|
Originally Posted by Zoomie
(Post 1178626)
I agree with the original poster regarding our EWR reps words concerning the pace of negotiations. I hate every word of it. I also despise JP saying almost the same thing to the press about a month ago. Here's some of the problem. UAL pilots won't ever control who the CAL MEC chairman or who the CAL reps are...
Let me reiterate, the UAL side with its recent actions have just made it harder, not easier, to replace anyone the UAL side might not like on the CAL side. Anyone ever heard the old Aesop's fable regarding "The wind and the sun"? While not a perfect analogy, I think you'll get my point. The more the UAL group tries to affect the leadership of the CAL group, the less likely anything will happen to the CAL leadership. Even the reps that I'm pretty sure don't agree with JP on most issues, support him when it comes to having the UAL MEC dictate who will lead the CAL group. That's reality here. The more the UAL MEC pushes to have the CAL chairman removed, the less likely its going to happen. How did that whole "Glenn's gotta go" campaign work out? It's human nature and psychology here. If you want someone gone and you know they're bad for the company/union you can't force them out when you work for the other side. You have to convince the other side (CAL side) that the person is bad for them. Explaining to CAL pilots that the person who got them profit sharing is the bad guy is not going to be a successful campaign. |
Originally Posted by SOTeric
(Post 1178802)
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the actions of the UAL MEC are less about trying to "dictate" their will upon the CAL group and more about getting something done about securing a LONG overdue contract in spite of the actions (or inaction) of the management lap dog of a CAL MC.
-refuses to support integration training efforts -goes outside of tpa to secure monetary gain(profit sharing or grievance?) -lip service support for a release request while proposing more meetings and protocols -stipulates UAL MEC drop profit sharing grievance against UCH for his support of joint MEC meeting |
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1178815)
Pierce,
-stipulates UAL MEC drop profit sharing grievance against UCH for his support of joint MEC meeting If it is true, I will question him on it, at the local council meeting. Motch |
Originally Posted by horrido27
(Post 1178817)
Can you please post some sort of Blastmail/MEC News/Rep Email that backs up this statement.
If it is true, I will question him on it, at the local council meeting. Motch |
Ok, can you at least tell us which council, which position.. when you heard this?
That way, when I question my guys (and gal) I can point to a specific person. It's my understanding you have 6 different councils, with FO & Capt Reps plus Sec Treas... When I directly questioned your Council 11 Sec Treas in IAD last Wed (Apr 25th) about a meeting with Jay P.. he backed off of his statement. He stated that Jay P has been invited to meetings with your MEC Chair, and he refused. When I asked him directly- "Are you saying that your MEC Chair, Jay Heppner.. invited Jay Peirce to a meeting to discuss the fact that the UAL MEC was going to be putting out an announcement requesting release.. just after agreeing to a June 15th timeline with the company?!" His answer was.. "um, no". Think it's kinda important that we try to stick with facts as much as possible, because all these rumors will do nothing more that break us further apart. That's also why Emails are King! Hard to deny something you put on paper, with your name to it. Motch PS>If your MEC is anything like ours (and from what I've read and heard.. it is), what one council says and does may be very different than what another council says and does... on some issues. |
Originally Posted by horrido27
(Post 1178873)
Ok, can you at least tell us which council, which position.. when you heard this?
That way, when I question my guys (and gal) I can point to a specific person. It's my understanding you have 6 different councils, with FO & Capt Reps plus Sec Treas... When I directly questioned your Council 11 Sec Treas in IAD last Wed (Apr 25th) about a meeting with Jay P.. he backed off of his statement. He stated that Jay P has been invited to meetings with your MEC Chair, and he refused. When I asked him directly- "Are you saying that your MEC Chair, Jay Heppner.. invited Jay Peirce to a meeting to discuss the fact that the UAL MEC was going to be putting out an announcement requesting release.. just after agreeing to a June 15th timeline with the company?!" His answer was.. "um, no". Think it's kinda important that we try to stick with facts as much as possible, because all these rumors will do nothing more that break us further apart. That's also why Emails are King! Hard to deny something you put on paper, with your name to it. Motch PS>If your MEC is anything like ours (and from what I've read and heard.. it is), what one council says and does may be very different than what another council says and does... on some issues. Just ask the question based on the info you have now. Do you REALLY need to have an airtight case before asking your reps questions?? Personally, my rep wouldn't tell me what the specific condition(s) was, but he did say it was outrageous and ridiculous. Methinks you have enough justification to ask questions at this point. |
Yeah, I do..
I'm not going to waste my time, or my reps time with the dozen of so different rumors that I hear and read every day. If I hear something directly, I post it. I posted the date and who I spoke with in IAD the other day.. nothing to hide. Again, this being a Forum where 99% of the posters aren't identified, most of the stuff I read on here I take with a grain of salt as there are literally only a handful who have had the balls to identify themselves.. and therefore have put their reputations at risk. There's a new UAL(CAL) Pilot Forum.. United Pilot Forum Join up.. put me down as the reference (if you want, or don't~).. and then we can all talk like we were at a Union meeting, or bar.. where we know who we are talking to, and can verify what people are saying. Motch |
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
(Post 1178694)
As far a work rules, I know that was the JNC's early stance (a'la Heppner/Owens) coming to the table, but no where have I ever read that the "company's" stance as to where the starting/gamet point stood?? I'm ALL for have the starting point there, and land miles North of that even. DON'T get me wrong.....just trying to dice facts v oppinion.
As far as 'withdrew'.....They've (MGT) have pulled back on several items over the corse of the process, "smoke and mirrors" vs that of 'good faith' come to mind?!?! R&I being one of the most recent topics of pull-back on MGT's part. (See below) JNC: 04-27-12 "The group reviewed the progress achieved during the week in the area of Scheduling, and spent significant time addressing ways to surmount the current difficulty in resolving disability, and retirement and insurance (R&I) issues. Actuaries are being used to resolve differing opinions in the valuation of certain items in R&I in an effort to break the log jam". My source for that is my reps, via the JNC at the time. Before the DOJ approved the merger, the company successfully snowed Wendy and JP into thinking they would have a quick, good contract including UAL workrules as a baseline. This kept Wendy and JP from lobbying the DOJ to protect our interests ala Delta. As soon as the DOJ approved the merger, negotiations went violently backwards. In my opinion, this was the BIG failure of our union leadership on both sides. We blew the leverage we had, and we have never recovered. Cost Wendy her job, rightly so. The JNC update that you quoted comes just a week or so after the JNC update stating the company retreated to 2010 positions on R&I. I'm sick of JNC updates. They are grasping at straws about "progress". I'll agree we are making progress when we actually reach a TA on even ONE major section. Delta opened up early, and they are meeting most days a week. Reports are they are perhaps weeks from a deal. I'm not satisfied |
Originally Posted by horrido27
(Post 1178873)
Ok, can you at least tell us which council, which position.. when you heard this?
That way, when I question my guys (and gal) I can point to a specific person. It's my understanding you have 6 different councils, with FO & Capt Reps plus Sec Treas... When I directly questioned your Council 11 Sec Treas in IAD last Wed (Apr 25th) about a meeting with Jay P.. he backed off of his statement. He stated that Jay P has been invited to meetings with your MEC Chair, and he refused. When I asked him directly- "Are you saying that your MEC Chair, Jay Heppner.. invited Jay Peirce to a meeting to discuss the fact that the UAL MEC was going to be putting out an announcement requesting release.. just after agreeing to a June 15th timeline with the company?!" His answer was.. "um, no". Think it's kinda important that we try to stick with facts as much as possible, because all these rumors will do nothing more that break us further apart. That's also why Emails are King! Hard to deny something you put on paper, with your name to it. Motch PS>If your MEC is anything like ours (and from what I've read and heard.. it is), what one council says and does may be very different than what another council says and does... on some issues. |
^+1
Exactly! In this day and age, there is no reason NOT to cross potentate the messages that are coming out of the MEC/LEC. Do they (the Reps) really believe that what they are putting out is NOT going to make it to the other side.. or that the company ISN'T going to be reading them? Hell No. As you states, it's easy to pin the reps when you have their written words, or a rebuttal from the other side. What I also find somewhat interesting is that, with all the Local Councils out there.. we have only seen a handful of Blastmails/News.. coming from EWR, CLE, The CAL MEC, The UAL MEC, a UAL West Coast Council and an East Coast Council. I did read a UAL Blastmail from (Capt?) Barton.. kinda interesting. Motch |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:09 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands