Next week? It almost says
10-21-2012 | 10:15 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 100
We must absolutely demand "retro" instead of a signing bonus, and here is why. It is a history refresher for UAL pilots, and a for the CAL side a lesson in what has been "played" on us before, recently.
In our exit from bankruptcy contract, we received a 550 million dollar convertible note, supposedly in lieu of the vested portion of our A fund. But it was not called that, just a note. If they called it retirement, it should have been doled out according to what we all had vested at the time.
Instead, our MEC, without allowing membership ratification, came up with a BS methodology to distribute the money unevenly with some getting a huge windfall, and others getting the shaft. (For me I got about what my vested A fund was. Just luck)
I asked out LEC members why they would not let us vote on this distribution plan. They said "you allowed us too. It is in the contract"
Sure as SH$#@, I read the contract, and the language in there said "to be distributed at the discretion of the MEC". That is a paraphrase. I don't remember the exact language. They had put this language in the TA draft on purpose.
IMHO, if they call this a "signing bonus" instead of retro, this will allow some to get more than they deserve, and penalize others. When the TA comes out, I recommend we all read what it says about the money, and if we get membership ratification on how it is distributed.
On the UAL side, we have been "played" a lot, to the financial dismay of many of us.
In our exit from bankruptcy contract, we received a 550 million dollar convertible note, supposedly in lieu of the vested portion of our A fund. But it was not called that, just a note. If they called it retirement, it should have been doled out according to what we all had vested at the time.
Instead, our MEC, without allowing membership ratification, came up with a BS methodology to distribute the money unevenly with some getting a huge windfall, and others getting the shaft. (For me I got about what my vested A fund was. Just luck)
I asked out LEC members why they would not let us vote on this distribution plan. They said "you allowed us too. It is in the contract"
Sure as SH$#@, I read the contract, and the language in there said "to be distributed at the discretion of the MEC". That is a paraphrase. I don't remember the exact language. They had put this language in the TA draft on purpose.
IMHO, if they call this a "signing bonus" instead of retro, this will allow some to get more than they deserve, and penalize others. When the TA comes out, I recommend we all read what it says about the money, and if we get membership ratification on how it is distributed.
On the UAL side, we have been "played" a lot, to the financial dismay of many of us.
10-22-2012 | 02:40 AM
#42
Don't say Guppy
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
Actually I misspoke a bit. Retro is my opinion, but I won't fight over it. I will fight over being given membership ratification over how the retro/bonus/whatever is doled out.
I think the total dollar amount needs to be 100 pcy of retro, or we have rewarded management for delaying. My opinion is that it should be simple retro. However if the membership decided to give some to the furloughees, then so be it. But it needs to be ratified by the membership. This was taken away from us in our previous contract and I don't think we should make the same mistake twice.
I am a voluntary furlough and expect zilch.
I think the total dollar amount needs to be 100 pcy of retro, or we have rewarded management for delaying. My opinion is that it should be simple retro. However if the membership decided to give some to the furloughees, then so be it. But it needs to be ratified by the membership. This was taken away from us in our previous contract and I don't think we should make the same mistake twice.
I am a voluntary furlough and expect zilch.
10-22-2012 | 04:20 AM
#43
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
From: 756 Left Side
Just to remind everyone what was stated at a local council meeting a few weeks ago [8 Oct 12].
It's no longer "Retro". It's a "Signing Bonus". And they (the Unions) need to figure a way to dole it out.
I'm expecting to Vote NO based on the "rumors" I've heard and the little bits of "facts" that I know.
But make no mistake- any amount less than what I expect as a "signing bonus/retro" is a NO. Most have stated it here eloquently... anything less than 100% rewards the company for their delaying tactics.
Motch
PS> On another Forum, someone came up with a good quote- "I'm not Delta minus anything"
It's no longer "Retro". It's a "Signing Bonus". And they (the Unions) need to figure a way to dole it out.
I'm expecting to Vote NO based on the "rumors" I've heard and the little bits of "facts" that I know.
But make no mistake- any amount less than what I expect as a "signing bonus/retro" is a NO. Most have stated it here eloquently... anything less than 100% rewards the company for their delaying tactics.
Motch
PS> On another Forum, someone came up with a good quote- "I'm not Delta minus anything"
10-22-2012 | 09:54 AM
#44
SLI best wishes!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: B767 Capt
Lee,
You are posting a lot of hearsay in an attempt to split the groups against one another. You are also combining disparate issues wrongly wrt the Wage Data request and Retro.
W-2 Wage Data for BOTH groups was a separate CBA issue that was arbitrated months ago and ruled that it is allowable (and has been used in previous mergers) as a component in the merger integration process. National is now deciding what the singular ALPA position on the matter will be. Has no bearing on Retro or is affecting the timeline at all.
The Retro arbitration is just that, both parties have floated several different proposals and it is up to the arbitrator to decide on a ratio split by either accepting one of the proposals or creating his own. This process has been separate and parallel to the final JCBA language and had had no bearing on the timeline. The JNC will be in Chicago next week to continue to work on language.
The only side guilty of holding up this process is UCH. And Jeffy is laughing his ass off every time he gets a pilot group to start pointing fingers at the other.
You are posting a lot of hearsay in an attempt to split the groups against one another. You are also combining disparate issues wrongly wrt the Wage Data request and Retro.
W-2 Wage Data for BOTH groups was a separate CBA issue that was arbitrated months ago and ruled that it is allowable (and has been used in previous mergers) as a component in the merger integration process. National is now deciding what the singular ALPA position on the matter will be. Has no bearing on Retro or is affecting the timeline at all.
The Retro arbitration is just that, both parties have floated several different proposals and it is up to the arbitrator to decide on a ratio split by either accepting one of the proposals or creating his own. This process has been separate and parallel to the final JCBA language and had had no bearing on the timeline. The JNC will be in Chicago next week to continue to work on language.
The only side guilty of holding up this process is UCH. And Jeffy is laughing his ass off every time he gets a pilot group to start pointing fingers at the other.
Jay Pierce at it again: an opportunity to fix pay & bands?
Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:19 pm
It turns out the drafting of contractual language is only part of the three-month holdup in getting a TA.
All parties, the company and both pilot groups’ members of the JNC, have agreed to a distribution of retro pay that would compensate pilots proportionally to difference between our pay and Delta’s pay since the respective amendable dates of our contracts. L-CAL has been without a contract for one more year than us, but there are more L-UAL pilots and the difference between our current rates and the JCBA rates would be greater for L-UAL pilots. That resulted in L-UAL being due 2/3 of the money set aside for retro pay rumored to be $400M. Again, the L-CAL members of the JNC agreed to this, Jay Pierce initially approved of it and it became an AIP between the three parties.
Unfortunately, Jay Pierce after consulting with his advisors including his Merger Committee has been trying to renege on this tripartite AIP and demanded that the agreement on retro be reopened. The UAL-MEC leadership refused, but offered binding arbitration on that specific issue, but Pierce said no suggesting non-binding arbitration instead. Obviously, that would solve nothing. Pierce then made it clear in no uncertain terms that if retro pay is not changed to a 50/50 signing bonus that he will ensure that his MEC votes no on any such a TA for that reason alone. So reportedly this will be resolved according to the new ALPA Administrative manual section 40 and 45. The ALPA Executive Board will likely also recommend binding arbitration to resolve this specific issue, but Pierce has said he will not comply. So then we could potentially get into the messy business of potential receivership.
IMO, we need a TA prior to the Presidential election in case Romney wins. If we can get a TA it now appears our MECs will know who the next President will be before they vote on whether to send it out for MR.
Regardless of who wins the Presidential election if the CAL-MEC votes against sending it out to the membership in an effort to change retro pay into a signing bonus, then I see this as an opportunity to reopen and fix these ridiculous pay bands and reportedly substandard pay. One solution would be to adopt the DAL pay rates that are far less banded and we deserve at least what they are making. We could also use this opportunity to secure full retro and the same 5% of the equity that DALPA received in their JCBA.
Meanwhile, the company is laughing their a$$es off as they save tens of millions of dollars every month we are without a JCBA.
Jay Pierce is the gift that just keeps giving to the company and taking from United pilots.
Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:19 pm
It turns out the drafting of contractual language is only part of the three-month holdup in getting a TA.
All parties, the company and both pilot groups’ members of the JNC, have agreed to a distribution of retro pay that would compensate pilots proportionally to difference between our pay and Delta’s pay since the respective amendable dates of our contracts. L-CAL has been without a contract for one more year than us, but there are more L-UAL pilots and the difference between our current rates and the JCBA rates would be greater for L-UAL pilots. That resulted in L-UAL being due 2/3 of the money set aside for retro pay rumored to be $400M. Again, the L-CAL members of the JNC agreed to this, Jay Pierce initially approved of it and it became an AIP between the three parties.
Unfortunately, Jay Pierce after consulting with his advisors including his Merger Committee has been trying to renege on this tripartite AIP and demanded that the agreement on retro be reopened. The UAL-MEC leadership refused, but offered binding arbitration on that specific issue, but Pierce said no suggesting non-binding arbitration instead. Obviously, that would solve nothing. Pierce then made it clear in no uncertain terms that if retro pay is not changed to a 50/50 signing bonus that he will ensure that his MEC votes no on any such a TA for that reason alone. So reportedly this will be resolved according to the new ALPA Administrative manual section 40 and 45. The ALPA Executive Board will likely also recommend binding arbitration to resolve this specific issue, but Pierce has said he will not comply. So then we could potentially get into the messy business of potential receivership.
IMO, we need a TA prior to the Presidential election in case Romney wins. If we can get a TA it now appears our MECs will know who the next President will be before they vote on whether to send it out for MR.
Regardless of who wins the Presidential election if the CAL-MEC votes against sending it out to the membership in an effort to change retro pay into a signing bonus, then I see this as an opportunity to reopen and fix these ridiculous pay bands and reportedly substandard pay. One solution would be to adopt the DAL pay rates that are far less banded and we deserve at least what they are making. We could also use this opportunity to secure full retro and the same 5% of the equity that DALPA received in their JCBA.
Meanwhile, the company is laughing their a$$es off as they save tens of millions of dollars every month we are without a JCBA.
Jay Pierce is the gift that just keeps giving to the company and taking from United pilots.
Last edited by LeeMat; 10-22-2012 at 10:09 AM.
10-22-2012 | 01:58 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Yes. I'm glad. Shut this POS down. About a $10 raise for me after this many years?? No way. I'm glad UA guys will get a big raise. I understand they will get more retro because of that, although we had an additional year of negotiations on you. But $10 freaking bucks? I dont care what rigs etc do. Soft time won't help reserves much. And we better not go backward from our 76 hour guarantee to UA levels. It will be a pay cut. So much for a loan...
10-22-2012 | 02:06 PM
#47
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
From: B787 CA - SFO
I talked to my Rep about the above post and he had already seen it. Basically, from the CAL perspective from people in the room, the only correct statement is that there is a dispute over the allotment of the lump sum disbursement and that UAL wants the majority of it. They are working on a dispute resolution process to move forward to an acceptable solution for all parties.
There are blocking and maneuvering shenanigans happening on BOTH sides.
Biggest mistake was allowing the company to wash their hands of the financial responsibility to directly pay out the retro. They got what they wanted by getting both MEC's to fight each other over table scraps.
There are blocking and maneuvering shenanigans happening on BOTH sides.
Biggest mistake was allowing the company to wash their hands of the financial responsibility to directly pay out the retro. They got what they wanted by getting both MEC's to fight each other over table scraps.
10-22-2012 | 02:17 PM
#48
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
From: 756 Left Side
We have a winner.
I stated the exact same thing to Jay P, in front of my fellow CAL 170 Pilots a few weeks ago [8 Oct 12].
This is/was a failure of the NC and the MEC Chairs for allowing this to happen. We walked right into the Company's hands on this one.
Motch
PS> we will NOT see a TA until this Signing Bonus (aka fake retro) is agreed upon between the two Unions.. and even then, it may not get past the MEC's~
10-22-2012 | 02:22 PM
#49
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 0
From: 756 Left Side
This just hit me...
Let's say that one side agrees to a certain split. Say (hypothetically), CAL ALPA agrees to a 40/60 cut.
All they then have to do is Vote NO at the MEC Level and the TA doesn't move further.. it goes back to the Company and NC to be resolved.
Problem with that senario is.. how often does/can it get Voted down NO before we're forced to say "Yes".
Again, here's the reason why we (CAL) were suppose to vet the finished TA before an MEC Vote.
If the Signing Bonus (fake Retro) fails, and then gets doubled.. but the leaked payscales are still in place- NO.
Motch
Let's say that one side agrees to a certain split. Say (hypothetically), CAL ALPA agrees to a 40/60 cut.
All they then have to do is Vote NO at the MEC Level and the TA doesn't move further.. it goes back to the Company and NC to be resolved.
Problem with that senario is.. how often does/can it get Voted down NO before we're forced to say "Yes".
Again, here's the reason why we (CAL) were suppose to vet the finished TA before an MEC Vote.
If the Signing Bonus (fake Retro) fails, and then gets doubled.. but the leaked payscales are still in place- NO.
Motch
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
