2014 Pilot Discussion

[USA320Pilot]

[SIZE=10pt]Furthermore, here are four facts:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]In American Airlines' Countersuit against USAPA management provided emails and other correspondence as exhibits between USAPA, APA, & the Company where USAPA attempted to negotiate non PA provisions in the MOU such as:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]1. Following SCS APA would obligated to pay USAPA post-single carrier old union bills including costs of its current headquarters?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]2. Following SCS APA would be obligated to maintain USAPA's independent operation authority throughout the JCBA and SLI process?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]3. Following SCS APA would be obligated to pay for USAPA's ongoing litigation expenses in any subsequent Addington DFR cases for the old union?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]4. Following SCS APA would recognize USAPA as a party to the protocol agreement even after USAPA ceases to be the certified bargaining representative (contrary to its own position in a case like Addington litigation, the judge's ruling in that case and the specific language of a MOU).[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]USAPA hid this information from the pilots forcing APA to set the record straight when the about to be SCS union said, "Although we have been patient in an attempt to forge an acceptable agreement, it is now time to set the record straight on some of the misrepresentations contained in the USAPA Merger Committee blast."[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Why did USAPA hide this information from the pilots? In my opinion, USAPA knew once the MOU was ratified AOL would likely sue USAPA. USAPA's strategy was to argue that only the certified agent could represent the pilots in Addington DFR II. And, I believe USAPA is correct in its view, but the issue now is that USAPA knew all along it was going to commit a judical estoppel violation after APA filed its SCS petition with the NMB.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]This judicial estoppel violation was likely pre-panned based on the evidence submitted to Judge Howell by AAG in response to USAPA's M-B lawsuit. To compound the problem USAPA is asking the NMB to set aside the 3-panel M-B arbitration in lieu of a single arbitrator arbitration and USAPA is refusing to arbitrate MOU/MTA differences. Both of these actions violate the pilot's contract, which I believe is not unusual for USAPA. When is it o.k. for USAPA to violate the pilot's contract?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]In fact, this was predicted by Judge Silver when she said, "The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority."[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]What I don't get is how many East pilots look the other way and support USAPA knowing full well the union is committing a legal practice violation and two contract violations. Why are the East pilots supporting USAPA's ISL actions? I believe because the majority of pilots cannot make the right and ethical decision when it involves seniority, fear of financial loss, and a possible a loss of quality of life. Instead the majority of East pilots will accommodate their thoughts to justify their actions because of career disappointment, which is an accommodation and philosophy I cannot support.[/SIZE]

 

[luvthe9]

Furthermore,

 
What I don't get is how many East pilots ......."....

What I don't get is how any pilot or anyone for that matter would waste their time reading any of your crap.

 

[EastUS1]

[SIZE=10pt]"...will accommodate their thoughts to justify their actions because of career disappointment, which is an accommodation and philosophy..."[/SIZE]

What I don't get is how any pilot or anyone for that matter would waste their time reading any of your crap.

 
Be gentle here. Logical "thought" seems a far reach beyond the poor fellow's wildest dreams, and it would even seem that marginally coherent English is at best a second language....

 

[EastUS1]

[SIZE=10pt]What I don't get...[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]I [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]cannot support.[/SIZE]...

 
And what part(s) of that should be of any honest concern to anyone, and just how, exactly? This isn't some bulletin board you can sneak into, late at night, remove the actual thoughts of others, and cover over instead with your own pathetic BS....Just sayin'.
 
On a much sadder, but unavoidably observed as a continuing symptom...well...in all of your mindless rantings; you've yet to EVER actually engage anyone in shared conversation, much less direct debate...No surprise there at all. Given the twists of your condition; you'll imagine even that last as some effort for attention (which you could then understand) rather than a forwarding of clinically predictable pathology.

 

[EastUS1]

[SIZE=10pt]1. Following SCS APA would obligated to pay USAPA post-single carrier old union bills including costs of its current headquarters?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]2. Following SCS APA would be obligated to maintain USAPA's independent operation authority throughout the JCBA and SLI process?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]3. Following SCS APA would be obligated to pay for USAPA's ongoing litigation expenses in any subsequent Addington DFR cases for the old union?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]4. Following SCS APA would recognize USAPA as a party to the protocol agreement even after USAPA ceases to be the certified bargaining representative [/SIZE]

 
 
Umm...and all these would be "bad" things for yourself and your coworkers exactly HOW?  Sigh! Don't strain yourself. You would likely need substantive therapy to at all be able to even directly answer, much less debate with anyone.
 
How 'bout instead of continuous, psychotic squirming; you, perhaps for the first time ever, at least make some feeble attempt at answering a direct question....? 😉 It's not that you won't even try, of course, the tragic truth is that you CAN'T. As I've noted; the pathology you exhibit's no mysterious thing.
 
A suggested exercise for enhanced, personal growth: Try answering the/ANY direct question(s). Shall we start with just this?:  "Umm...and all these would be "bad" things for yourself and your coworkers exactly HOW?"...?

 

[767one]

 
Suggested cliche here's a buncha' C and E vitamin supplements in addition to the antibiotics Bob. I hope you recover quickly. I've a lifetime friend, now for many decades a fine physician, that agrees with you on questionably "needed" vaccinations and long-ago cautioned me against the same.
 
Per controlling "Ivan"? I still feel that just a few choice phrases in Finnish would always put him in his proper place. 😉
 
Thanks East,
 
I've never been one to over medicate.....I take an 81 MG. aspirin and 1 over the counter Nexium per day. Since my knee replacement I've been somewhat doctor and for sure hospital shy. At this point I really don't want to see either unless I'm bleeding gallons per minute or in extreme pain. 
 
Regards,
 
Bob

 

[EastUS1]

 


 

"...somewhat doctor and for sure hospital shy. At this point I really don't want to see either unless I'm bleeding gallons per minute or in extreme pain." Fully understood and agreed with Bob. These days sir?..."Doctors" approaching make me briefly wonder at what point I should just give in, and finally sign the "war crimes confession" 😉 All I'm sayin's that the C and E might well help you heal up in expedited time. Do take the very best care of yourself, slightly older Brother.  We just ain't "puppies" no more (Walks away muttering to self....stubborn F'n Finns...what's ta' do with them?) 😉

 

[EastUS1]

 
"This was done on no authority other than that imagined by this lunatic." That's perfectly symptomatic: http://www.psycholog...-other-bad-guys "Narcissists and psychopaths care only about themselves, and have no qualms about hurting and sacrificing others when it suits their purposes."

 
P.S. Gentlemen: The almost certain "response" from chip is at most a very brief hiatus, followed by additional drivel that "pretends" to have not ever "heard" anyone else here. None need be at all surprised, since that seemingly bizarre behavior's fully predictable. We, if being decent people, should all find ourselves with actual and honest sympathy....Not kidding....Not even slightly kidding. That poor person needs serious help. Would any of you intentionally offer harm to the impaired/afflicted? I thought not, and understand this is an issue of illness.

 

[767one]

 
 


 

"...somewhat doctor and for sure hospital shy. At this point I really don't want to see either unless I'm bleeding gallons per minute or in extreme pain." Fully understood and agreed with Bob. These days sir?..."Doctors" approaching make me briefly wonder at what point I should just give in, and finally sign the "war crimes confession" 😉 All I'm sayin's that the C and E might well help you heal up in expedited time. Do take the very best care of yourself, slightly older Brother.  We just ain't "puppies" no more (Walks away muttering to self....stubborn F'n Finns...what's ta' do with them?) 😉

 

 
 
I take all advice under consideration. You know you can always tell a Finn......you just can't tell him much! 😉

 

[end_of_alpa]

P.S. Gentlemen: The almost certain "response" from chip is at most a very brief hiatus, followed by additional drivel that "pretends" to have not ever "heard" anyone else here. None need be at all surprised, since that seemingly bizarre behavior's fully predictable. We, if being decent people, should all find ourselves with actual and honest sympathy....Not kidding....Not even slightly kidding. That poor person needs serious help. Would any of you intentionally offer harm to the impaired/afflicted? I thought not, and understand this is an issue of illness.

I quit answering "he who shall not be named" because of his hypocritical psychopathic drivel. To recognize him now only encourages his already one sided "opinions".

Let the madman rave.

 

[end_of_alpa]

WASHINGTON -- On Sunday night, the leaders of America's public-sector labor unions will sleep fitfully, if they manage to sleep at all.

The source of their anxiety -- brewing now for months -- is the Supreme Court's impending decision in Harris v. Quinn, expected to be handed down Monday morning alongside Hobby Lobby, the more high-profile birth control case. In a worst-case scenario for labor and the left, Harris v. Quinn has the potential to cripple public-sector unions.

On its surface, the case deals with home care workers in Illinois who care for the disabled. The plaintiff, Pamela Harris, serves as the caretaker to her son Josh, who suffers from a rare genetic syndrome. The elder Harris receives Medicaid funds to do so and essentially functions as a state employee.

Many state-supported home care workers in Illinois are represented by the union SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana. Under the contract between the union and the state, all home care workers covered under the contract are required to pay a fee to SEIU to cover the expenses associated with bargaining, whether or not they want to be union members.

This arrangement avoids what unions commonly refer to as freeloading -- that is, benefiting from the union's work without helping to underwrite it. Since unions have to represent all the employees in a particular bargaining unit, they commonly seek requirements in their contracts that all workers pay such "fair share" fees.

The Supreme Court has already affirmed that workers can be required to pay fees to public-sector unions to cover bargaining costs, though not political activities, in its 1977 Abood case.

But with Harris v. Quinn, Abood could be turned on its head.

In suing the state, Harris and her co-plaintiffs argue that the required payment to SEIU amounts to a forced association that violates their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, an anti-union group that funds lawsuits aimed at diminishing organized labor's clout.

As Harvard law professor Benjamin Sachs has explained, there are several possible outcomes in Harris v. Quinn. The court could simply affirm the lower court's ruling, in which case labor's lost sleep would be all for naught. Or, in a blow to unions that represent home care workers like Harris, the court could rule that such workers are employed by individuals and aren't really state employees. In that case, they wouldn't be covered by Abood and could no longer be required to pay union fees.

But another outcome -- albeit one that appeared unlikely during oral arguments -- is that the justices could embrace the plaintiffs' broad First Amendment argument, in what would be a disastrous case for organized labor at large. Such a decision could give public-sector workers throughout the U.S. the ability to opt out of paying fees to the unions that bargain for them, thereby instituting a kind of right-to-work on the public sector.

There's a reason labor unions combat right-to-work laws so doggedly in states across the country: When given the choice to stop supporting the union, many workers do so.

Although the unionization rate has steadily tumbled to just 6.7 percent of the U.S. private sector, union density in the public sector has held strong for decades. Today, more than one-third of such workers are still unionized, and public-sector unions remain a major force in U.S. policy and politics.

The Supreme Court -- to the fear of union leaders, and to the glee of those on the right who loathe public-sector unionism -- has the potential to change all that on Monday.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Public-Sector Unions Survive Supreme Court Review

Home-health workers in Illinois got a reprieve from a state law that required them to pay union dues, as the U.S. Supreme Court came within inches of reversing the precedent that allowed mandatory public-sector unions in the first place.

The high court, in Harris v. Quinn, ruled that the justifications behind requiring public-sector workers to pay dues, such as labor peace and the avoidance of free riders capitalizing on the work of union negotiators, had little relevance in the case of home-health aides hired by individual patients with Medicare funding from the state. The court came close to overturning Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education, the 1977 decision allowing states to require their employees to pay union dues, but fell back on harshly criticizing it instead as poorly reasoned and based on questionable foundations. It limited this decision to quasi-public employees paid with government funds but operating outside of direct government supervision.

The ability of the state to require such employees to pay dues is now a closed issue, said Willy Jay, a partner with Goodwin Procter in New York and a former assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General. Anybody whos not a traditional state employee public union member, their status has been resolved by this decision.

Left open is how aggressive conservative groups like the National Right To Work Committee will be in seeking test cases to extend this decision to all public employees, Jay told me.

When they think about that, they must bear in mind that somebody blinked in this case, he said. They didnt overrule Abood.


The decision by Justice Samuel Alito notes the First Amendment challenges embedded in public-sector unionization, where workers are forced to pay dues to an organization that may engage in political activity they oppose, such as advocating government spending that increases their taxes. That makes public-sector unions different from their private counterparts, he said.

The Abood court glossed over those First Amendment concerns, Alito wrote. That court, failed to appreciate the difference between the core union speech involuntarily subsidized by dissenting public-sector employees and the core union speech invol­untarily funded by their counterparts in the private sec­tor.

In the public sector, core issues such as wages, pen­sions, and benefits are important political issues, but that is generally not so in the private sector, he said.

Instead of overturning Abood, however, the five-member majority established a new category of partial-public employees who cant be compelled to pay dues. The home-health workers at issue in Illinois work at the pleasure of their customers, who control all aspects of the employment relationship. The most powerful justification for mandatory unionization, that it procures labor peace by reducing conflicts between workers, hardly applies in a setting where one employee works in a single house, the court said.

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the law in 2003 mandating union dues and later recognized the Service Employees International Union as sole bargaining agent for some 50,000 home health aides. Blagojevich raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the union and was later convicted of conspiring to try and sell the vacant Senate seat of Barrack Obama, including reported allegations he was angling for a $300,000-a-year job with an SEIU-affiliated organization.

The decision drew a strong dissent from the courts liberals, written by Justice Elena Kagan. She said the state of Illinois not only pays home-health workers but supervises their work. And the state had ample reasons for selecting a single bargaining agent for home-health aides since that could help it ensure a steady supply of workers and guarantees against strikes.


The decision doesnt spell the end for public-sector unions but Alitos opinion does reinforce the conservative majoritys deep skepticism of forcing public employees to contribute money to organizations they disagree with. Alito called the reasoning in the Abood decision questionable on several grounds and said the court could not extend it to quasi-public employees. The Abood court failed to appreciate the practical difficulty of separating legitimate negotiating expenses from purely political ones, for example.

If we accepted Illinois argu­ment, we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support. The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation Program who do not want to join or support the union.

The decision addresses only a subset of public employees but could have implications for unions more generally, said Mark Neuberger, a partner with Foley & Lardner who focuses on employment law. In an e-mailed comment, he said the decision clearly identifies compulsory dues as threatening the First Amendment right of free association.

They view compulsory union membership as a restraint of free speech, Neuberger said. That is a marked changed from the more liberal Warren court of the 60s and 70s.

The decision will inspire conservative-funded groups to further erode the idea of compulsory union membership, he said, as workers themselves are less susceptible to the message that unions will raise their wages.

Unions have been unable to persuade large groups of workers that they offer them a good deal, he said. Otherwise, why would they have to force things like compulsory dues on people? If unions offered a good deal for workers, they would be clamoring to get in.

Some conservatives, including Justice Antonin Scalia, mix their anti-union sentiments with concerns about overturning the right of employers to contract with an organization they think could help with labor relations, however. In this decision, the court laid down fundamental differences between private employers and public employers, but still left open the possibility of public employers entering into such contracts as well.

 

[end_of_alpa]

7See, e.g., R. Kearney & P. Mareschal, Labor Relations in the Public Sector 26 (5th ed. 2014) (“[T]he largest federal union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), represented approxi-mately 650,000 bargaining unit members in 2012, but less than half of them were dues-paying members. All told, out of the approximately 1.9 million full-time federal wage system (blue-collar) and General Sched-ule (white-collar) employees who are represented by a collective bar-gaining contract, only one-third actually belong to the union and pay dues”).

 

[end_of_alpa]

2014 is the Year Conservatives come out swinging and Liberals are headed to the south of the border (to watch the Soccer match I presume).
 
Backed by three seminal Supreme Court decisions, it looks like Liberal Democrats and Barack Obama are getting their asses kicked and just wait for the Fall 2014 mid term elections when the republicans win the Senate and expand the House.  Looking forward to that pinhead Harry Reid lose his position.
 
The Supreme Court denied the Liberal President who is above the law the ability to appoint improper recess appointments (Read NLRB just lost liberal ability to expand labor unions reach).
 
The Supreme Court denied the HHS from taking religious freedoms away from private individual corporations.
 
But most of all, the Supreme Court is waiting for the next case soon to come up the pipe that strips the unusual practice of Labor unions striping you of your First Amendment right to let the Unions speak for you when YOU WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.
 
Here is where the West pilots will soon get what they wanted.  Not to pay ANY union dues if they don't want to.  Well I hope the APA is listening because the Supreme Court has just started the clock and the countdown begins for the day when they rule that Private sector unions can't force ANYONE to pay dues.
 
It will be employment at will in about five years, it would be my guess.

 

[nycbusdriver]

2014 is the Year Conservatives come out swinging and Liberals are headed to the south of the border (to watch the Soccer match I presume).
 
Backed by three seminal Supreme Court decisions, it looks like Liberal Democrats and Barack Obama are getting their asses kicked and just wait for the Fall 2014 mid term elections when the republicans win the Senate and expand the House.  Looking forward to that pinhead Harry Reid lose his position.
 
The Supreme Court denied the Liberal President who is above the law the ability to appoint improper recess appointments (Read NLRB just lost liberal ability to expand labor unions reach).
 
The Supreme Court denied the HHS from taking religious freedoms away from private individual corporations.
 
But most of all, the Supreme Court is waiting for the next case soon to come up the pipe that strips the unusual practice of Labor unions striping you of your First Amendment right to let the Unions speak for you when YOU WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.
 
Here is where the West pilots will soon get what they wanted.  Not to pay ANY union dues if they don't want to.  Well I hope the APA is listening because the Supreme Court has just started the clock and the countdown begins for the day when they rule that Private sector unions can't force ANYONE to pay dues.
 
It will be employment at will in about five years, it would be my guess.

 
These decisions are great news for liberals and Democrats.  It just brings back to the forefront that the Rebuplicans of "less government" are about anythy BUT less government.  
 
Women in this country will turn out in massive numbers in the elections 2014 and 2016 in the aftemath of these decisions.  Harry Reid will enjoy his Majority Leader position for yet another election cycle.  
 
Of course, it's the Democrats' to lose now.  As long as they don't do something really stupid, they will keep the Senate and make great inroads in the House.  In January, 2017, President Clinton will again have Democrat majorities in both houses.
 
The Supreme's gave the Democrats their battle cry for the next few election cycles, and the demographics of this country will insure their ultimate victory while the Republicans split themsleves into two pieces.
 
The Tea Party will run some whack-a-doodle (like Ted Cruz) for president in 2016, and that will be "all she wrote."