USAPA - Gutting the west contract

[capt_zman]

In case you're missing the point, the problem is with USAPA, not Age 65.

The real problem is you're complaining about a benefit YOU enjoy that is being involuntarily changed by something YOU pushed for and agree with.

Ask the 1000's of furloughed guys, that are affected by the Age 65 rule that you are so proud of, how much they care about 58 year old FO's not getting paid an extra 5 years of Captain's pay. I'm sure you won't get much sympathy.

So go ahead an be mad at anybody of your choosing, YOU are indirectly one of the people responsible. Nice job.

 

[Bringupthebird]

The real problem is you're complaining about a benefit YOU enjoy that is being involuntarily changed by something YOU pushed for and agree with.

You still don't get it. I've got another 15+ years to go until I could "enjoy" this benefit. It's being changed simply to curry favor with management and earn some sort of IOU at the negotiating table.

I'm the one taking the 40% pay cut losing the left seat, rather than armchair quarterbacking from my MD-11. And my loss is not as a direct result of Age 65, though I will concede that the timing of the change makes the circumstances more painful, though the change no less necessary.

 

[Marko Ramius]

The real problem is you're complaining about a benefit YOU enjoy that is being involuntarily changed by something YOU pushed for and agree with.

.

?????? If they could change it involuntarily, there would be no need for a vote. Stop being a classic pilot and only hearing what you want to hear.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

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.

 

[johnnyb]

USAPA heartily endorses this vote as they see it as preventing co-pilots from upgrading.

USAPA fails to see the leverage in retaining the current contract language, and instead prefers to try and curry favor with management by giving away parts of the AWA contract. There are many who gleefully see this as their opportunity to personally screw the west with their vote.

A group of West pilots contacted USAPA asking that this contractual provision be changed. That began the process up for vote now.

 

[BoilerUP]

A group of West pilots contacted USAPA asking that this contractual provision be changed. That began the process up for vote now.

What, other than sheer stupidity, would compel somebody to give away contractual language that puts them in a position of negotiating strength?

Pilots have to grieve things when the company is violating the "spirit" or "intent" of wording in a CBA, and it takes months if not years to get that wrong righted. Again...why would somebody give something away for nothing in return?

Makes no sense.

 

[Bringupthebird]

A group of West pilots contacted USAPA asking that this contractual provision be changed. That began the process up for vote now.

Yeah, right.

 

[Bringupthebird]

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'

All those things could come to pass. But the question is whether or not a union should unilaterally give away a provision of a contract for no substantial gain, especially when it materially affects a portion of the pilot group they have chosen to disenfranchise.

This happens to be the Age 58 bypass, but it just as easily could be LTD, Scheduling rigs or any other section.

Don't let the Age 60 thing be a distracting red herring.

As long as there is no joint contract there should be some degree of sovereignty to each side's contract, and effort should be put towards defending it, not gutting it.

 

[Lampshade]

Well since you asked??

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.
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.
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.

Hey Management Shill,
It's called the "System Board of Adjustment" let the process (sec 20&21)play out before you start giving away anything. Nobody said anything about winning it, but defending it is what the union is for. They may lose it, but they could do some horse trading to improve in other areas (prior to arb date) in exchange for relief in the age 58 stipulation.

P.S. you're a DBag

 

[reepicheep]

Anyone who is on the same side as Gerry Glass is a bad dude.