FCFS Handicapping System

[pjirish317]

 

you are trying to rationalize with an incessant whiner who only understands DOH or nothing. he's been told several times that there has been no contract violation but continues to think otherwise. his union filed a grievance due to excessive complaints from people like him. but in the end the union and the company knew there hadn't been a violation committed, hence why they didnt bother removing those 2 articles. but stay tuned, something else will be on the horizon to complain about soon. seems to be a pattern with these people.

Company kiss azz. Who are you to say if there has or has not been a violation? Are you an arbitrator in your spare time. We will see which way this goes, and life will move on. Yet you will still be a company stooge and first rate jackazz. I have stated nu,erous times I will adapt IF we lose, no whining here. And blue, I read it differently that you do, we will see soon enough.

 

[jimntx]

To your point of- why didn't they try to remove the language when negotiating this last agreement? I think it's because the company doesn't think it means what you think it does. They knew they were going to go FCFS, and they probably read your Art. 7 the same way I'm reading it.
 

When was the current agreement negotiated?  If it was done more than 3-4 years ago, DP had no clue then that the merger with AA was anymore than a pipe dream.  How could he have known that they were going to adapt the AA FCFS system?

 

[blue collar]

When was the current agreement negotiated?  If it was done more than 3-4 years ago, DP had no clue then that the merger with AA was anymore than a pipe dream.  How could he have known that they were going to adapt the AA FCFS system?

Just ratified a couple of months ago.

 

[jimntx]

That's kind of inconvenient.  Now, they get to turn around and start negotiating for a JCBA to cover employees for both sides of the merger.  Could turn a negotiator into a drinking man.  
 
But, then you are right.  The company already knew they were going to FCFS.  Odd, that issue didn't come up during negotiations.  Suggests that the company had already found a loophole that would relieve them of  the burden of living up to your contract specification for DOH boarding.  (In case the union grieved the issue.)
 
Paranoid?  Moi?  How could you say such a thing?

 

[cynic]

I don't fault them for grieving it, but I don't see how they are going to win it, (by win it I mean have DOH boarding) but they may be compensated for it. As FWAAA pointed out, how do you show damages when the lower seniority people are clearly benefitting? Not sure how to be made 'whole' if the arbitrator were to side with them, which IMHO doesn't have a chance.

Exactly why I feel that the various unions would have been better off negotiating compensation in a side letter instead of fighting the company.

 

[pjirish317]

jimntx,
 
Who knows why it never came up. You could be correct in that the company thinks they can win it. I just disagree. I may be proven wrong, but the company may be proven wrong also. Who knows. We should know by the end of the year. Maybe early January.
 
cynic,
 
What compensation do you think we should take? Why not fight the company on a violation?

 

[700UW]

That's kind of inconvenient.  Now, they get to turn around and start negotiating for a JCBA to cover employees for both sides of the merger.  Could turn a negotiator into a drinking man.  
 
But, then you are right.  The company already knew they were going to FCFS.  Odd, that issue didn't come up during negotiations.  Suggests that the company had already found a loophole that would relieve them of  the burden of living up to your contract specification for DOH boarding.  (In case the union grieved the issue.)
 
Paranoid?  Moi?  How could you say such a thing?

And the same people in Labor Relations thought they could outsource the Airbus Narrowbody Overhaul at PMUS and they lost in court, won on appeal and then lost in arbitration.

 

[im back..!!]

Company kiss ###. Who are you to say if there has or has not been a violation? Are you an arbitrator in your spare time. We will see which way this goes, and life will move on. Yet you will still be a company stooge and first rate jackazz. I have stated nu,erous times I will adapt IF we lose, no whining here. And blue, I read it differently that you do, we will see soon enough.

I hate loosing DOH for non revving as well. But I have to say, the PIT folks from usair said it many times. If you don't like commuting, move.....
Too bad this affects so many of those PIT folks..... Karma's a *****..... ;-)

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Too bad this affects so many of those PIT folks..... Karma's a ####..... ;-)

Amen to that...and yes it is

 

[lax]

 

Company kiss ###. Who are you to say if there has or has not been a violation? Are you an arbitrator in your spare time. We will see which way this goes, and life will move on. Yet you will still be a company stooge and first rate jackazz. I have stated nu,erous times I will adapt IF we lose, no whining here. And blue, I read it differently that you do, we will see soon enough.

 
name-calling makes you look more ignorant, and sadly (for you) won't change a thing, including the fact that your contract is full of ambiguity.  thread after thread you whine the same plea, that still falls on deaf ears.  do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[im back..!!]

How about they at least level the playing field. Since the primary concern of flight and cabin crews is the inability to check in 24 hours prior due to being in the air. Make a rule that no one can check in while on a company shift or assignment.
Simple.... Then maybe we can revisit this at a later date, but at least until then all employees will be restricted to check in on there own time, not the companies....

 

[nycbusdriver]

How about they at least level the playing field. Since the primary concern of flight and cabin crews is the inability to check in 24 hours prior due to being in the air. Make a rule that no one can check in while on a company shift or assignment.
Simple.... Then maybe we can revisit this at a later date, but at least until then all employees will be restricted to check in on there own time, not the companies....

 
 
Good idea.  Wanna take any bets on just how often an employee's break just happens to coincide with the 24 hour mark?

 

[im back..!!]

Good idea.  Wanna take any bets on just how often an employee's break just happens to coincide with the 24 hour mark?

The rule would be "not booked during your shift", not even on break....
They can verify when it's booked and when you check in.

Break the rule, and travel pass is suspended....

Same abilities for everyone.... Fair is fair......

 

[lax]

The rule would be "not booked during your shift", not even on break....
They can verify when it's booked and when you check in.

Break the rule, and travel pass is suspended....

Same abilities for everyone.... Fair is fair......

 
and everyone is eligible to qualify for jumpseat right?

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
and everyone is eligible to qualify for jumpseat right?

 
Everyone that the TSA clears, I suppose.