US Pilots Labor Thread 6/2-6/9 STAY ON TOPIC

[Captain Underpants]

Looking at that language, and not having the negotiating notes, it would not shock me at all to see an arbitrator rule that the rates don't snapback, but the %3/year raise comes back. The company is going to argue that the "freeze" is the only thing that expires 12/09.

LOA 93 does not expire but only becomes amendable on 12/31/09. The hourly pay rates were temporarily frozen by LOA 93 through 12/31/09 when the pay freeze expires. There is no specific pay rate in LOA 93 after 12/31/09 so the pilot contract, the 2002 restructuring agreement, LOA 84 and the provisions of LOA 93 that do not expire are the controlling documents for pay rates.

The effective pay rates will become a contract interpretation issue which will be subject to the grievance/arbitration dispute resolution process.

I translated the contract pay provisions into an algebraic math problem and came up with different (lower)rates than USAPA did. The exact pay rates after 12/31/09 are unknown. There are enough adjustments to the pay rates in the calculation subject to interpretation that 10 different arbitrators could come up with 10 different pay rates. Whatever the arbitrator decides the pay rates are will be final and binding but then subject to immediate negotiation for modification in the next contractual agreement.

underpants

 

[nycbusdriver]

Revisions to Hourly
Pay Rates:
Lump Sums:
The rates of pay specified in Section 3 of the Agreement, as
modified by the Restructuring Agreement, will be revised as
follows:
1.Freeze current rates effective 5/01/04 through 12/3 1/09.


So having looked at LOA 93 I must admit I cannot find any expiration.

So, once the freeze expires, we should revert to LOA 84 rates (which don't expire.)

If there was no intention of changing the pay rates back, why was THIS date (and only this portion) given a time limit? One does not put extraneous language in contracts.

 

[BoeingBoy]

One does not put extraneous language in contracts.

If language clarifying the intent is termed extraneous, you're probably right but the contract is full of language clarifying intent if that definition is used.

One would have to admit that language more clearly defining the intent would be helpful, and quite possibly avoid the entire grievance process. So would such language really be "extraneous"?

Jim

 

[oscarjazz]

So, once the freeze expires, we should revert to LOA 84 rates (which don't expire.)

If there was no intention of changing the pay rates back, why was THIS date (and only this portion) given a time limit? One does not put extraneous language in contracts.

2. Reduce rates as frozen by 18.0%

There is no sunset on this reduction.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If language clarifying the intent is termed extraneous, you're probably right but the contract is full of language clarifying intent if that definition is used.

One would have to admit that language more clearly defining the intent would be helpful, and quite possibly avoid the entire grievance process. So would such language really be "extraneous"?

Jim

We missed you BB.

For once, I think we agree. The old CBA was notorious for signing on to vague language in contracts. I even recall the contract negotiated (and agreed to by ALPA) "in concept." Of course, the company then interpreted every "concept" in their favor. Thank you, Donn B, for such innovative negotiations. We still have not recovered.

There is no doubt that the language in LOA 93 concerning the expiration date will be grieved, and that more explicit language would have been helpful.

Our current NAC is seeking to nail down language much more closely than in the past. I was told by a current NAC member that the company was dismayed that the union wants to be so "nit picky." The company said if they continued that way, our next contract would be the size of a phone book. The NAC rightfully responded that we would rather have a contract the size of a phone book than a list of backlogged grievances the size of a phone book, like we have now.

The company was speechless, I am told.

Thank you, USAPA. Good riddance, ALPA.

 

[luvn737s]

You know what, Ex? We don’t care if you support us or not. Our pay snapback will be arbitrated, not negotiated.

Oh, I can easily see them being negotiated. Negotiated in exchange for expedited contract negotiations with the company as the hot breath of a decertification vote warming USAPAs then already-sweaty neck. They'll come back and say that it was worth trading away the "possibility of snapbacks at a later date" for the improvements they were able to secure as a result of the company agreeing to their "demands" (Kirby proposal with a light gravy). The old, "A bird in the hand is better..." argument that folks without leverage like to cling to.

If they decide to step on themselves again by chasing the snapback goose for a couple years at the expense of negotiating a contract (company would become less willing to negotiate - they're not dumb, they recognize leverage when they have it) those mighty "golden 500" plus a majority of the pilots unwilling to tilt at windmills regardless of cost or loss would storm the USAPA castle (or at least rock the van vigorously) and send them packing.

As much as some posters casually draw a moral equivalence between USAPA's desire to welch on the deal they inherited and the unparalleled horror of the Nazi Holocaust, the relatively minor skirmish between east and west will run it's course and eventually patience with USAPA will run out. There will be pain in the interim, but there will be an end to this.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

And US went in to bankrupts twice to duck out past "binding arbitration"
Not sure what HP did in bankrupts did they even have unions then

Wow, what a lame argument, is that all you have?

Bankruptcy was never used to duck out of binding arbitration, either by HP or US.

To refresh your memory, East and West and the company agreed to binding arbitration to come up with a seniority list, all sides agreed in writing to live by the results of that binding arbitration. East didn't like it and, in a rather cowardly act founded USAPA solely to weasel their way out of the binding arbitration.

How did that work out for you?

I swear, even a blind man can see it, but you guys out east are so out of focus and in such denial.

 

[john john]

Wow, what a lame argument, is that all you have?

Bankruptcy was never used to duck out of binding arbitration, either by HP or US.

To refresh your memory, East and West and the company agreed to binding arbitration to come up with a seniority list, all sides agreed in writing to live by the results of that binding arbitration. East didn't like it and, in a rather cowardly act founded USAPA solely to weasel their way out of the binding arbitration.

How did that work out for you?

I swear, even a blind man can see it, but you guys out east are so out of focus and in such denial.

"binding arbitration" awards can and do and will be voted out by union membership FACT
Sorry if you can’t understand that
What happen to all those "binding arbitration" awards in the contracts prior to bankruptcy?
I’ll give you a clue GONE

 

[hp_fa]

"binding arbitration" awards can and do and will be voted out by union membership FACT
Sorry if you can’t understand that

Wrong answer. If you are going to contend that I am wrong, then provide a clear example to educate me.

What happen to all those "binding arbitration" awards in the contracts prior to bankruptcy?
I’ll give you a clue GONE

You are so confused sir.

If you are discussing what the Company could do to various contracts and agreements while in bankruptcy then yes they can be modified or voided as provided by law. Even then the Company has to convince a judge that it needs the specific contracts and agreements modified or nullified in order to ditch the contract.

Now, are you suggesting that USAPA declare bankruptcy to shed itself of its obligations under the Nicolau award? Sorry, that won't work.

 

[Metroyet]

"binding arbitration" awards can and do and will be voted out by union membership FACT
Sorry if you can’t understand that
What happen to all those "binding arbitration" awards in the contracts prior to bankruptcy?
I’ll give you a clue GONE

Did all of those "binding arbitration awards" that were voted away by the majority have DFR convictions attached to them?

If you guys still believe that someday you'll be able to vote away the nicalau....well. Best of Luck to you.

 

[john john]

Did all of those "binding arbitration awards" that were voted away by the majority have DFR convictions attached to them?

NO
“Apple and orangesâ€￾

 

[john john]

If you are discussing what the Company could do to various contracts and agreements while in bankruptcy then yes they can be modified or voided as provided by law. Even then the Company has to convince a judge that it needs the specific contracts and agreements modified or nullified in order to ditch the contract.

Now, are you suggesting that USAPA declare bankruptcy to shed itself of its obligations under the Nicolau award? Sorry, that won't work.

All contracts were open up by the company and the unions except the IAM. The IAM chose to have there’s abrogate by the courts. The company and all unions negotiated
Contract changes before bankrupts accrue as well as during bankrupts some binding arbitration awards went bye bye before bankrupts enter the picture


What is so hard to understand all union contracts can be changed with a vote

 

[BoeingBoy]

John john,

Obviously negotiations can result in changes to the contract despite previous arbitration results - arbitration as the final step of the grievance process merely establishes with finality the meaning of particular contract language and doesn't prevent that contract language from being changed in future negotiations. Likewise, BK allows the company in BK to abrogate contracts including provisions that were previously arbitrated.

I'm just not quite sure what your point is.

Jim

ps - missed your latest post while typing. Yes, contracts can be changed but not just by a vote of one side. Negotiated changes agreed to by both sides can be finalized with a vote. BK is different in that it's possible for the company to impose changes with the approval of the BK judge.

 

[hp_fa]

What is so hard to understand all union contracts can be changed with a vote

Because they cannot.

You are discussing things that occurred due to bankruptcy and that factor is not applicable here. Also, the binding arbitration here was between two merged work forces that were, at the time, represented by the same national union and the binding arbitration was conducted under the unions guidelines. USAPA coming on the property does not alter the arbitration award.

Your thinking is incorrect because what you are attempting to use as a model is fundamentally flawed because of the wholly different circumstances x 2.