UAL wins temporary injunction against pilots

[BigRed1]

"UAL said the union had engaged in a campaign to encourage members to adhere strictly to contract terms and refuse voluntary assignments as a way of pressuring management to open contract talks early. The current contract expires at the end of 2009."

Read that bolded text over and over again. Tell me how that is illegal?

Since when is adhering strictly to the contract, and refusing to fly VOLUNTARY assignments illegal?

We have been working under draconian contract conditions for more than 2000 days. At some point, ya stop doing anything voluntarily, and you don't give the company any extra help. Especially when they are kicking pilots to the curb...AGAIN. There is no more good will left and it just got even worse.

Big Red 1

 

[Jetjockey]

That's exactly what crossed my mind when I read that. I think following the contract to the letter is a must at all times.

 

[WayBack]

So is the ALPA slogan "Takin' it Back" or "Takin' it in the Back?"
stlflyguy

Again, another prime example showing how useless ALPA really is.
Do as the USAir guys did and vote them off.

 

[GuppyWN]

I would suspect that paying higher wages and giving a rats behind about your employees increases extra flying.

They have been kicking you guys in the balls for years - and they want your help?

************************* that.

JMO,
Gup

p.s. How's that PBS workin' for you?

 

[veneratio]

That is so unfair it's not even funny. I agree with GuppyWN, ******************** that.

 

[Freight Dog]

Unfair? Why of course!

Bankruptcy laws are unfairly stacked against labor too. Only in America can a company go bankrupt, employees take massive paycuts and CEO's and management get massive bonuses at the same time.

If ALPA wants to change anything, it will have to resort to revolutionary measures. Yes, it means a wildcat strike. It means walking off the job, and telling the lawmakers, judges, the president of the USA, and everyone else - BITE ME! Address our issues, and we'll get back to work.

It will take drastic actions, and ALPA is unwilling to take them. Oh well... maybe they'll be able to get enough PAC money to overcome the management lobbyists.

 

[DX Rick]

It will take drastic actions, and ALPA is unwilling to take them. Oh well... maybe they'll be able to get enough PAC money to overcome the management lobbyists.

Good luck with that!
ALPA seems to be in managements hip pocket most of the time.

 

[JakeSnake]

"UAL said the union had engaged in a campaign to encourage members to adhere strictly to contract terms and refuse voluntary assignments as a way of pressuring management to open contract talks early. The current contract expires at the end of 2009."

Read that bolded text over and over again. Tell me how that is illegal?

Since when is adhering strictly to the contract, and refusing to fly VOLUNTARY assignments illegal?

We have been working under draconian contract conditions for more than 2000 days. At some point, ya stop doing anything voluntarily, and you don't give the company any extra help. Especially when they are kicking pilots to the curb...AGAIN. There is no more good will left and it just got even worse.

Big Red 1

""Wallach explained that although ALPA could not tell pilots , "here is your Flight Manual, FOM, and pilot agreement. Abide by it." Wallach thus plainly identified these instructions as code words for a work to rule or slowdown action."

The quote above is taken directly from the judges finding. She was even able to cite a previous courts finding that a "work by the book" suggestions by unions are code words and signals to engage in illegal job actions.

Unbelievable to me that a judge can cite a union encouraging some of the most regulated/controlled workers in this country to abide by written rules and contracts as evidence that the union is encouraging illegal activity!!!??? So I guess I can extrapolate that if a union were to encourage its members not to abide by contracts and regulations, then the union would be engaged in perfectly lawful and sanctioned conduct! HAHAHA.

I'd like the court to give me a code and signal interpretation book that will tell me what regulations/flight manual limits/contract provisions that I should not follow....

Here is the link to the courts decision... http://www.ualinfo.com/docs/Mem.Order.11-17-08.pdf

 

[ultrarunner]

"refusing to fly extra hours"? Since when were pilots EXPECTED to fly extra?

Since the company can fall back on the RLA's "Status Quo" provisions.

To use a VERY basic and simple example....

Say you have X number of drivers picking up X number of hrs in open-time, green-slips, whatever...and this goes on for a relatively significant period of time.

Then all of a sudden, those X number of pilots stop doing that....

Well, that's not the Status Quo. And the company can use the Status Quo provision of the RLA to enforce the "previous practice".

I know, I know...it's crazy...and this specific example at UAL underscores the need for someone to introduce legislation to flush the RLA down the toilet.

Why ALPA is not taking the lead on this I have no idea...oh wait, I can't believe I just said that...

Never mind....

 

[hockeypilot44]

Since the company can fall back on the RLA's "Status Quo" provisions.

To use a VERY basic and simple example....

Say you have X number of drivers picking up X number of hrs in open-time, green-slips, whatever...and this goes on for a relatively significant period of time.

Then all of a sudden, those X number of pilots stop doing that....

Well, that's not the Status Quo. And the company and use that provision of the RLA to enforce the "previous practice".

I know, I know...it's crazy...and this specific example at UAL underscores the need for someone to introduce legislation to flush the RLA down the toilet.

Why ALPA is not taking the lead on this I have no idea...oh wait, I can't believe I just said that...

Never mind....

Okay. I'll play devil's advocate. Let's look at Spirit. Block time was done the same way for years. All of the sudden they changed out time from door closing to when the airplane first moves on its own power. I think this is in the process of going to arbitration. I can almost guarantee you the company will win this situation also. Judges are extremely anti-labor these days. Until we conduct an illegal strike and bring credibility back to ourselves, we will continue getting raped.

 

[Kharma Police]

Just be glad McCain won't be in office in Jan.

"McCain, a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam, accused pilots at UAL Corp.'s United Airlines of carrying out "work stoppages to satisfy their personal greed" and noted a sickout by pilots at AMR Corp.'s American Airlines last year."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TRAVEL/NEWS/09/14/airlines.delays.reut/index.html

 

[ultrarunner]

Okay. I'll play devil's advocate. Let's look at Spirit. Block time was done the same way for years. All of the sudden they changed out time from door closing to when the airplane first moves on its own power. I think this is in the process of going to arbitration. I can almost guarantee you the company will win this situation also. Judges are extremely anti-labor these days. Until we conduct an illegal strike and bring credibility back to ourselves, we will continue getting raped.

I hear what your saying. I will agree, the company will likely win on your example about. BUT, a "method" under which "pay" is calculated is far different from a Status Quo issue related to operating the schedule. This is there the RLA provisions come into play in my example, and the UAL case and essentially protects the company.

 

[ualdriver]

Since the company can fall back on the RLA's "Status Quo" provisions.

To use a VERY basic and simple example....

Say you have X number of drivers picking up X number of hrs in open-time, green-slips, whatever...and this goes on for a relatively significant period of time.

Then all of a sudden, those X number of pilots stop doing that....

Well, that's not the Status Quo. And the company can use the Status Quo provision of the RLA to enforce the "previous practice".

I know, I know...it's crazy...and this specific example at UAL underscores the need for someone to introduce legislation to flush the RLA down the toilet.

Why ALPA is not taking the lead on this I have no idea...oh wait, I can't believe I just said that...

Never mind....

I'm not sure why you rewrote what I just said in post 5 but........

You talk about ALPA needing to "take the lead" on dismantling the RLA. Do you think that would happen with a Bush (or a Republican) in the White House?

And I think you will see ALPA "take the lead" on making changes to the RLA, or at least trying to. There's a reason why ALPA was happy to see Obama get elected and some Republicans flushed from Congress. Having the opportunity to perhaps make some much needed changes to the RLA is one of many reasons. In fact, I think they have stated that (or written that) before.

 

[ultrarunner]

Ahh...sorry UALdriver, I should have read your post more carefully. I didn't mean to repeat it in my example.

Now, the chance of a modification to the RLA with a the Dem vs. Rep will remain to be seen. I am cautiously optimistic.

But make no mistake...unions are still going to have a rough road.

Think about it....today you've the the CEO's of the big 3 automakers begging for BILLIONS of dollars....at some point, someone is going to say..."ya know...if you release us from these "union" contracts" we'll be MUCH more competitive.

There is a reason the union guys are there too....

My money is not betting on the union over the next several years.

 

[hockeypilot44]

I hear what your saying. I will agree, the company will likely win on your example about. BUT, a "method" under which "pay" is calculated is far different from a Status Quo issue related to operating the schedule. This is there the RLA provisions come into play in my example, and the UAL case and essentially protects the company.

Status-quo is status-quo. We always lose in arbitration. Even when we win in arbitration, we lose somehow. I remember a few years ago, at Chautauqua they changed our health benefits to something less advantageous. It was against our contract. We went to arbitration and won. The companie's reaction was to raise everyone's premium and blame the premium increase on the pilots. The CEO even put out a memo that mentioned the unfortunate result of the arbitration. It is impossible for labor to win in arbitration until we get more labor-friendly judges or more labor-friendly management. You and I both know management will never change so let's hope the judge's do.