ALPA Thread 12/14-12/20 ALL ALPA here
- Thread starter Elevation
- Start date
- Status
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Heck, ALPA won't even do that anymore. Maybe they should rethink things since there is going to be an election. And we all know that elections are little more than a popularity contest.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Aug 23, 2002
- 2,627
- 945
Why do you say that? Just because he cited precedence that says YOU'RE wrong? I think I know just who the union shill is....
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
?
A union can absolutely negotiate seniority with an employer.
You are correct that USAPA is bound by the Nic decision. But assuming it wins a representational election, USAPA certainly can negotiate future seniority issues with the company.
L
luvn737s
Guest
Given that U-SAPs isn't bound by the arbitration, why should they be part of a Transition Agreement that they didn't negotiate? And that being the case, the restriction tieing the Nic list to a CBA goes away. Nic gets implemented pronto and the company can sit back and wait to negotiate at a time of their choosing.
Good luck USAPA!
Good luck USAPA!
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
TO : Captain xxxxx xxxxxx
FROM :
RE : Status of “MidAtlantic Airwaysâ€
DATE : December 17, 2007
The pilot committee has requested a memo be prepared and delivered to you that will help to outline that "MidAtlantic Airways" and US Airways were one and the same. This should not be a complicated task, inasmuch as both ALPA and US Airways have already acknowledged that this is so. It is the intent of this memo to provide sufficient detail to meet your request without compromising sensitive data. To that end, this memo is not confidential.
BACKGROUND
Before addressing the substance, we briefly deal with the arbitration award, which is replete with mistakes, poor assumptions, and absurd standards and priorities. First, arbitrator George Nicolau found that the 1,691 furloughees on US Airways’ seniority list included the MDA pilots. Building one mistake upon another, he next determined that “merging active pilots with furloughees†would be unfair. Thus, the arbitration award does not credit “MDA†pilots with the time during which they flew MidAtlantic equipment for US Airways.
The attorney is basically saying that the arbitrator's decision is flawed, that Nicolau erred as a matter of law. Well Mr. Attorney, that's the problem for you right there and as a NY attorney, I would expect that you would understand why and stop your letter there. Arbitrators are not bound by the same review as are judges. An arbitrator can only be reversed in the very narrow situations as set out in the U.S. Code. Period. Even if what you say is true, it's meaningless. Nicolau cannot error as a matter of law. No arbitrator can. That's one of the risks of arbitration. However, the overwhelming consensus is that the Nic Award was a good award, well written and supported by the facts of the case.
I also can't let this letter pass muster as some sort of authority because after reading it, I see what the attorney is up to. His letter is poorly written and should not be allowed to pass as good lawyering without the facts. First, notice how he does not follow an Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion format. This is known by the acronym IRAC and it's the gospel format for all lawyers in all jurisdictions. For example, take his first paragraph. The first sentence is more of a conclusion than an issue statement (that the Nic award is replete with mistakes etc.) but I'm ok with that. One of my writing professors insisted that is a preferable way to start, but others disagree. Personally, I like starting with a conclusion because you can color the issue with your argument. Beware, however, that some judges won't let an attorney get with that sort of sneaky writing and will come down hard on the counsel who doesn't get the judge's drift. But for a letter to client, it's ok.
The attorney next needs to follow with a rule, but he provides none. Rather, sentence number two is an application (that Nic found the 1691 furloughees....) Where's the rule? The answer is that there isn't a rule. If one existed, it would surely be inserted at this point (see my rewrite below of the way the first paragraph should have been written). Without a rule, a lawyer is merely pissing in the wind.
Third sentence: ("Building one mistake upon the other...") you haven't shown where there are any mistakes, if it even mattered...your unsupported claim is weaking rather than bolstering your argument...get rid of it... ("he next found that....would be unfair.") Again, application of facts with no rule. Might as well say there is suspected water on Mars. Without a rule, what's your point, counselor?
Fourth sentence: ("Thus the arbitration award does not credit the MDA pilots with the time that they flew at MAA.") A conclusion, but unsupported. He never once in that paragraph explains why MDA pilots were entitled to their time in their arbitration. Again I ask, where's the rule?
Here's the proper way it SHOULD have been written.
"This arbitration did not credit the MDA pilots with their time in service accrued while flying at MDA. Under ALPA agreement XXXX, the rule was that XXXXX, such that MDA pilots would receive credit at mainline while flying at MAA. Here, Arbitrator Nicolau clearly ignored the ALPA rule/policy because he concluded that **** and this had the effect of not crediting MDA pilots with their time at MAA. Therefore, the MDA pilots were unfairly and inequitably burdened in the arbitration whose guideline were to treat all parties fairly and equitably."
That's the proper way to write. Although this is just a letter to a client (I'm guess the Capt XXX is a client), I would only advise The Attorney to be careful with what he's doing - he's playing with fire. Every letter that a lawyer writes to a client, he or she needs to understand that they are writing the letter for two readers: the client and potentially the Disciplinary Committee of the state bar. Client's ususally take the lawyer's word as gospel and that's understandable. But heaven forbid some issue arises between the attorney and the client, and then the Disciplinary Committee gets involved, then they will be reviewing the lawyer's work as committee of senior attorneys and former judges. That's why a lawyer's correspondence must at all times be air tight and written as if other lawyers will be picking it apart. The problem here is that it's impossible to write a legally legitimate letter because he cannot support his conclusions with rules of law or even ALPA rules. Rather, it is my understanding that the entire MDA agreement expressly addressed the issue of longevity and stated that there would not be mainline accrual, but I could be wrong. I don't know the exact answer but I do know that from The Attorney's letter, had there been a rule in favor of the MDA pilots, then it surely would have been included in a comprehendible IRAC format.
FROM :
RE : Status of “MidAtlantic Airwaysâ€
DATE : December 17, 2007
The pilot committee has requested a memo be prepared and delivered to you that will help to outline that "MidAtlantic Airways" and US Airways were one and the same. This should not be a complicated task, inasmuch as both ALPA and US Airways have already acknowledged that this is so. It is the intent of this memo to provide sufficient detail to meet your request without compromising sensitive data. To that end, this memo is not confidential.
BACKGROUND
Before addressing the substance, we briefly deal with the arbitration award, which is replete with mistakes, poor assumptions, and absurd standards and priorities. First, arbitrator George Nicolau found that the 1,691 furloughees on US Airways’ seniority list included the MDA pilots. Building one mistake upon another, he next determined that “merging active pilots with furloughees†would be unfair. Thus, the arbitration award does not credit “MDA†pilots with the time during which they flew MidAtlantic equipment for US Airways.
The attorney is basically saying that the arbitrator's decision is flawed, that Nicolau erred as a matter of law. Well Mr. Attorney, that's the problem for you right there and as a NY attorney, I would expect that you would understand why and stop your letter there. Arbitrators are not bound by the same review as are judges. An arbitrator can only be reversed in the very narrow situations as set out in the U.S. Code. Period. Even if what you say is true, it's meaningless. Nicolau cannot error as a matter of law. No arbitrator can. That's one of the risks of arbitration. However, the overwhelming consensus is that the Nic Award was a good award, well written and supported by the facts of the case.
I also can't let this letter pass muster as some sort of authority because after reading it, I see what the attorney is up to. His letter is poorly written and should not be allowed to pass as good lawyering without the facts. First, notice how he does not follow an Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion format. This is known by the acronym IRAC and it's the gospel format for all lawyers in all jurisdictions. For example, take his first paragraph. The first sentence is more of a conclusion than an issue statement (that the Nic award is replete with mistakes etc.) but I'm ok with that. One of my writing professors insisted that is a preferable way to start, but others disagree. Personally, I like starting with a conclusion because you can color the issue with your argument. Beware, however, that some judges won't let an attorney get with that sort of sneaky writing and will come down hard on the counsel who doesn't get the judge's drift. But for a letter to client, it's ok.
The attorney next needs to follow with a rule, but he provides none. Rather, sentence number two is an application (that Nic found the 1691 furloughees....) Where's the rule? The answer is that there isn't a rule. If one existed, it would surely be inserted at this point (see my rewrite below of the way the first paragraph should have been written). Without a rule, a lawyer is merely pissing in the wind.
Third sentence: ("Building one mistake upon the other...") you haven't shown where there are any mistakes, if it even mattered...your unsupported claim is weaking rather than bolstering your argument...get rid of it... ("he next found that....would be unfair.") Again, application of facts with no rule. Might as well say there is suspected water on Mars. Without a rule, what's your point, counselor?
Fourth sentence: ("Thus the arbitration award does not credit the MDA pilots with the time that they flew at MAA.") A conclusion, but unsupported. He never once in that paragraph explains why MDA pilots were entitled to their time in their arbitration. Again I ask, where's the rule?
Here's the proper way it SHOULD have been written.
"This arbitration did not credit the MDA pilots with their time in service accrued while flying at MDA. Under ALPA agreement XXXX, the rule was that XXXXX, such that MDA pilots would receive credit at mainline while flying at MAA. Here, Arbitrator Nicolau clearly ignored the ALPA rule/policy because he concluded that **** and this had the effect of not crediting MDA pilots with their time at MAA. Therefore, the MDA pilots were unfairly and inequitably burdened in the arbitration whose guideline were to treat all parties fairly and equitably."
That's the proper way to write. Although this is just a letter to a client (I'm guess the Capt XXX is a client), I would only advise The Attorney to be careful with what he's doing - he's playing with fire. Every letter that a lawyer writes to a client, he or she needs to understand that they are writing the letter for two readers: the client and potentially the Disciplinary Committee of the state bar. Client's ususally take the lawyer's word as gospel and that's understandable. But heaven forbid some issue arises between the attorney and the client, and then the Disciplinary Committee gets involved, then they will be reviewing the lawyer's work as committee of senior attorneys and former judges. That's why a lawyer's correspondence must at all times be air tight and written as if other lawyers will be picking it apart. The problem here is that it's impossible to write a legally legitimate letter because he cannot support his conclusions with rules of law or even ALPA rules. Rather, it is my understanding that the entire MDA agreement expressly addressed the issue of longevity and stated that there would not be mainline accrual, but I could be wrong. I don't know the exact answer but I do know that from The Attorney's letter, had there been a rule in favor of the MDA pilots, then it surely would have been included in a comprehendible IRAC format.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
More reference to USAPA in the present tense. The present tense is flattering but not accurate.
E
EastUS
Guest
Well..there's a breakthrough in western thought processes...an acknowledgment that lawyers can and do actually disagree!! Sigh..guess that we'll all just have to see how things actually do develop over time
Heck..given a nudge now...you folks might even admit that your preconceptions of future court rulings aren't exactly built upon any seriously solid ground.If you're all so secure in your beliefs..why are you spending so much time trying to convince..ummm...us?...or yourselves? To me? This simply serves as yet another awa variant on "It's Over!!".."you cant win!".."you won't even get 200 cards!!".."Just give up!"...."Ummm...just give up Please?"
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Do you expect us to read a post that long when you don't put your letter head on top?
The only reason I can think that you would take so much time to follow and write about all these subjects is that you picked this topic as your senior project in law school. Good luck. Hope you get an "A."
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Wow! That's so impressive. Makes one think that maybe you're a lawyer.
But, if you are, then you are a pretty sad lawyer compared to Mr. Haber. He writes his stuff under legal letterhead for probably about $500/hr. You spend your time writing legal briefs for posting on USAviation.com.
You don't have a whole lot of credibility if you practice law on a web forum. It just shows everyone that you have such a dearth of clients that you have time to sit here and pontificate. You're kind of like the 5 cent psychiatrist in the Peanuts comics, only your cardboard-bo office desk sign says: "The Lawyer is out to lunch."
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Issue: There are a number of pilots who are miffed at ALPA whom they perceive to be the instigators or cause of their miffness.
Rule: If thou art a union, thou shalt not miff a majority of the consensual benefactors who pay the light bill because they are merely benefactors at their consent and if miffed will surely cease to be benefactors. Choosing instead to be benefactors to a different union.
Application: A majority of ALPA benefactors have in truth become absolutely certain that they are miffed by ALPA's actions and inaction. ALPA has been unsuccessful in convincing said benefactors of the error in placing blame for their miffness at the feet of ALPA, and therefor a large wooden box was delivered to the NMB.
Conclusion: ALPA has broken the miffing rule and as such must accept the consequences of that large wooden box that was delivered to the NMB, (who will of course employ their own IRAC cycle regarding the contents of the large wooden box).
Rule: If thou art a union, thou shalt not miff a majority of the consensual benefactors who pay the light bill because they are merely benefactors at their consent and if miffed will surely cease to be benefactors. Choosing instead to be benefactors to a different union.
Application: A majority of ALPA benefactors have in truth become absolutely certain that they are miffed by ALPA's actions and inaction. ALPA has been unsuccessful in convincing said benefactors of the error in placing blame for their miffness at the feet of ALPA, and therefor a large wooden box was delivered to the NMB.
Conclusion: ALPA has broken the miffing rule and as such must accept the consequences of that large wooden box that was delivered to the NMB, (who will of course employ their own IRAC cycle regarding the contents of the large wooden box).
- Status
