At issue is....
 

I've spent the past two days thinking about what has happened to our collective progress, or lack thereof depending on which "side" you listen to. I referenced a section of the latest "Magenta Line" put forth by the EWR reps. It's important enough that I felt compelled to post it again in its own thread.

" I spoke one on one with our Negotiating Committee Chairman Captain Dave Owens for 45 minutes several weeks ago, and he provided me great details on the progress made to that point. I was frankly amazed at how far management has moved to improve scheduling work rules beyond what any Continental pilot has ever experienced, at least since 1983 and before. The slave labor days of no contract, C'95, C'97 and C'02 will finally come to a close."

This literally stunned me. I'm not even sure how to react to this, but I've been trying to collect my thoughts. In my mind, this is a micro example of our main issue. In an attempt to keep this from a name calling, finger pointing mess, I will explain why I find this disturbing to say the least.

1) Two years ago, management verbally committed to using UAL work rules as a base line, and negotiating up since they are hugely concessionary rules only extractable in Ch 11. They withdrew that promise the minute the DOJ approved the merger.

2) 15 or so months later, we still can't get to UAL work rules. While the EWR reps might be shocked at how far management moved, I'm shocked that we've spent this long trying to undo another management broken promise.

3) I can't believe that a MEC rep would post this opinion, as it publicly tells the company and the mediator that we are more than happy with the pace of negotiations. I find this mind boggling, as spending over a year to still fall short of a previously promised position is management stalling at its best.

4) If it's taken us this long to negotiate to keep our CRAPPY work rules, how long is it going to take to negotiate the REAL meat of the contract, which is scope? JP's assertion that we are starting super negotiations rings hollow to me, as that was promised in January, yet we still meet once a week with no real decision makers who skip meetings when it's convenient? If JP truly believes management when they recently agreed to a June 15th target, then JH's request that they put it in writing should be no problem.

Long and short. I'm trying to understand this publication by the EWR MEC. I have no personal beef with the CAL pilots that weren't scabs. I don't even have a personal beef with JP, though I firmly believe that he and Wendy mishandled this merger in epic fashion. I want action, and I want results. And I'm not understanding how every UCH pilot doesnt feel the same. Could somebody please explain to me how putting this Magenta Line out helps us with a Joint Contract? That's the stated goal that everyone claims to be working towards?

By the way, this isn't about CAL vs UAL. I was EXTREMELY vocal about my displeasure with how Wendy handles the UAL MEC at the beginning of the merger process

GB..
It just my opinion.. but I believe the ML was put out to the CAL 170 pilots, so they could have an understanding of how the process should work, and why they feel that they were blindsided.

The ML that is posted on this Forum is missing the header, (I believe) so I am going to post it here.
Mind you, many CAL pilots are trying to figure out this unilateral move by your side.

The last two weeks have been among the most interesting and the most frustrating in our tenure as your elected reps. We understand that the result for our pilots has been a renewal of questions about the path to a deal under the RLA and the strategy of a “petition for release”. Questions have been raised about joint strategy and the value of unilateral strategic decisions. Please bear with us while we try to answer some of your concerns. Put on your strategic hats as you read and be mindful of how all of these pieces tie together
Magenta Line, Friday April 27th

So.. as far as your question is concerned- "How does this help us with a Joint Contract", I don't know. I do feel that your MEC doing what they did without the approval or even knowledge of my MEC doesn't help us either, with regards to a Joint Contract.

When this merger came down, there were many of the CAL side that were worried that since you (the UAL Side) outnumbered us, you would be able to push through a deal that you felt was better to your side, or at least met your minimums.. without the CAL side having enough power to stop it.
But under the guise of a JOINT Neg Comm, and with the two MEC's talking to each other, we were assured that nothing would be forced upon our side. That it would be give and take on both side.

After the UAL MEC announcement on the 16th of April, many CAL Pilots are trying to figure what is going on, and where does this lead us.
The Magenta Line is meant to address the concerns of those pilots.

BTW, did you not think that the last part was dead on?

A unilateral strategy on the part of either MEC is doomed to failure. It is as reckless as it is arrogant, for the United MEC to unilaterally make and implement strategic decisions about our JOINT Collective Bargaining Agreement, which Continental pilot representatives took no part in, and first learned of via the press. This merger was announced on day one as “a merger of equals.” Indeed, it was the Continental shareholders who received a premium in the stock merger. This merger does NOT in any way, shape or form resemble American Airlines buying Reno Air, or Southwest buying AirTran. “Merger of equals” means equal partners in negotiating a JOINT Collective Bargaining Agreement. “Equal partners” does not mean that one party unilaterally makes critical strategic decisions, then announces, “this is the plan, (blindly) follow us.”

With all of that said, our entire MEC recognizes the fact that we have all waited far too long to get out from under a terrible contract that completely gutted the already immature and incomplete IACP C'97. If we persevere just a little longer, we can truly WORK TOGETHER with the United MEC as EQUAL PARTNERS to JOINTLY secure the JOINT contract we all deserve. There is simply no other way. Stay tuned, stay informed, and do not allow management to shift the blame – and your anger - toward our union.

Tomorrow is April 30th. One of the deadlines of your announcement. Let's see what happens next.

Motch

CAL work rules will be illegal in two years. Not much of a point discussing them.
The UAL contract is actually fairly close to being legal.

This is about trust. I know L-CAL pilots deserved profit sharing but JP broke ranks to get it. Between that and the SOC, the trust is gone and from my point of view as a L-UAL pilot, I hope no one on the UALMEC ever trust JP again. It's that simple. Moving unilaterally is certainly not preferred but we are where we are. Actions, not words. JMO

I agree. This is exactly what I told my LEC reps in January. FWIW I also wrote the same thing to the ALPA President.... At least the my LEC reps listened!

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.

You bring up some very interesting and valid points. There is a lot of politics and ego involved on both sides. More than I'm sure both pilot groups desire.

I'm wondering myself why JH chose to make the announcement he did without the prior cooperation of the CAL MEC. I'm purely speculating here, but I wonder if the part of the magenta line that I quoted is the reason. Despite management promises for a quick contract, we are 2 years in with not a single major section agreed to. This is wholly unacceptable. I don't know what has been going on behind the scenes, but with JP's continued public proffering that things are going well, and the EWR reps astonishment at how great management is being regarding the work rules that they promised over a year ago, it might be that continued efforts to draw the line in the sand with management have been repeatedly rebuffed by JP and the CAL MEC. At some point, JH has to produce for the UAL pilots, as that is his job. 2 years with nothing of substance to show for it is a long time. When does it become so long that we can't wait any longer without doing SOMETHING? For me it was about a year ago.

I'm truly saddened and dismayed that this has played out the way it has. But for me the time has come to act. As I've said before, I would get behind any leader from either side that wants to send the message to the world that enough is enough. Tomorrow will be a new era one way or another. Hope we can all find a way to work together in the future. Both MEC's and MC have been entirely inflexible in this regard for far too long

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".

I recall that as well, except they were saying it well into the summer. I think they changed their view when they actually started negotiations in the fall and really saw UAL's contract and said no way.