Contract membership ratification
 

Question for our S-CAL brothers.

The S-UAL MEC could with a simple 2/3 majority, ratify TIME CRITICAL agreements on our behalf. There are guidelines and restrictions written into the Membership Ratification (RA) language that define when this could done. Time critical, non economic impact etc.
My question is, does the S-CAL MR language allows for this kind of ratification.
Obviously this will not apply to the JCBA , but it could apply to other separate vote and side letters....
New rumors is that the company wants a different vote on the RETRO/Signing bonus!!

I am a little slow this morning, are you saying the company wants the MEC's to vote on the retro/signing apart from their vote on the TA? Or two separate votes for the pilot groups?

Liquid

All Rumors at this point, I am sure we will hear something soon with details of how these two votes will take place...The way one MEC Rep explained it, there will be two separate votes. What he did not say was if we get to vote on BOTH....
Obviously the JCBA will be for us to vote on. The Retro/bonus vote could be for the MEC per our MR language....hence my question to our S-CAL brothers, Does their agreement have MR language that could allow their MEC to hijack these types of separate agreements, side letter, time critical agreements etc....

Lee,

Very interesting rumor. Wonder how that's going to be received by the masses?

Lee, the other one

Not very well from the CAL side. That would be ridiculous to vote on this thing as two separate entities. What happens if the Contract passes and the retro doesn't or vice versa? Get it done as a single voting process period.

We did have some sort of resolution years ago that spelled out the MR of items. I am sort of winging it here as I am not sure how long ago or for what items the resolution covered. My limited memory says major economic changes to the CBA required MR. I know, "define major" :confused:

With all that said a lot of the CALALPA resolutions get buried, changed or modified by the NMB.....................................:rolleyes:

I think that's precisely the company's plan. Get a JCBA signed then fail to achieve a retro agreement after a "good faith" effort in front of the NMB....and that's assuming no change in the White House.

Further "Foot Dragging" on the Company's part in which to "Muddy the Waters"......Plain-n-Simple.

The Company already is sitting "Aces" by way of tossing a $$Chunk$$ to the herd and telling the MEC's to "Divvy" (in regard to retro/bonus). Mgt is afford "father time" in which to sit back and watch the Gong-Show ensue as their OWN coffer's grow by every passing minute under the current CBA's.

As you stated above, there's one way to do this......"SINGLE VOTING PROCESS, PERIOD".

You guys and gals, shame on you!

What we have here is a very very very little piece of non-info and some get bent out of shape. Just slow down and trust your reps a little please!

For example I heard from one speculative source that the AIP contained a major change in SL and many were going to get a jump on it by calling in sick and burning up their current SL. Must be true I, like others, heard a rumor.

Now for the truth. I asked someone I know who knows what's in the AIP and what is in there isn't much different than what we have and by "burning" up you SL you are basically sticking it to yourself. Yes my someone really is in the know.

The moral of the story is ONE VOTE on the TA of the JCBA is all we will get.