So, how did the the UAL MEC treat Mil leave guys, disabled guys, and furloughees?

 

UAL just took a straight percentage off of w-2 or considered earnings.

This actually "hurts" mil guys who were on mil leave, but it is "fair and across the board."

CAL decided to add a "longevity component" to the formula. When you add a longevity lookback, according to USSERA and perhaps LTD rules. Not very knowledgable about LTD. But, reading USSERA is pretty easy.

USSERA says employees who take military leave will not suffer for periods of time they are on military leave......lots of verbage, but short answer is, if you have one employee who receives a benefit of employment as a function of his longevity, or a period of service, then so will a military employee.

So, military guys continue to accrue seniority even while activated, or deployed. All benefits of employment attached to "longevity", "seniority" or periods of service that they were constructively present for shall not count against them.

So, a 48 month look-back to establish a method of calculation for their bonus/retro check is against federal law. CAL MEC knew this, voted in favor of following the law, then did a 180 and decided to send this TA out for a vote even though it violated their own MEC action. So, they high-lighted themselves when the ink dried. Sort of shows premeditation, sort of looks deliberate to me.....Legal word might be willful.

Either the NC had no knowledge of the action, or they disregarded it. I doubt they didn't know since the MEC Chair is a defacto member of the NC and the NC is considered "briefed" since one of their members was present for and in fact allowed the vote to take place. it was thus recorded in the MEC minutes, and further published to the membership.

 

The real problem with the CAL MEC is their mindset of what was in Chairman Pierce's position report today..................."ALPA has received quite a few individual method disputes from pilots, but they can be grouped into approximately 10 categories. Following the meetings next week, we will be one step closer to helping put the rest of your money due you into your pocket. When the CAL MEC was working to decide on the best allocation methodology for the CAL pilots, I recall saying there are any number of methods that could be considered as fair. (REALLY.. any number)

Certtainly, the concept of fair can mean different things to different people. However, as the process has played out and I have reviewed the method disputes received, I think it is noteworthy that in most cases, the "most fair" way to distribute the money described by the pilot making the dispute inevitably results in him being advantaged, at the expense, very literally, of all other pilots.


That's the problem folks The MEC, instead of negotiating a one size fits all policy, went out and disregarded their own motion, and federal law and found a way to reward (advantage) some people at the expense of others. What is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.

Why would they use a 48 month look back unless their was some way to reward someone? Were the reps, who were on association leave of absence for the last 48 bid months considered to have "good months?"

How can a rep on association leave have 48 good months, and not a military member? What about someone on maternity leave, or disability, or other forms of leave? Why put in the 48 month restriction at all?

CAL MEC thinks if they comply with federal law, they are taking away from others who are not. So, instead of complying with the law, they just ignore it. They also ignore their own military laison committee and military guard members on the MEC. But, UAL MEC did not do what the CAL MEC did. I wonder why/why not?

 

Thanks Otto. I'm no expert, but I've found over the years that "fairness" is certainly in the eye of the beholder.

 

Your glasses gotta be rose colored..........

 

While I agree the statement was over the top, the reality is if there's a buck to be made, you'll find a lawyer to take the case. You know you've got an ethical lawyer when they tell you a case is loser. Like you, I know lots of lawyers with morals, but pretending there's not a lot of dirtbags out there (yes, they exist in every profession) is to ignore reality. Don't know if you're LCAL or LUAL, but if you're not outraged over the sense of entitlement expressed by the lawyers in UALs bankruptcy filing, where the legal firms made close to a billion dollars while the rank and file employees lost billions, not much bothers you. The lawsuits over LOA25, "Retro", inevitably the SLI, etc. will probably produce nothing but billable hours for lawyers.

 

The problem is not with the "attorney."

The real problem is that our military members who are dues paying members in good standing don't have access to ALPA legal. So, they have to go out and get attorneys to represent them so that ALPA can be reminded of their obligation and duty to fairly and adequately represent them.

It's bad enough when you gotta fight managment. It's really bad when you gotta fight ALPA to get ALPA to take care of ALPA brothers and sisters and do the right thing.

I don't blame the military guys. Who else they gonna call......."ghost busters?" They need competent representaiton that their dues money is already paying for, yet they aren't entitled to it. Shame on ALPA.

Our military guard/reserve members get treated very poorly by CAL management, and to make matters worse, they get cheated by ALPA. Go figure.

 

That's true.

But, it's not about "fairness." I think its really about ALPA's duty of fair representaiton and application of USSERA law. CAL MEC should have done its homework and did exactly what UAL MEC did. No USSERA complaints by UAL legacy pilots. I guess they "behold fiarness", or their eyesight isn't 20 20.

 

Otto, I'm not an expert on USSERA, since I never took orders over a month and never had any of the problems getting mil leave, etc. that seem to have become all too prevalent over the last half dozen years. However, my recollection is you lose many of your benefits (medical for example) on extended mil leave.

Who was on leave?

There were two benefits I saw to the method CALALPA used. First, the WB pilots got a much larger hourly rate increase than the 737/757 pilots. That would have led to much larger retro for the WB pilots without the time in service (or whatever you want to call it) component. Second, it reduced the windfall to those who VJMed and maximized their pay at the expense of the rest of us. As you said, had we gone straight "retro" the mil leave pilots wouldn't have gotten any retro anyway.

 

Are you saying ALPA should provide its attorneys to members who want to sue it?