Baghdad Bob "Attrition is the Answer"
05-02-2015 | 06:54 AM
#201
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
Yeah? I'm still waiting for the C33 resolution from our displacements last summer, and apparently this coming summer. And the council 27 resolution. And council 12.....
05-02-2015 | 08:20 AM
#204
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
All LUAL furloughees were offered employment at LCAL and then new hiring started before the SLI. Everything was above board.
05-02-2015 | 08:36 AM
#205
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
05-02-2015 | 09:07 AM
#206
Banned
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
The deal making may be legendary but I don't think the MEC will agree to a carve-out for a "special" group at the expense of the entire group.
If the "Houston carve-out" has grandfather rights, we should also expect to see the same rights granted to all bumps and base closings going forward. Maybe even make it retroactive to all past bumps and base closings since merger.
05-02-2015 | 09:28 AM
#207
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
From: Gets weekends off
The deal making may be legendary but I don't think the MEC will agree to a carve-out for a "special" group at the expense of the entire group.
If the "Houston carve-out" has grandfather rights, we should also expect to see the same rights granted to all bumps and base closings going forward. Maybe even make it retroactive to all past bumps and base closings since merger.
If the "Houston carve-out" has grandfather rights, we should also expect to see the same rights granted to all bumps and base closings going forward. Maybe even make it retroactive to all past bumps and base closings since merger.
05-02-2015 | 09:38 AM
#208
Banned
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
I agree, this is why it's important that the MEC not allow the "Houston carve-out".
05-02-2015 | 09:50 AM
#209
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
So they sell it as a retroactive, system-wide blanket policy going forward. Make it an LOA. It could be sold that way to the MEC. The reality is a grandfather policy, such as for two years, would likely only benefit the 200 737 CAs in IAH. So it would be a defacto carve out. But spin is spin. The company doesn't care as long as it costs them nothing.
05-02-2015 | 11:22 AM
#210
Banned
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
So they sell it as a retroactive, system-wide blanket policy going forward. Make it an LOA. It could be sold that way to the MEC. The reality is a grandfather policy, such as for two years, would likely only benefit the 200 737 CAs in IAH. So it would be a defacto carve out. But spin is spin. The company doesn't care as long as it costs them nothing.
Base closings and surpluses are covered very well in our CBA. Why is it that the Houston LEC wants to negotiate a special "Houston carve-out" without the benefit of the negotiating committee and normal vetting.
This is an appropriate quote:
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
