AAA thread 11/2-11/8

[AWA320]

That's entirely a function of both ability to observe, and historical perspective. You've had almost no time having Alpo as a representative body for you.....

When you make a statement like that what do you mean? I know I have not been with alpa 30 to 40 yrs like yourself but I have been with alpa for 10yrs, more than enough time to understand it's politics.
"USAPA is nothing more than a west screw campaign" That's hardly the case. Certainly Nic's a big problem on campus these days...or haven't you noticed?, but; the larger goals haven't anything to do with "a west screw campaign". Oddly enough?....and as taxing as this must be for you to even consider.....It's not actually all about you.

Not about you either which is something that escapes you east folks!! You think the world revolves around you and that we all should just bow to your feet like your're Gods! No your former company was a failure until we came along and not you're like a virus that infects and takes over! Well news flash there pal we do have a cure so make your move. Gloves come off this week brother and we are tired of playing .

There's honest hope for far better represention, an actual union, and even some chance at a better future for pilots here that's not likely to be sold out in the future by Alpo for their own purposes..as has happened so many times, and will happen again in the future if a stand's not taken. Regardless of which side of the Nic argument anyone's on...there's little question that this has been a botched job by Alpo. Regardless of any fantasies about a spectacular contract immediately occuring if Alpo's kept?...There's a lot of reasons to see such willfull fantasy for what it is, and really zero reasons to assume that any great deal's even possible with Alpo at the helm,..now, or ever.

Yeah right!! USAPA was started because you want the world at our expense period!! You agree to enter a process get the result and cry like the spoiled children your are when you do get the fk us over!! Like I said the cure is coming time is up!!!

 

[AAA73Pilot]

This is the reason you are not a medical professional, stick to flying a/c and stop trying to interpret what you obviously can not or choose to not understand! Honor your agreements.

I understand plenty. ALPA merger policy or should I say "guidelines" or even "process" is a classic failed tenet of this supposed national union. If there really was a merger policy under the national Constitution and ByLaws we would not even be having this discussion.

ALPA is weak and ineffective as a national union. It's time for a union with only one constituency.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Like I said the cure is coming time is up!!!

You really think so? Thanks............ The cure is coming....Finally being rid of ALPA is the best cure I can think of.

 

[EastUS]

This is the reason you are not a medical professional,stick to flying a/c and stop trying to interpret what you obviously can not or choose to not understand!

WTF? :blink: Sigh..Guess that I should have listened to mom and gone to med school, as the signifigance of the intricate subtleties woven within the latest rantings are eluding me enitirely.

AWA320? You've evidently been quite fortunate thus far, and are clearly able to view flying as a vocation for the simple minded. You certainly put forth a compelling personal argument on behalf of that notion, but; there are times aloft when some expeditious employment of cognitive process affords far better chances for a positive outcome. Regardless? I'm sure that you'll make a splendid captain, and we really should just resolve this Nic mess and turn you loose immediately.

"They've their share of Village Idiots,..."

 

[AAA73Pilot]

"They've their share of Village Idiots,..."

Couldn't agree more. Wanted: More idiots for our ALPA village

 

[end_of_alpa]

Folks, I continue to watch with amusement how the CORE principles of unionism in general, and ALPA in particular have denegrated to unimaginable proportions. Here is how it will pan out at US Airways: (time will prove me right)

1. No international growth in PHX and LAS. (Kirbys latest AWA Pilot meeting)

2. Closure of the LAS base. (cost consolidation, much like PIT)

3. Shrinkage in PHX due to cyclical/leisure market base. (real estate bubble, subprime, high fuel costs)

4. Without a comparable cost contract on West with LOA 93 on East, the company will give flying to the East.

5. New hires will capture East vacancies by being hired on East, promised advancement, attrition, accelerated seniority and growth international while West new hires, if any, fill seats from attrition only, which isn't much.

6. New hires on East will have more value to the company due to business/international growth on Eastern seaboard (captured market PHL and Charlotte business growth).

7. Current East First Officers will be willing to capture pay loss by utilizing their Captain Qualified First Officer training (almost all have ATP, type rating in all equipment, First Class medicals) and can therefore transition from right seat to left seat in a short one week course.

8. East pilots will offer to fly as Captain on any of the equipment in PHX/LAS the AWA pilots will not fly because they are in Section 6 and will not work under LOA 93 as the East pilots will. In short, the East pilots will choose the long term over the short term.

ANY NEW HIRE PILOT WHO IS CONSIDERING WORKING FOR US AIRWAYS DO NOT GO TO WORK OUT WEST IF GIVEN THE CHOICE IN NEW HIRE CLASS. AS LONG AS THE TWO SIDES ARE SEPARATE, WHICH THEY CURRENTLY ARE UNDER ALPA, YOU WILL HAVE A CHOICE. YOU CAN ACCELERATE YOUR CAREER BY WORKING UNDER THE EAST SIDE AND CAPTURING GROWTH AND ATTRITION OVER THE WEST GUYS. THE EAST GUYS WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY CONTRACT WITH THE SENIORITY AWARD IN IT. WHEN THE EAST COPILOTS ACCEPT CAPTAIN UPGRADES THEY WILL BE ABLE TO FLY WHAT THE WEST PILOTS DO NOT WANT TO FLY AND YOU'LL MOVE UP FASTER IN SENIORITY. EVENTUALLY THE WEST PILOTS WILL WORK FOR LESS TRYING TO KEEP THEIR SENIORITY BUT IT WILL BE TOO LATE....ALL THE GROWTH IS IN THE EAST. IT COMES DOWN TO GEOGRAPHY. BEST IN THE EAST, POOR IN THE WEST.

IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO WORK FOR US AIRWAYS, YOU BETTER NOT VOTE FOR ALPA BECAUSE THEIR MERGER POLICY STRIPS YOU OF YOUR SENIORITY AND YOU WILL GO BACK TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST....GUARANTEED!!! BUT HEY, IT WILL BE YOUR CHOICE.

WHY? BECAUSE THE MAJORITY IS ON THE EAST SIDE AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WORK'S. IT'S SIMPLY A NUMBERS GAME. PLEASE DO THE MATH!

(please excuse the typos)

 

[AWA320]

I understand plenty. ALPA merger policy or should I say "guidelines" or even "process" is a classic failed tenet of this supposed national union. If there really was a merger policy under the national Constitution and ByLaws we would not even be having this discussion.

ALPA is weak and ineffective as a national union. It's time for a union with only one constituency.

No you dont understand it because if you did it would be clear. You understand what it used to be and you want that back yet you either failed to request or just didn't give a rats until this abortion started!! Merger policy was followed to the letter but again that with which you fail or choose not to understand constantly escapes you. You and your pals scream of windfall but fail the basic understanding of how that term is to be applied. So in the end AAA73 you simply have no idea of policy and how it is applied only your wishes and desires which are clearly outside of said policy.

Good day to you sir.

 

[AWA320]

WTF? :blink: Sigh..Guess that I should have listened to mom and gone to med school, as the signifigance of the intricate subtleties woven within the latest rantings are eluding me enitirely.

AWA320? You've evidently been quite fortunate thus far, and are clearly able to view flying as a vocation for the simple minded. You certainly put forth a compelling personal argument on behalf of that notion, but; there are times aloft when some expeditious employment of cognitive process affords far better chances for a positive outcome. Regardless? I'm sure that you'll make a splendid captain, and we really should just resolve this Nic mess and turn you loose immediately.

"They've their share of Village Idiots,..."

East,

You totally missed my point. I love flying and it can best be described as "the best part time job in the world" I also learn from the mistakes of others ahead of me and I understand that this career can be extremely unstable. I planned accordingly as I am sure you did as well!

Now with regards to the award I guess we will have to agree to disagree. JNC is the key East to our problems as we can not afford as a complete group to set a precidence that gives any management team the opportunity to open up and negotiate arbitrated awards. There is a bigger picture here East bigger that all of us combined...

 

[AAA73Pilot]

No you dont understand it because if you did it would be clear.

Good day to you sir.

I still understand. If we had a policy, not "guidelines", not "processes", but a real policy, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We would be complaining about the conditions and restrictions placed on each group, or the slow pace of the JNC talks or whatever. What I do know is consolidation is coming and I really do not want any part of ALPA's so called merger policy.

But that is how it goes with a political organization answering to many masters. You want to deal in absolutes. The only thing I know about absolutes is death and taxes. Everything else is negotiable. You and I disagree, it seems we will always disagree, oh well. That's how it goes.

Good day to you also,

 

[Tiger 1050]

I understand plenty. ALPA merger policy or should I say "guidelines" or even "process" is a classic failed tenet of this supposed national union. If there really was a merger policy under the national Constitution and ByLaws we would not even be having this discussion.

ALPA is weak and ineffective as a national union. It's time for a union with only one constituency.

I'll apologize ahead of time if I offend you AAA73 because I respect you... However I have noticed that you have latched on to this notion that the merger policy is "guidelines" as though that were something negative and insuinuate that they (the guidelines) were not adhered to during our seniority integration process.

First let's look at how the merger policy is implemented. In it's most basic dissection the policy provides a path to achieve the stated goal of bringing two pilot groups together fairly. At least as fairly as possible...

The merger policy has each pilot group form a Merger Committee to begin negotiations with their respective counterparts. If these negotiations are unable to bear fruit then the next step is then implemented...

The next step is mediation. In our case Mr. Nicolau served as both the mediator and arbiter. During mediation Nicolau serves as a buffer if you will to provide third party insight in the matters at hand. If yet again we find ourselves unable to find an acceptable solution the process moves us to next step...

Arbitration. Now here is where I find your comments inflammatory to say the least. When we come to this part of the process we forfeit our control of our destiny. Period! You now are reduced to pleading your case to an arbiter and his two pilot neutrals. Nicolau was NEVER bound by the guidelines you speak of. The guidelines you speak of are only in play during our negotiations prior to arbitration. So if my knowledge is correct concerning the timeline we negotiated for almost 18 months and then we had 2 weeks of mediation. Plenty of time to see the light at the end of the tunnel, however I can be confident in saying the east was only interested in a solutiuon that the west felt was detrimental to their careers. Binding arbitration is a dangerous thing. You east pilots new this and so did the west. The outcome could have just as easily gone the other way. I wonder what the average eastie would have thought of that? In the hearings it is more than clear how and why Nicolua arrived at his solution. In any respect binding arbitration is a gamble at best, but it is also the most fair in my opinion, because of third party insight. We don't have too far to look in the past to find a recent occurence of arbitration hurting pilots... Alaska Airlines concessionary contract. It is always better to negotiate when the process provides time to do so...

Rant over

 

[AWA320]

I still understand. If we had a policy, not "guidelines", not "processes", but a real policy, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We would be complaining about the conditions and restrictions placed on each group, or the slow pace of the JNC talks or whatever. What I do know is consolidation is coming and I really do not want any part of ALPA's so called merger policy.

But that is how it goes with a political organization answering to many masters. You want to deal in absolutes. The only thing I know about absolutes is death and taxes. Everything else is negotiable. You and I disagree, it seems we will always disagree, oh well. That's how it goes.

Good day to you also,

Again here is where you seem to fall off the boat, (no insult intended). You do have a policy which is governed by proceedures. Those proceedures were followed which is why they have not been overturned. If you sensed foul you first course of action should have been a complaint to the national arbitration board and not to ALPA national or thru the very useless law suit against another MEC!! There is a reason your MEC made the decision to follow the path they did. They understood full well the extent of their actions going into arbitration in the first place. We have been over this so I see no real value in our going over it again. What I will say is that your reps and master chairman chose the path they did because it wastes time.

As a matter of policy, the national mediation board doesn't not keep incompetent arbitrators around. Think about the amout of time and money it would take for the board to consistantly have to review their works and decisions?? They are a very small group so the spot light is much brighter on them than in the court system.

George made a ruling based upon the case presented by both sides then applying the merger policy to reach a final decision. The fact the he had given the sides a second opportunity to try and reach a resolution is and should have been one of the most obvious clues.

Even in the courts have guidelines AAA73 and those lines are often very fine. If the judge or arbitrator is placed is a tight box as a result they often turn to the parties to attempt a resolution so as not to have to follow those guidlines because doing so can cause that with which you and I are in right now. The guidelines in this case were followed even though you and I may disagree.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Again here is where you seem to fall off the boat, (no insult intended). You do have a policy which is governed by proceedures. Those proceedures were followed which is why they have not been overturned. If you sensed foul you first course of action should have been a complaint to the national arbitration board and not to ALPA national or thru the very useless law suit against another MEC!! There is a reason your MEC made the decision to follow the path they did. They understood full well the extent of their actions going into arbitration in the first place. We have been over this so I see no real value in our going over it again. What I will say is that your reps and master chairman chose the path they did because it wastes time.

As a matter of policy, the national mediation board doesn't not keep incompetent arbitrators around. Think about the amout of time and money it would take for the board to consistantly have to review their works and decisions?? They are a very small group so the spot light is much brighter on them than in the court system.

George made a ruling based upon the case presented by both sides then applying the merger policy to reach a final decision. The fact the he had given the sides a second opportunity to try and reach a resolution is and should have been one of the most obvious clues.

Even in the courts have guidelines AAA73 and those lines are often very fine. If the judge or arbitrator is placed is a tight box as a result they often turn to the parties to attempt a resolution so as not to have to follow those guidlines because doing so can cause that with which you and I are in right now. The guidelines in this case were followed even though you and I may disagree.

Just curious...why the national arbitration board??? Can you point to their website or their information? Can you show me where the law is that relates to arbitration is located? I'm having trouble finding it on Google search.

Thanks.

 

[AWA320]

Just curious...why the national arbitration board??? Can you point to their website or their information? Can you show me where the law is that relates to arbitration is located? I'm having trouble finding it on Google search.

Thanks.

I'm sorry that I didn't include that information. It's the national arbitration forum and you can google that title. This is from their FAQ section.

Q: What happens after a binding arbitration decision is issued?
A: Once a binding arbitration decision is issued, the FORUM's role in the dispute resolution process is complete. The arbitration decision constitutes the binding resolution of the dispute between the parties, except in the rare event that either 1.) there is a clerical or administrative mistake in the decision, in which case the FORUM will correct it at the request of any party, or 2.) if certain exceptional circumstances exist, parties may request that the arbitrator reconsider the decision.

The FORUM has no influence or control over the course of action taken by the parties following the decision. Parties may seek to convert the decision into an enforceable legal judgment by “confirmingâ€￾ it in court. Parties may also seek to “vacateâ€￾ the decision in court under the limited legal grounds provided in the Federal Arbitration Act or applicable state law.

Back To FAQ's

 

[end_of_alpa]

I'm sorry that I didn't include that information. It's the national arbitration forum and you can google that title. This is from their FAQ section.

Q: What happens after a binding arbitration decision is issued?
A: Once a binding arbitration decision is issued, the FORUM's role in the dispute resolution process is complete. The arbitration decision constitutes the binding resolution of the dispute between the parties, except in the rare event that either 1.) there is a clerical or administrative mistake in the decision, in which case the FORUM will correct it at the request of any party, or 2.) if certain exceptional circumstances exist, parties may request that the arbitrator reconsider the decision.

The FORUM has no influence or control over the course of action taken by the parties following the decision. Parties may seek to convert the decision into an enforceable legal judgment by “confirming†it in court. Parties may also seek to “vacate†the decision in court under the limited legal grounds provided in the Federal Arbitration Act or applicable state law.

Back To FAQ's

For your information, Sir, according to Title 9 Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act:

Section 1. "Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title

"Maritime transactions", as herein defined, means charter parties, bills of lading of water carriers, agreements relating to wharfage, supplies furnished vessels or repairs to vessels, collisions, or any other matters in foreign commerce which, if the subject of controversy, would be embraced within admiralty jurisdiction; "commerce", as herein defined, means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation, but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_s...tle=9&sec=1

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explains that "While neither this court nor the Supreme Court has definitively ruled on whether the FAA applies to employment contracts, both courts have suggested that it does not. We have repeatedly noted the Supreme Court's reluctance to hold the FAA applicable to arbitration proceedings involving labor disputes, as well as our own inclination to interpret the employment exclusion clause broadly." Please see CRAFT v CAMPBELL SOUP CO. 98-15060 U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/prin...th/9815060.html


In conclusion, they summarized that..."we hold that the FAA does not apply to labor or employment contracts. Thus, the FAA is inapplicable to the CBA that governs.....employment."

A more summarized version of this holding can be found here.

"The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not apply to employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements. That was the holding of a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Craft v. Campbell Soup Co., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30580 (12/2/98)." http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126752.html

If this "FORUM" is where you are getting the idea that this is "Federal Binding Arbitration"? The Courts say otherwise.

"A union agreement made pursuant to the Railway Labor Act has, therefore, the imprimatur of the federal law upon it . . . .. That is, the 204 contract, ..... is a federal contract and is therefore governed and enforceable by federal law, in the federal courts." MACHINISTS v. CENTRAL AIRLINES, 372 U.S. 682 (1963).

"Any authority to negotiate derives its principal strength from a delegation to the negotiators of a discretion to make such concessions and accept such advantages as, in the light of all relevant considerations, they believe will best serve the interests of the parties represented. A major responsibility of negotiators is to weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of differing proposals. A bargaining representative, under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, often is a labor organization but it is not essential that it be such. The employees represented often are members of the labor organization which represents them at the bargaining table, but it is not essential that they be such. The bargaining representative, whoever it may be, is responsible to, and owes complete loyalty to, the interests of all whom it represents.....Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid. The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion." FORD MOTOR CO. v. HUFFMAN, 345 U.S. 330 (1953, citations omitted)

"Compromises on a temporary basis, with a view to long-range advantages, are natural incidents of negotiation. Differences in wages, hours and conditions of employment reflect countless variables. Seniority rules governing promotions, transfers, layoffs and similar matters may, in the first instance, revolve around length of competent service. Variations acceptable in the discretion of bargaining representatives, however, may well include differences based upon such matters as the unit within which seniority is to be computed, the privileges to which it shall relate, the nature of the work, the time at which it is done, the fitness, ability or age of the employees, their family responsibilities, injuries received in course of service, and time or labor devoted to related public service, whether civil or military, voluntary or involuntary." FORD MOTOR CO. v. HUFFMAN, 345 U.S. 330 (1953, citations omitted)

"The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives a bargaining representative not only wide responsibility but authority to meet that responsibility. We have held that a collective-bargaining representative is within its authority when, in the general interest of those it represents, it agrees to allow union chairmen certain advantages in the retention of their employment, even to the prejudice of veterans otherwise entitled to greater seniority." FORD MOTOR CO. v. HUFFMAN, 345 U.S. 330 (1953, citations omitted)

Although these cases refer to NLRB, it favors the collective bargaining agent even MORE in RLA cases. The wording in this instance is just more clear. Courts frequently resort to caselaw under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRAâ€) for analogy in determining RLA issues. “[F]ederal common labor law developed under the NLRA may be helpful in deciding cases under the RLA.†Trans World Airlines v. IFFA, 489 U.S. 426, 432 (1989).

In Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 383 (1969), the Supreme Court stated: "To the extent that there exists today any relevant corpus of “national labor policy,†it is in the law developed during the more than 30 years of administering our most comprehensive national labor scheme, the National Labor Relations Act. This Act represents the only existing congressional expression as to the permissible bounds of economic combat. It has, moreover, presented problems of federal-state relations analogous to those at bar."

On the other hand, the Supreme Court cautioned that the NLRA cannot be imported wholesale into the railway labor arena. Even rough analogies must be drawn circumspectly, with due regard for the many differences between the statutory schemes. See also Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. UTU, 402 U.S. 570, 579 n.11 (1971) (“all parallels between the NLRA and the [RLA] should be drawn with the utmost care and with full awareness of the differences between the statutory schemesâ€); Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Chicago River & I. R.R., 353 U.S. 30, 31-32 n.2 (1957) (“The relationship of labor and management in the railroad industry has developed on a pattern different from other industries. The fundamental premises and principles of the [RLA] are not the same as those which form the basis of the [NLRA].â€).

ALPA merger "Policy" is simply that of ALPA National. It is no more binding on USAPA than it is on any other collective bargaining agent that takes over the mantle from ALPA. Don't believe me? how about THIS case?

In Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 US 40 (1947) the court explains:

"The case is an aftermath of a general controversy over seniority rights which arose among the employees of two corporations following their consolidation on January 1, 1944. Because of the relation of the general controversy to this litigation a detailed statement of the facts becomes necessary. Prior to their consolidation the Highland Body Manufacturing Company had been a wholly owned subsidiary of the petitioner, the Trailmobile Company. The two corporations manufactured the same commodities in separate plants in Cincinnati, Ohio.

During 1943 under the plan of consolidation the supplies and equipment and personnel of Highland were transferred gradually to the plant of Trailmobile. It took over the assets and business of Highland and assumed all its obligations. The employees of Highland were transferred to the payroll of Trailmobile as of January 1, 1944, when the consolidation became fully effective. The employees of both companies had been affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. 51 N.L.R.B. 1106, 1108. At the time of the consolidation the Highland group, including respondent, claimed seniority with Trailmobile of the dates of their employment by Highland. The former Trailmobile employees opposed this, maintaining that the Highland personnel should be considered as new employees of Trailmobile, with seniority dating only from January 1, 1944. This dispute was submitted to national representatives of the A.F. of L. They decided in favor of the Highland group.

The former Trailmobile employees were dissatisfied with this decision. They outnumbered the Highland claimants about ten to one. Accordingly, reorganizing as a unit of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, they requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of Trailmobile's employees, including the Highland transferees. An election was held under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, in which the new C.I.O. local was chosen as bargaining representative for a unit composed of both groups.

Trailmobile accordingly negotiated with the C.I.O. and in July, 1944, a collective bargaining agreement was concluded, effective as of June 21, 1944. It provided that the seniority rights of former Highland employees should be fixed as of January 1, 1944, regardless of the dates of their original employment by Highland."

So you see, the seniority of a group can always be renegotiated by a new collective bargainng agent. Highland employees fought and lost under Ohio court law. The AWA would fight this in Federal court since this is RLA if USAPA is voted in.

If I were you I would read the DISSENTING opinion in this case where they say that...."The fair solution would be that each employee go on the seniority list as of the date he entered either of the two units now consolidated." Of course the smaller group was put on the bottom of the list at the time of the company consolidated the operations of the subsidiary (just like here at US Airways has done with the America West SUBSIDIARY) into the surviving entity.

There are many cases where the MAJORITY disliked the outcome of seniority awards, changed their collective bargaining agents and elected a new one that conformed to the choice of the MAJORITY.

Back to the binding arbitration issue, however, I could find no case numbers filed at the NMB that shows any disputes between either the US Airways MEC, the AWA MEC and/or ALPA National. In fact, isn't the Mediation/Arbitration procedures VOLUNTARY and between the Employer and the Collective Bargaining Agent???

Since the Railway Labor Act and the NMB preempts state law regarding interstate commerce in Railway and Transportation issues then WHERE would one file to COMPEL enforcement of the Nicolau award? Alternatively, how would a party compel the enforcement of the award? If the majority will not ratify a contract with the award in it, can you go to court to FORCE the majority to vote for a contract?

If the East won't vote for the contract, what will YOU do?? So please do not continue to MISREPRESENT the FACTS! I saw you on last weeks video talking to Scott Kirby about "Federal Binding Arbitration". This award is no more bound under anything Federal Binding than super glue on your lips!

 

[AWA320]

If the East won't vote for the contract, what will YOU do?? So please do not continue to MISREPRESENT the FACTS! I saw you on last weeks video talking to Scott Kirby about "Federal Binding Arbitration". This award is no more bound under anything Federal Binding than super glue on your lips!
[/quote]

Misrepresent the facts?? How so?? By informing you of the proper channels in which to follow? BTW you have never ever seen me my good man because I don't waste my time on the Kirby and Parker shows. Now who ever you saw making statements was certainly not me.

Now you asked for the information and I provided it. Sending me maritime data which pertains to BOATS/SHIPS would cover your comment of "MISREPRESENT THE FACT!" Fairly nicely.

Later