Furloughs, unions, recall rights, and Bankruptcy...

[Maddog1974]

Just have a question about a topic that came up with a friend. He was hired by Mesa and then furloughed shortly after. He also joined ALPA before being furloughed.

If they are in Bankruptcy protection and he has recall rights, then how does the Chapter 11 filing affect that.

I mean, he can't get recalled if they don't emerge from chapter 11, but how does this affect a pilot if and when and recall starts?

I am just sitting here wondering bout things like this. What situations would preclude a recall from happening?? Change of company ownership, out of business, etc? I am just curious how things like this work. I got a few more hours and a year or two to get in before thinking about the next job. But with all the craziness of the last two years I am concerned for my future and the rest of my fellow pilots out there. What affects one, affects many.

I think my head hurts...

 

[dasleben]

Unless the company tanks or the time limit on the furlough lapses, the company has a legal obligation to recall furloughed pilots before hiring. That is, of course, assuming the pilot group has a legally binding union contract. No union, no contract, anything goes.

 

[skydog2]

Bankruptcy has nothing to do with furloughs, except that one usually accompanies the other. Employees get furloughed the company doesn't have enough work to justify retaining them. They get offered recall when the work picks back up. I always laugh when people talk about scope and job security vis-a-vis labor contracts. The only meaninful job security comes from ensuring that there is work to be done.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I always laugh when people talk about scope and job security vis-a-vis labor contracts. The only meaninful job security comes from ensuring that there is work to be done.

Tell that to the Astar pilots who are continuing to get a paycheck even though they haven't flown anything in months. Their contract (that you demean) requires it.

 

[SIUav8er]

Tell that to the Astar pilots who are continuing to get a paycheck even though they haven't flown anything in months. Their contract (that you demean) requires it.

Can you tell me why this is good? Companies are not charity/welfare providers

 

[ppragman]

Can you tell me why this is good? Companies are not charity/welfare providers

And ontop of that, I don't think this is all that common...

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Can you tell me why this is good? Companies are not charity/welfare providers

Why do you call that charity? It was a negotiated benefit. It is part of their compensation. Had they decided to negotiate in a different direction they could have gotten something else. There is a cost associated with everything in a contract. It seems a lot of people only know the most obvious ones (pay $x/hour). But this pilot group used some of their negotiating capital to negotiate for this benefit. How dare it be derided as "charity" -- they probably could have gotten significant other gains somewhere else from work rules to straight compensation if they didn't go for this. The company knew exactly how much this could have costed them when they signed the contract, to suggest otherwise is naive.

It's like saying your payrate is charity. That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[boondr]

Why do you call that charity? It was a negotiated benefit. It is part of their compensation. Had they decided to negotiate in a different direction they could have gotten something else. There is a cost associated with everything in a contract. It seems a lot of people only know the most obvious ones (pay $x/hour). But this pilot group used some of their negotiating capital to negotiate for this benefit. How dare it be derided as "charity" -- they probably could have gotten significant other gains somewhere else from work rules to straight compensation if they didn't go for this. The company knew exactly how much this could have costed them when they signed the contract, to suggest otherwise is naive.

It's like saying your payrate is charity. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Well said.

 

[dasleben]

Why do you call that charity? It was a negotiated benefit. It is part of their compensation. Had they decided to negotiate in a different direction they could have gotten something else. There is a cost associated with everything in a contract. It seems a lot of people only know the most obvious ones (pay $x/hour). But this pilot group used some of their negotiating capital to negotiate for this benefit. How dare it be derided as "charity" -- they probably could have gotten significant other gains somewhere else from work rules to straight compensation if they didn't go for this. The company knew exactly how much this could have costed them when they signed the contract, to suggest otherwise is naive.

It's like saying your payrate is charity. That doesn't make any sense at all.

You said it better than I could have ever had.

Negotiating something like this is job security. Don't have enough work for me? Too bad, you're still paying me. I'd say that's one hell of a contract.

SIUav8er: Are you in management?

 

[Cptnchia]

SIUav8er: Are you in management?

Based on the content of most of his posts when union issues are discussed, it seems so, but more likely he's still in school. Maybe there's still time to open his eyes to the reality of the industry.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Can you tell me why this is good? Companies are not charity/welfare providers

Others have said it above, but receiving something that was negotiated is not "charity" or "welfare." How is it that management apologists only think it's ok to violate a contract when the contract is with labor? If management just decided one day that they aren't making enough money so they're just going to stop making lease payments to GECAS, then the management apologists would scream and holler about breach of contract, but not when it comes to labor. Why are we the whipping boy? Honor my damned contract!