Alpa Obtains A Ta

[EyeInTheSky]

mrwereplanes, I totally agree. This probably will not go out for ratification. Too much is at stake. We lose our right to self-help if this "TA" goes out for a vote whether it would pass or not. When the majority of the pilots tell their representatives no this won't pass. Why put it out for a vote when you lose a valuable bargaining tool? Some pilots need to be b*tch-slapped.

 

[USA320Pilot]

If the deal does not proceed to the membership for a members right to vote, then Brookman and the other 3 members of the RC4 will be slapped with criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. I suggest you learn about the Landrum/Griffith act to understand what I mean. I know Brookman knows about it and he could get intimately involved, which I know it will occur.

By the way, if the TA does not go out for ratification the advisors said it would be another bad fait hbargaining example for the company to use as an exhibit, further strengthning the company's case t oseek to have the "self help" option not permitted by the court.

How would Brookman look behind bars, anyway?

By the way, what do you think of the perfomance of the Negotiating Committee and why has the RC4 failed to totally indemnify them self? Why did they ask for company legal fee help on the last day of negotiations, simultaneously increasing the pilot pay cut from 16.5% to 18%?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[AAviator]

Big talk. So you're gonna sue them.

They haven't been recalled have they?

They must have substantial support from the membership.

 

[USA320Pilot]

It doesn’t take a recall to file a class action lawsuit, especially when MEC members told the MEC in “open sessionâ€￾ they would testify in court. Nor does it take votes.

Thos who laugh last, laugh best.

AAviator, why did the NC try to fully indemnify then self and have the pilot group effectively pay for 50% of their legal fees with another 1.5% pay cut?

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[AAviator]

If they're doing what they were elected to do, there is no case. Vis-a-vis, doing what they believe is right for their constituents. Unless recalled, ALPA national will be footing the bill for their defense. ie, more of your money.. doesn't the pi$$ you off?

 

[USA320Pilot]

AAviator:

You couldn’t be more wrong again. I suggest you contact ALPA legal and find out what was said at the MEC meeting. “Doesn't the pi$$ you off?â€￾ You should not post uninformed information on this board, ask the legal experts who are Harvard Law School graduates instead.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[AAviator]

wow, you are out there.

 

[USA320Pilot]

No, I'm "not out there", I have talked to the experts. How about you?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Just one more point…the RC4 know exactly what is coming their way and they will be contacted by counsel shortly. Why do you think there is a TA?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[AAviator]

Because the NC did their job. Now the MEC is doing theirs!

 

[argentomaranello]

Because the NC did their job. Now the MEC is doing theirs!

[post="186958"][/post]​

USA320PILOT is referring to the potential for a class-action lawsuit brought against certain members of the MEC by the class of rank-and-file pilots for their failure to exercise their poser, as MEC members, in any contemplated as advancing the interests of the pilot group, as a whole. Various principles of modern labor law would support this view; however, ultimate liability might be difficult to establish and the primary cost of such a tactic (to the RC4) would likely be the very great expense of engaging their own counsel -- which is why indemnification is so important.

 

[Phoenix]

USA320PILOT is referring to the potential for a class-action lawsuit brought against certain members of the MEC by the class of rank-and-file pilots for their failure to exercise their poser, as MEC members, in any contemplated as advancing the interests of the pilot group, as a whole. Various principles of modern labor law would support this view; however, ultimate liability might be difficult to establish and the primary cost of such a tactic (to the RC4) would likely be the very great expense of engaging their own counsel -- which is why indemnification is so important.

[post="186969"][/post]​

The MEC members who gave away the Pension in the last bankruptcy obtained indemnification--and their is a law suit.

It seems to be a confilict of interest to recieve money from the company that you are supposedly protecting the pilots from. But I suppose that the MEC could care less how the long the list of charges is (what is one more), as long as the company is paying for the protection.

Respectrully,

Phoenix

P.S. It is good to see the Yahoo-Message-Boarders are back!

 

[nycbusdriver]

If the deal does not proceed to the membership for a members right to vote, then Brookman and the other 3 members of the RC4 will be slapped with criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. I suggest you learn about the Landrum/Griffith act to understand what I mean. I know Brookman knows about it and he could get intimately involved, which I know it will occur.

By the way, if the TA does not go out for ratification the advisors said it would be another bad fait hbargaining example for the company to use as an exhibit, further strengthning the company's case t oseek to have the "self help" option not permitted by the court.

How would Brookman look behind bars, anyway?

By the way, what do you think of the perfomance of the Negotiating Committee and why has the RC4 failed to totally indemnify them self? Why did they ask for company legal fee help on the last day of negotiations, simultaneously increasing the pilot pay cut from 16.5% to 18%?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="186934"][/post]​

What a crock of bovine fecal matter. But who better to come up with it?

First, the PHL and PIT reps exercised their authority as the legally elected representatives within the scope of the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws.

Second, the Landrum - Griffith Act is anti-racketeering legislation passed in 1949. I imagine the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws have since passed muster under this act.

Third, I doubt Brookman, Freshwater, Von Bargen, or Crocker are losing any sleep over any of your crack-pot dreams.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

It's important to note that the RC4 has plenty of documentation via letters, emails, and phone calls from their pilot constituents to make this a very tough case to prove they were indeed "negligent." This would be a frivilous lawsuit at best and would ultimately undermine the union process; that being, why would anyone want to run for union office if there is indeed the chance of being sued if some members did not agree with you. Very sad, and very pathetic.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

I take exception to USA320Pilot's note about the PIT LEC REP looking behind bars. That my friends is a libelous remark that is now documented. It's important to note that eventhough we may post "anonymously" on here it is still possible to find out one's identity. Say, the PIT LEC Rep is sure of the identity of the poster, but needs proof. Therefore, his counsel would subpoena the owner/operator of USAviation.com for IP information of specific posters, which could subsequently be used as a virtual "cyber fingerprint" to help identify the poster. To read more about IP information go here http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/IP_address.html
Yes, there are random IPs, such as going on AOL, but that won't stop counsel to subpoena AOL for IP information which they could cross reference for user log on and time cross reference for posts in question. No, you are not anonymous on the Internet when lawsuits are involved. Be careful.