There is a reason why its not in a CBA, its not and wasnt in the M&R CBA cause its an absolute then with no chance of fighting it.
We at M&R won an arbitration on Attendance before, because it wasnt an absolute in the CBA.
It was applied retroactively, my understanding is if you were in the process of all ready being disciplined under the old policy, you were transitioned to the same step in the new policy.
A lawyer or an account at the table negotiating will do what?
Please show us, since I have been at the table for US M&R and CO's FAs, so you want someone at the table who has no idea about your contract and your job?
After something is proposed, the lawyers and actuaries look it over, having them at the table will accomplish nothing, ALPA, AFA, CWA, IBT, IAM, TWU or any airline union has a lawyer or actuary sitting at the table, they are in the background.
It doesnt matter what the CBA states, because both sides fight over it's intent anyhow, that is why negotiation notes are kept on file for the grievance procedure.
A cba is printed in black ink on white paper, so its all gray.
You have never been on an NC and have no idea what goes on.
Its all about intent and neither side will ever agree on that, that is why there is a grievance procedure.
700UW,
You are in sorely need of some corrections-- I have sat through negotiations on the Management side against more formidable unions with greater leverage ability in large part due to the educational and extensive professional certifications requirements, unlike either FAs or FSAs. I most assure you that nearly every one of them had a bachelor’s degree or better, and they had their own legal and financial advisors at the negotiating table. These CBAs had very little gray areas and clearly spelled out the staffing requirements and sick policies, and forget any retroactivity of enforcement. Your cavalier attitude of “it's called Management Rights” means that FSA’s are being terminated because of a poorly crafted document, and you do not see a problem with this?
What I find disturbing is this anti-intellectual mentality in which you state, “you want someone at the table who has no idea about your contract and your job” but yet, you want people negotiating contract language and financial details, but have no background in either law or finance? I made it very clear that there is a place for the rank and file worker at the negotiating table, especially as it relates to matters of job safety, workplace expectations, and issues important to those actually performing the work. It is as if you have this paranoia that “the suits” will not cross some thin, gray, pinstripe line and ignoring their fiduciary obligations, will stick-it the workers in some global conspiracy. Never mind that the most radical of collective bargaining advocates come from the hallowed halls of academia!
Furthermore, I was dumbstruck when you stated to the effect you prefer gray areas to CBAs, “cause its an absolute then with no chance of fighting it.” By that “logic" our CBAs should just be outlines on a single sheet of paper, and allow Management to determine the meaning and intentions, but grieving it later? How much undue hardship would that cause for employees who were terminated, while awaiting a lengthy grievance process? Not to mention, the costs associated with every arbitration while hoping the Arbitrator takes mercy upon our stupidity for agreeing to this document (like the last CBA)? What’s ironic is that you advocate this vagueness, and while posting earlier, “if its not in the contract, it's called Management Rights…” so you are giving management the right as those gray areas allow it!
As I have dealt with more attorneys over the decades than I care to recall, I know that the last thing which should be allowed to happen is a lengthy back-and-forth process by which expensive law offices are proposing, counter proposing, and reviews from the principles, while the process takes a lot of time and money. Usually, one side runs out of money or becomes impatient and thus, agrees to a contract which is less than satisfactory. It is far better to have people who speak the same language speak directly with each other, instead of receiving instructions from laymen who do not understand the legal details and leave out important matters. Discussions as to the understandings can be handled in private or during breaks in the direct negotiations.
Finally, you if believe this CBA is a fine piece of legal craftsmanship to the benefit of fleet service that should not be subject to change in the process by which it was created, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I doubt you will find many FSAs who agree with your assessment.
So Appraises Jester.
