Endeavor ALPA to publish delinquent dues'rs

kellwolf said:
Reserve language in the last Pinnacle TA (pre-bankruptcy) in regards to oversight with scheduling for a really big one that I dealt with personally. Union said "This is how it's gonna work." and it never even approached that. Right up the the bankruptcy there was never a plan in place to have it function in the manner it was sold to us. Not pulling it out of my ass, though it really appears you wish I was.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a dispute over interpretation of contract language. In other words, a normal result of bargaining. Not a lie.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Sounds like a dispute over interpretation of contract language. In other words, a normal result of bargaining. Not a lie.
Click to expand...


Remember though, that according to the LEC nominees that Mesaba was better at handling grievances as evidenced by their grievance list vs ours.

XJ ALPA negotiated and started their tenure at 9E under the assumption that the 9E management was as cooperative as theirs.
 
I'm not sure how any of that changes my statement. A contract dispute is a contract dispute. It doesn't involve any lying by the union, which is what kell is saying.
 
cencal83406 said:
Remember though, that according to the LEC nominees that Mesaba was better at handling grievances as evidenced by their grievance list vs ours.
Click to expand...
Number of grievances unresolved, that's a good place to begin. You could also have a long talk about work ethic. What's worse was the culture.

The MEC really didn't have to take away the whole grievance process until the children in Memphis let hundreds (600? I can get the number) expire because they were too busy on the Memphis golf course, drinking downtown, or just sleeping in all day watching Netflix (I'm assuming). A lot of those people, XJ people, who are used to being paid (because our grievance volunteers WORKED) are still here and some still volunteer because they were so disgusted by the laziness and lying that went on those days. I had one 9E clown tell me that I sure as hell wasn't going to get block or better because "it's just cheap to make them pay that." I believe he was shoved over to P2P afterwards, due to my complaints in part, and I know there were others.

You see, you're trying to pass off the facts as happenstance. You believe you had the worst management, period. No one- NO ONE- could deal with the red neck circus! It's impossible! If you guys couldn't get it done, no one could! PHHHT, someone shoot me. No one even tried to get it done, it was easier to duck the work and pretend it never happened. Just make sure you have someone to blame when you get caught.

There's an advance course XJ guys could have taught 9E on taking those unresolved grievances and trading them in for bargaining power, but why listen to us? Besides, you have to actually file the damn grievance as a requisite to even sit in the class and I already know that what too much God damn work.

Really, it's not hard to see why our grievance list was smaller by a couple orders of magnitude. If you just get in there and TRY you'd be amazed how much success you can have. ALPA's got courses on it and everything.

Who cares really, right? It's just money. The 9E guys were swimming in it, clearly. That's why they botched TA1 and got themselves parked by the NMB; they didn't need a pay raise. Take 15-45 minutes to process a grievance?... That sure is a lot of drinking time. But what if the pilots find out? Blame it on NMB and company conspiracies (*making ghost and bogey men sounds*)! Blame it on those XJ guys and how easy they had it with MAIR and the scamruptcy! Blame it on Bloch, Colgan, XJ, the weather, Martians, why? Because our membership doesn't do a lot of critical thinking.

The committee was fixed by putting in some XJ folks that had experience, wanted to work for their pilots, and (most of all) didn't care about XJ vs 9E.
cencal83406 said:
XJ ALPA negotiated and started their tenure at 9E under the assumption that the 9E management was as cooperative as theirs.
Click to expand...
We weren't used to dealing with the illiterate, that's true. There were more problems though. Management, of course, was slow and stupid with grievances because they'd never really had to put up with any diligence from the other side of the table.

Doesn't really matter how intransigent management is, as long as the grievance people do their job you can stack 1,000's of grievances on top of one another because they are all still valid. I had a bunch in the middle of the stack.

Then? Choo-Choo- the BK train is a' coming. No more meeting on grievances because Meenke won't be able to keep the doors open. HOWEVER, as long as the volunteer behind the computer does his/her job, and the company doesn't liquidate, you'll still get some of your money. AS. I. DID. Someone on the other side has to do the job, because when your stupid airline finally comes out of BK and is sold, all those past debts (*ding ding ding ding* this is where ALL that volunteer hard work comes in) have to be paid. BONUS! Of course, if the airline goes tits up and liquidates, you ain't getting any money hunny.
 
jynxyjoe said:
If you thought that was a long winded and abusive post (above) you should have seen the first couple drafts.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. Where I disagree is @ATN_Pilot 's assertion that the 9E MEC was NOT junior varsity in comparison.

I'm happy to have XJ management, MSP HQ, and XJ-experienced reps. Andy Kaufman was right about Memphis...
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Sounds like a dispute over interpretation of contract language. In other words, a normal result of bargaining. Not a lie.
Click to expand...

Spin it how you like. What they should have said was "We don't know how it's going to work." That's just being honest. In the case of the reserve language, it was spelled out pretty well. There would be a scheduling committee set up after the merged MEC was formed and the dust settled. That never happened. The company didn't care, and the union really didn't seem to have it very high on its priority list. It was pretty black and white in the contract. The only part that was iffy was what the union rep on the committee would have access to in CrewTrac and if they were going to be on a full time buy or just rotate an on-call. Those never got ironed out since, as I said, those parts never formed. What we were sold by the union was there would be two parts to the scheduling committee: those that worked on the lines and PBS and those that worked on the day-to-day side. So, if scheduling called and said "You're the only one we have," you'd have someone to actually check that info. As I said, never happened. Wasn't a contract language dispute, it was an item sold to the pilot group that the union didn't follow through on.

In the case of the SSP, both groups were just making it up as they went along. If you don't know how it's going to work, be honest with the group. Don't try to sell me a friggin' used car, which is how I see most union reps come contract time now. I swear, a couple I would bet money worked on commission they pushed so hard.
 
Like I said, we're not gonna find any common ground here. You said I was pulling it out of my ass, I toss you a specific case that I have first hand knowledge of, yet ALPA still does no wrong. All I'm saying is BOTH the union and the company need to be held accountable for not following through and/or spinning information to benefit their individual causes. There are tons of spin examples in e-mails from management here, but for every e-mail I get from management with spin, I get another (most of the time within half an hour) with about the same amount of spin in the opposite direction from the union guys. The facts often lie somewhere in the middle.
 
"The facts often lie somewhere in the middle."

That may be true. The difference should be that the union is on your side and pulling for you. If that's not true, than a union will do you no good.
 
kellwolf said:
Like I said, we're not gonna find any common ground here.
Click to expand...

Nope. You're too blinded by emotion.

You said I was pulling it out of my ass, I toss you a specific case that I have first hand knowledge of
Click to expand...

You had zero first hand knowledge. All you know is that it didn't turn out the way that the union thought it would. You're pulling it out of your ass that they simply didn't know how it would work instead of the possibility (the likely one) that the company simply didn't comply with what was agreed to at the table.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Nope. You're too blinded by emotion.



You had zero first hand knowledge. All you know is that it didn't turn out the way that the union thought it would. You're pulling it out of your ass that they simply didn't know how it would work instead of the possibility (the likely one) that the company simply didn't comply with what was agreed to at the table.
Click to expand...

Scott appointed the three stooges who tried to staple Colgan. We have been universally punished for that decision.

The professionals at Mesaba actually researched mergers and came up with a reasonable proposal.
 
cencal83406 said:
Scott appointed the three stooges who tried to staple Colgan. We have been universally punished for that decision.
Click to expand...

I would agree that the Pinnacle proposal was unreasonable. But that's quite common in SLI proposals.

The professionals at Mesaba actually researched mergers and came up with a reasonable proposal.
Click to expand...

I would say that theirs was pretty unreasonable also. The most reasonable of the three seemed to be the CJC proposal.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I would agree that the Pinnacle proposal was unreasonable. But that's quite common in SLI proposals.



I would say that theirs was pretty unreasonable also. The most reasonable of the three seemed to be the CJC proposal.
Click to expand...

From speaking directly to the Mesaba merger committee reps, it seems as if theirs was the most reasonable, accurate proposal. If you read the Bloch award, it's basically the Mesaba proposal.

Pinnacle is a bad stink around here. That's why original pinnacle guys have voted to remove original pinnacle ERC/ASAP folks. That's why most managent positions aren't original pinnacle.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Nope. You're too blinded by emotion.
Click to expand...

And you're too blinded by your love for ALPA at this point.


You had zero first hand knowledge. All you know is that it didn't turn out the way that the union thought it would. You're pulling it out of your ass that they simply didn't know how it would work instead of the possibility (the likely one) that the company simply didn't comply with what was agreed to at the table.
Click to expand...

I can read, man. I read the contract, and it had it spelled out how it was going to happen. It never happened because the MEC had better things to do than follow through on a promise made to reserve guys. I was at the road shows and asked the union reps how it would work. They all told me the same thing, which matched with the language in the contract. Contract passed, the merged MEC happened, and they didn't follow through.. They never formed the committee as they a) stated they would or b) how the contract stated it would. This had NOTHING to do with the company complying with the contract as the company doesn't set up the committees. This had to do with a promise from ALPA to its reserve pilots. How much first hand knowledge did you have of this situation since you were already long gone at this point? If you're gonna tell me I'm blinded by emotion then counter a factual, first hand account with "you just don't get it," well, as I said, we'll never see eye to eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top