TPA will not expire
11-25-2012, 09:21 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: IAH 737 CA
Posts: 690
Originally Posted by Pilotbiffster
The idea that this misrepresentation is being propagated by at least two former stewards of the MEC who knew of the negotiations of this provision is irresponsible
11-25-2012, 09:27 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: Cub Cap
Posts: 175
The people who negotiated the TP&A know. The company negotiators know how they will testify as to "the intent" of that provision in the inevitable grievance. That will be the year after next, long after the company does what it wants to do with the whipsaw.
Didn't the UAL-MEC lose 44 million of ALPA dollars on the bond issue because no one wanted to ask what was the negotiators intent for that money? It did not even have to go to court.
Didn't the UAL-MEC lose 44 million of ALPA dollars on the bond issue because no one wanted to ask what was the negotiators intent for that money? It did not even have to go to court.
11-25-2012, 09:45 AM
#23
Not on Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Seat 0A
Posts: 117
Originally Posted by Coach67
The guys in 1985 didn't vote out of fear and they got rid of the B-Scale. I won't vote out of fear either even if it's my own MEC trying to use fear tactics!
11-25-2012, 03:27 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Coach67
This is for those that are interested in propagating fear AND for those that want the facts:
Here are the pertinent lines,
"if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date."
It doesn't say have a TA on that date. It says "by that date." It also doesn't say a ratified TA or a JCBA.
But guess what ... it is differentiated in another section of the TPA that contains the following statement:
If at any time the JNCs reach a tentative JCBA but it fails to be approved, ratified or executed under ALPA procedures, the Parties will apply for or resume the NMB’s mediatory services, unless they agree not to do so.
So clearly the parties differentiated between reaching a TA for the purposes of the expiration clauses, AND one that fails to be approved, ratified and executed to reengage the NMB. There were no such qualifiers put on the terminable provision clause.
So if there are still those trying to propagate fear … their points are baseless. The parties wouldn't articulate it one way in one section of the T&PA and another way with ratified language / failed TA in another part of the T&PA unless there was meant for a clear distinction. In this case, the actual language supports the fact that the terminable provisions do not terminate because there was a TA reached "by that date.”
The idea that this misrepresentation of expiring provisions being propagated by the MEC to place fear in those that would vote NO is the thing that is irresponsible! Not the former stewards of the Association who are pointing out the facts to assuage some fear!
No one is attempting to convince you to vote yes or no ... just however you vote ... don't fall into the vote for fear trap!
11-26-2012, 05:07 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by UalHvy
Why don't you ask the people that negotiated the agreement what it means. Their take is different than yours.
I predict they will give a very definitive answer after the TA vote is announced!
11-26-2012, 05:51 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Coach67
I have and they've dodged the question! Their answers are very vague and won't come out and say that they do expire!
I predict they will give a very definitive answer after the TA vote is announced!
I predict they will give a very definitive answer after the TA vote is announced!
11-26-2012, 08:22 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 168
TPA will not expire
"Are you prepared then to take a gamble with your fellow 6000+ UAL pilots' careers and assume that things will turn out alright with your assumption? I for one am not in a position to risk my family's livelihood. "
By voting yes you are costing my family over $60k and 54 days vacation in the next four years. Plus it'll set me up for a staple.
So yes, you are screwing the careers of the bottom 2000 pilots at UAL.
Thanks, we won't forget it.
By voting yes you are costing my family over $60k and 54 days vacation in the next four years. Plus it'll set me up for a staple.
So yes, you are screwing the careers of the bottom 2000 pilots at UAL.
Thanks, we won't forget it.
11-26-2012, 09:29 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
If the furlough protection is terminated, then each furloughee will receive 4.5 mo furlough pay, a short, well deserved vacation with the family, and the a job on the CAL side at the pay rate you left s-UAL with.
That would be an expensive proposition for management.
That would be an expensive proposition for management.
11-26-2012, 11:53 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: F-16
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by uaav8r
I fully get why sCAL guys don't want to vote this thing in. They are in a position to gamble. If it fails, every month that passes beyond december represents massive movement and career progression on their side that can't be undone and there is absolutely zero risk on their part.
11-26-2012, 12:05 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Dicecal
Why would this matter? Wasn't the merger "snapshot" taken once the merger was announced or completed? If so, anything that happens after should not matter for the SLI. Also, if CAL pilots want to drag their feet for a possible advantage in the SLI and continue working under their terrible contact..does not make much sense to me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
