706 replies to this topic

[Freebird]

Pi brat, on 09 September 2010 - 03:24 PM, said:

The east pilots had one remaining tool to use against the Nic, getting rid of ALPA. Kind of the same argument, isn't it?

Cool, I want to get rid of my mortgage. Can Usapa help me change my name and become a delinquent squatter?

Look again Pi, you are defending your groups inability to honor their agreements by looking for excuses as to why. You're wasting everyone's time. And you know it.


Usapa = Wheres the next shadow to hide in?

[Pi brat]

BoeingBoy, on 09 September 2010 - 04:03 PM, said:

Let me correct that a little:

The east pilots had one remaining tool to use against the Nic get out of an agreement they'd made, getting rid of ALPA. Kind of Not quite the same argument, isn't it?

You see, the West pilots, as a group, didn't agree to the formation of a new union. So they expressed their displeasure using the rules USAPA set up. The West pilots didn't create the loophole that put them in non-member status. The East pilots, on the other hand, created what they thought was (and still think is) a loophole to get out of the binding agreement they'd entered into.

Jim

Come up with your own words, don't change mine! Question-is it okay to use a loophole when you know the intent of the rule? Is that your moral code Jim?

[Pi brat]

Freebird, on 09 September 2010 - 04:12 PM, said:

Look again Pi, you are defending your groups inability to honor their agreements by looking for excuses as to why. You're wasting everyone's time. And you know it.


Usapa = Wheres the next shadow to hide in?

No I'm pointing to west hypocrisy. They preach and claim the moral high ground but tried to get away without paying union dues until forced to do so. They say the east should do the right thing, but they refused to do what they were legally obligated to do until their attempt to use a loophole failed. I'm sick of hearing the holier than thou b.s. I actually think that both sides have failed to do what's right at times.

[machflyer]

EDITED BY MODERATOR--POSTS AIMED AT SPECIFIC POSTERS ARE NOT PERMITTED.

You folks need to read the CBL, it clearly states in Section 3, para C that a duly convened domicile doesn't need to be convened in order for new applicants to be approved for membership. This was standard ALPA language also. You should know that if you were good union pilots.
Silly girls.

Flyer
DOH 1989

SECTION 3- APPLICATION AND APPROVAL FOR MEMBERSHIP
A. All applications for membership shall be on a standard form provided by the Secretary-Treasurer and shall be submitted to the pilot’s Domicile or USAPA Officers or duly designated representatives appointed for such purpose.
B. Each application for membership shall be voted upon at any duly convened Domicile meeting by the members of the Domicile having jurisdiction over the application. An applicant for membership must receive an approval of the majority of those present at the meeting in order to be admitted into membership. When an inactive member, or any pilot specified in paragraph 2. C. (above,) applies for membership in accordance with paragraph 3. A. (above) returns to active line flying his account will be reactivated by the Secretary-Treasurer and all dues and assessments will be charged from the day of his return to line flying.
C. In the event that it is impractical to convene a Duly Convened Domicile meeting to approve new applicants for membership within 30 days, as in Section 3 B above, the Board of Pilot Representatives may take action to accept applicants into membership at a Board of Pilot Representative meeting by a majority vote of the Board.

[BoeingBoy]

Pi brat, on 09 September 2010 - 05:21 PM, said:

Question-is it okay to use a loophole when you know the intent of the rule?

No, but what was the intent of this particular rule? Keep the West pilots from joining the union by denying them base reps? You see, knowing intent is akin to reading minds - USAPA spelled out what was required to become a member in it's C&B/L's, did they not? So in that sense it wasn't even a loophole - it was following the rules USAPA laid out. Rules that made it impossible for West pilots to become members. Rules that the West pilots had no role in formulating or implementing. Yet, when an outside party ruled that they had to pay dues (or objector fees), the West pilots accepted that ruling.

Contrast that to the East pilots, who went willingly into binding arbitration. Not liking the result they then actively sought a way to get out of their agreement (a loophole) and thinking they had found it then actively implemented that plan (the loophole), all with no input from the West pilots.

Question - is it okay to create a loophole when you know what you had agreed to but don't like the result of that agreement?

Jim

[Pi brat]

BoeingBoy, on 09 September 2010 - 06:56 PM, said:

No, but what was the intent of this particular rule? Keep the West pilots from joining the union by denying them base reps? You see, knowing intent is akin to reading minds - USAPA spelled out what was required to become a member in it's C&B/L's, did they not? So in that sense it wasn't even a loophole - it was following the rules USAPA laid out. Rules that made it impossible for West pilots to become members. Rules that the West pilots had no role in formulating or implementing. Yet, when an outside party ruled that they had to pay dues (or objector fees), the West pilots accepted that ruling.

Contrast that to the East pilots, who went willingly into binding arbitration. Not liking the result they then actively sought a way to get out of their agreement (a loophole) and thinking they had found it then actively implemented that plan (the loophole), all with no input from the West pilots.

Question - is it okay to create a loophole when you know what you had agreed to but don't like the result of that agreement?

Jim

What a crock. New low Jim.

[767jetz]

Pi brat, on 09 September 2010 - 07:15 PM, said:

What a crock. New low Jim.

Come on Pi. Calling a person's opinion a crock and accusing them of new lows just because you don't agree, does not bolster your position.

I understand the point you're trying to make about hypocrisy and selective use of morality. But in this case you are comparing apples to oranges, and Jim makes a good point.

You're comparing the west's reluctance to pay money to an organization trying to force their will on them, to changing unions in an attempt to get out of final and binding arbitration? IMO that's a bit like comparing a parking violation to a ponzie scheme.

[Pi brat]

767jetz, on 09 September 2010 - 08:14 PM, said:

Come on Pi. Calling a person's opinion a crock and accusing them of new lows just because you don't agree, does not bolster your position.

I understand the point you're trying to make about hypocrisy and selective use of morality. But in this case you are comparing apples to oranges, and Jim makes a good point.

You're comparing the west's reluctance to pay money to an organization trying to force their will on them, to changing unions in an attempt to get out of final and binding arbitration? IMO that's a bit like comparing a parking violation to a ponzie scheme.

See your pm