good enough..UA MEC may have done this level of strategy development but no one on the CAL side is yet briefed. iIf he has a gameplan that will work, then count me in...but dont expect CAL guys to blindly trust your leadership above our own until he communicates with us. If he wants our support then talk with the other half of joint...
04-25-2012, 05:35 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by ualheavy
Have your MEC chairman call our MEC chairman. Let's get this done.
Can we get Obama and the NMB on the line too?
Let's have a "party line"....................a conga line, or a picket line. But, just those 2 won't cut it.
This is too funny.
popcorn, beer, moon crickets a chirpin.....
Come on.............ya'll be cool.
04-25-2012, 06:02 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 767 F/O
Posts: 303
Jay Hepner was part the the UAL MEC negotiating committee so I think he knows better than most if the company is "negotiaing" in good faith or not. I support him 100%. It's time to get a contract. NOW.
