2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[robbedagain]

NYer  im not worried about 2018  when it comes then it comes  until then its however it goes.  but there will be few around the system that will look at it and of course complain.  but as you and I agree  its til the JCBA.  

 

[john john]

There is a raise on DOS, a 2nd in Sept., a 3rd and probably 4th in 2015. A 5th in 2016 (if no Joint) and a 6th in 2017 (if no Joint).....but you're worried about 2018?

Breakdown % please

 

[700UW]

Its all in the highlight sheets and payscale on the District's web page.
 
Topped out will get a 9.53% raise on DOS and then another 3%.
 
Then their is a parity review and built in raises if no JCBA is reached by 2016 and 2017.

 

[blue collar]

They don't pay OT now Robbed...There is a class action suit right now going on in CA that is trying to uphold the state law req OT for more than eight hrs worked ( no matter what the circumstance). The suit estimates that some are due as much as $60k+....we will see if the lawsuit has merit. If it does then swaps are dead ( per say) for those states.... 

Not sure about the CA law, but those laws typically don't apply to people under a CBA.

 

[Kev3188]

The Scope is a placemat until the Joint talks.

I would've used "placeholder," but yeah, that was my first thought as well.

Which begs the question; will the 7 flights/weekly letter be the jump off point for JCBA talks, or will the company try and force the much higher AA threshold?

I also assume current language for the deicing and/or handling of Express flights stays as is, with no "tightening up?" What about the 69 seat language? Can mgmt. still "assist" from time to time?

(apologies if these changed and I missed them during my read through)

 

[mike33]

Not sure about the CA law, but those laws typically don't apply to people under a CBA.

Well we thought that as well until someone challenged it. Now the CA courts have approved the Class Action to go fwd. A class action is a hard thing prove to a court but somehow they did it. So we shall see.

 

[NYer]

I would've used "placeholder," but yeah, that was my first thought as well.Which begs the question; will the 7 flights/weekly letter be the jump off point for JCBA talks, or will the company try and force the much higher AA threshold?I also assume current language for the deicing and/or handling of Express flights stays as is, with no "tightening up?" What about the 69 seat language? Can mgmt. still "assist" from time to time?(apologies if these changed and I missed them during my read through)

You can bet the starting point being the 20 flights with the compromise being between 7 and 10.

 

[PHXConx]

Well we thought that as well until someone challenged it. Now the CA courts have approved the Class Action to go fwd. A class action is a hard thing prove to a court but somehow they did it. So we shall see.

Lower courts will see it but it will get squashed on appeal. If it gets that far...

Probably... Though the 9th likes to surprise

 

[blue collar]

Well we thought that as well until someone challenged it. Now the CA courts have approved the Class Action to go fwd. A class action is a hard thing prove to a court but somehow they did it. So we shall see.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_OvertimeExemptions.htm
Workers under a CBA covered by the RLA are exempt, and there's a seperate one for airline workers who work more than 40 but less than 60 hours due to schedule change (a bid time when you switch days off).

 

[Tim Nelson]

I like the scope. Finally

There would be less of a reason for sUs to need a joint contract than sAA. But since sAA controls the numbers, a joint contract could pass prolly with a 7-10 flight min even though that would b a concession to the current sUS TA.

 

[rockit2]

JOSH AND 700, pLEASE STOP THE PERSONAL CRAP, LET THE GUY'S THAT ARE GONG TO WORK UNDER THIS AGREEMENTPOUND IT OUT.
 
 
 Moderator, if they keep it up, how about sending them to the corn field until we vote on this.

 

[mike33]

I like the scope. Finally

There would be less of a reason for sUs to need a joint contract than sAA. But since sAA controls the numbers, a joint contract could pass prolly with a 7-10 flight min even though that would b a concession to the current sUS TA.

I think this may pass rather easily. It's a stepping stone for things to come with the integration. The company gets what they want with SCS and we get protection for at least 3-4 yrs till a TA is worked out. 

 

[rockit2]

I like the scope. Finally

There would be less of a reason for sUs to need a joint contract than sAA. But since sAA controls the numbers, a joint contract could pass prolly with a 7-10 flight min even though that would b a concession to the current sUS TA.

In the next round of negotiations, why does the union have to budge off of the scope, they didn't give in on the holidays this time ! wE HAVE IT WHY NOT JUST SAY IT'S NON-NEGOTIABLE.

 

[john john]

Congratulation on achieving a workable contract in an environment that is some of them most challenging in the country. Going up against all odds with some the best negotiators in the business and some of the worst company feet draggers know to mankind. GOOD LUCK UNION BOTHERS AND SISTERS

 

[Tim Nelson]

In the next round of negotiations, why does the union have to budge off of the scope, they didn't give in on the holidays this time ! wE HAVE IT WHY NOT JUST SAY IT'S NON-NEGOTIABLE.

because 70% have shitty scope under the twu contract and imo the twu members are pretty restless about getting a joint contract, as well they should. A joint contract may be had in short order.