jynxyjoe
Queso King
I just don't think Polka is gonna sell man. Indie punk rock a capella is our only hope
Pay raise today
- Thread starter jynxyjoe
- Start date
I just don't think Polka is gonna sell man. Indie punk rock a capella is our only hope
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
And the MEM CA who stated that the TA would be a very hard sell to the pilot group... and how fast he got kicked to the curb after that.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I'm of the firm belief that any TA should sell itself. If the union has to go out like snake oil salesmen and convince people to vote "yes," it's probably not a good thing. If a majority of people read the TA and feel it's a good deal for them, it'll pass.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Are they still trying to say you need to give health insurance concessions to get what is currently in the Mesaba contract?
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
No, coverage will be the same as we have now. The debate is what the premiums and co-pays will be when all is said and done. What the company is proposing would mean FOs would be taking a pay cut at the end of the day. Higher pay rates - higher health insurance premiums = less money. Not sure, but I think they're also trying to reduce the window that new hire FOs have to wait to get insurance as well.
When colgan was going for their own contract, we would get updates about the ta's as they were signed off similarly to what we get now. The difference, though, was that it was the actual ta as opposed to a quick snippet of what it contained. Is there any specific reason we aren't able to see the ta'd sections actual language now that it is a JCBA? Is it something to do with either XJ or 9E and how they do things?
jynxyjoe
Queso King
I've been told that traditionally Mesaba will try to keep everything under wraps until the MEC's get a full minute to read through the entire language and the road shows start. The problem being, if a couple people read the language incorrectly, because they don't see part 1 subsection 12 A.2.c.III they go nuts on the boards and you've got hundreds of solid "no" votes because of a misunderstanding. I wasn't here for the shamruptsy, but I've been told that's the history of why things are so hush hush.
If you're not sure what I'm talking about, go read some of the "Angry Pilots Central" forums about XJ/9E/9L. Watch how many times the Mesaba scope language gets stretched between two trees. I'm not saying I don't like hammocks, but letting a pilot interpret laws is like letting a lawyer fly a plane. Sure we can do it, but do we do a good job of it? *rimshot*
Another historic reference for this company, last time we were in section 6 the NC had told the pilot group to "hang a ornament on the tree". Unfortunately when you are dealing with pilots, everyone is the overachiever and wants to hang the star. Later, when they see their star got knocked off by someone with a bigger star... well we're talking about pilots, use your imagination.
That does make sense, but isn't possible for that same person who would miss that small part and get upset about what they are reading to misread the same thing once the actual contract is finalized and then put to the pilots for a vote? I just feel like if you want a vote on it, allowing those of us who are going to vote on it an opportunity to sift through some of the legaleze before hand so we might be able to ask some questions vs not having enough to time to read a lot between the TA being presented and having to be voted on would help more than hurt. Look at your contract now, as an example. Would it even be possible to read through the entire thing in the time they give you to vote on it?
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Oh, I'm not a union rep but I'll give this a shot I suppose.
Well it depends. People who read the contract, read the contract (stupidly simple I know). You are looking at it like all pilots are the same. In any group of pilots you have the:
- I don't care about the contract I fly for money. Please junior man me I want the money and I can do my side ebay biz and roll like a baller.
- Only when it hurts me: I only care about this one part about the contract because it effected (affect?) me once and I got someone to grieve it.
- I read it once quickly: I know my payscales and my sick time accrual.
- I read it twice: I actually know what the scope language says, and I know how to look something up if my friend calls and asks the question
- I read it a couple times, and I read the LOA's: Probably someone who wants to actually know exactly what the contract says, can tell you problems with the language blah blah blah
- I sleep with the contract: Knows the contract inside and out.
The first 3 bullet points are probably 70% of your pilot group. They are more likely to hear something and believe it, than they are to read and understand. If you're lucky, some (not all) of those 70% will show up for a road show, ask questions, minds are changed, and tell their friends. How many votes, in the end, did you lose because some information was leaked and pilots heard something negative and voted no without researching.
What becomes even more complicated, and much more serious, is the negative things in the contract, that get a light shone on them early, and people won't take their eyes off them even if they are getting 3 things in turn for that one piece of crap language.
Example, at one time a quick evaluation of the Pinnacle pilots shows that most attribute our 26 junior mans per year, at this company, to the good nature of our management. Not so. Our contract makes them staff up the airline correctly so that junior mans are a rarity. Simply put, if you have the person sitting on reserve, why pay someone extra for the jr. man, never mind the time wasted finding the guy who won't say he/she is drunk to avoid the jr. man?
Hypothetical: Say Pinnacle had wanted us to push for a "no junior manning" clause in the contract. Enough guys listed that as their top priority (their star on the x-mas tree) that we have a serious vote issue at TA time because, "Oh's to the no's! there's no solid jr. manning language in the TA!" What if their minds are made up, because of a ingrained fear of management and the reoccuring Jr. Man? Part of the sale depends on a leap of faith they won't make. How do you convince a shell shocked soldier that the war is over?
Now, how many other pet peeve issues can you find on your own contract. Furthermore, how many close friends hear you bitch about those pet peeve issues. The union is trying to sell a contract. Maybe it sells itself, maybe it doesn't.
Two things you never want a voter to see: how you make sausages or laws. That's an old cliche from politics. Some of that reasoning applies here.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Oh absolutely. Of course, it helps that I've read the thing a few times. I think the shortest we can go is 2 weeks before a vote, you'll have time. The worst thing about my current contract are the LOA's and those take history lessons to understand, but I did it and I'm just a zoo animal.
I feel that a lot of the guys who would make up that 70% from your first three bullet points would know a lot more if the TA's were presented as they were done. A lot of it is probably just people who see that 500 page document in front of them and say "this is just too much" and don't even bother reading beyond compensation.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Eh, maybe you're right. In this case I yield to the folks who have done it before.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I can tell you from recent experience that that's not true. At AirTran, we released TA'd sections as they were done, and today, a month after the contract was ratified, we still have plenty of pilots who have never even read the damned thing. When the final TA came out, they flipped to the pay rates and to the signing bonus LOA, and that was all they looked at. They came to road shows to hear what we had to say about the rest, and they asked questions, but few of them actually read the contract front to back. When we released the TA'd sections as they were done, you'd get the small handful who would actually read the language, but most pilots would just read the bullet points, and then they'd call to ask questions without even bothering to try to read it to get the answer themselves.
I've done it both ways. At PCL we didn't release anything, at AirTran we did. In the end, I think not releasing it is better. Those that actually do read it will then be able to see a full document instead of just pieces that don't give a full story, and those that don't read it won't care either way.
By the way, jynxyjoe, you should really run for Status Rep at some point. It seems like you have a really good handle on these things.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Some of the snippets that have been released lately are just PART of sections. IMO, this is a dangerous road to go down if the section isn't totally closed off. For example, long call reserve rules could go away VERY quickly in exchange for something juicier in Section 25 (or Section 3 or 7 or any other open section). This is the pitfall of releasing the information. The pilots see something, focus on it and come UNGLUED when it's not in the TA. The "rumor" of FO pay rates in our TA1 had guys planning on buying that new car when the contract came through. Well, Section 3 was one of THE LAST sections closed, so those pay rates? Not so stellar. FOs went ballistic. We were told there was gonna be nice hotel language in there as well. It didn't materialize, either. And then NO ONE made mention before the TA came out that reserves could be placed back on reserve for 12 hours.
It's not like the government is pushing through a health care bill. You'll have time to read the TA before the deadline to vote. Or you should. That was ANOTHER problem with TA1. They started the clock on the voting before the whole TA was available to the pilot group. Even then, we still had enough time to read the final sections that came out late (which, incidentally, were the juicy ones like scheduling and compensation) before making a decision. Voting takes all of about 1 minute counting the time it takes to dial the phone.
My advice to anyone that is going to be voting on a contract that will be between the pilots and 9E management is to read the contract like you were management TRYING to abuse pilots. If you see a lot of loopholes from that perspective, watch out. 'Cause management will see them as well (if they don't already know about them) and use them against you. Here's an example: You may be placed back on reserve for up to 12 hours after your initial report time. Okay....what kind of reserve? Home reserve? Airport reserve? It doesn't say. It just says "reserve." So, likely, if they need an airport reserve, they COULD make you it. There's nothing in the contract that says "home reserve," it just says "reserve." Now, the senior guys will tell you the INTENT is for "home reserve," but how do they know? If the company suddenly sees a loophole, there it is, and one the TA is passed, it's done. The only way to know for sure is to grieve it, and I'm not big on being a guinea pig.
It's not like the government is pushing through a health care bill. You'll have time to read the TA before the deadline to vote. Or you should. That was ANOTHER problem with TA1. They started the clock on the voting before the whole TA was available to the pilot group. Even then, we still had enough time to read the final sections that came out late (which, incidentally, were the juicy ones like scheduling and compensation) before making a decision. Voting takes all of about 1 minute counting the time it takes to dial the phone.
My advice to anyone that is going to be voting on a contract that will be between the pilots and 9E management is to read the contract like you were management TRYING to abuse pilots. If you see a lot of loopholes from that perspective, watch out. 'Cause management will see them as well (if they don't already know about them) and use them against you. Here's an example: You may be placed back on reserve for up to 12 hours after your initial report time. Okay....what kind of reserve? Home reserve? Airport reserve? It doesn't say. It just says "reserve." So, likely, if they need an airport reserve, they COULD make you it. There's nothing in the contract that says "home reserve," it just says "reserve." Now, the senior guys will tell you the INTENT is for "home reserve," but how do they know? If the company suddenly sees a loophole, there it is, and one the TA is passed, it's done. The only way to know for sure is to grieve it, and I'm not big on being a guinea pig.
higney85
Property of Scheduling
You will see that on the agenda for the next LEC meeting. Due out tomorrow. See ya on the 7th...
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I hope so. Trying to get back to my normal Thur/Fri off schedule. Since I have Tues/Wed off the last week of Dec, my bet is PBS is gonna screw me over.....
jynxyjoe
Queso King
That's very kind of you. Ideally I'd love to see all the members trying to get a handle on these things, and I could just be a lazy bastard. Maybe if they look at me and say, "God if that jynxyjoe guy can read the blasted thing I should be able to!". Heh.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
One thing the XJ reps have said clearly, is that the Pinnacle guys sniff weak language like a blood hound. We like having that around.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
That's me. I'd love to be a status rep, but my wife would kill me.
That, and I'm just junior enough to draw flak from the senior guys who think I'd be out to rock their boat. I'll stick to knowing the contract, helping guys out when I can (and knowing when to say "call a rep") and being on the P2P committee.
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
That's me. I'd love to be a status rep, but my wife would kill me.
That will happen to anyone they think is rocking their boat... junior or senior.