Is there anyone else besides Z-man who thinks it's perfectly alright for a group to come in and begin dismantling your contract just because they can, with no regard to how it will affect pilots.
Remember, we're not talking about a change that affect both east and west. The change USAPA is proposing is solely to the west contract.
Well since you asked??
Keep in mind that I do not have a dog in this firght, but just will try to 'clarify' things for you, not that you will listen or understand. But, we now have 3 pages of 'morons' ranting who definitely have a severe lack of understanding of the law. One moron on a previous page said; "if the company doesn't like it, let the company grieve it." Well, the company is not going to grieve it; they are just going to say, 'they are just not going to pay you if you don't upgrade, saying that the age 65 law, changed that provision of the contract,' and force the employee to grieve it.
Now,
REALITY CHECK-----
Regardless of how an arbitrator in a grievance looks at the issue; if the company loses, they will most likely make sure it ends up in court. That said, you have to understand that whenever a Court/Judge makes an interpretation of a 'contract provision' they will normally look at the 'intent' of the contract provision.
In this case, the intent was; if the company could not get 2yrs. or more, benefit of the upgrade training cost, then they will simply pay the employee the upgrade pay instead of training them; hence normally referred to as, 'pay in lieu of training'
If you can demonstrate that the 'intent' of this provision was something other than that, well then maybe you might have a case.
Fact; since the contract was written, the Federal Gov't changed a law the materially effects the contract, so the company is entitled to 'relief' from this provision of the contact, that is going to be the company's argument, take my word for it. That is what I would agrue. But, don't take the free legal advise, and go hire a lawyer and he will tell you the same thing. However, I accept that 'reason' is not a quality that many have, but I just described how 99.99% of all judges will look at the issue, argue what you will.
Maybe, just maybe, the union realizes this, and understands that this is a definite loser, if it is fought.
Hope this clear things up for all of you. The idea that You morons fail to realize is that 'no contract is carved in stone, and all are subject to interpretation,' thus, what is written is less important than how it will be viewed by a court, and also what the 'intent' as viewed by the court.
For what its worth.
PD
P.S. I was also against age 65, but that is what I get from alpa for all of the money that I give them. And, EVERY currently furloughed pilot has alpa to Thank for the furlough.
