OK, I give up! How can USAPA possibly prevail in the face of a Delta pilots' dissenting opinion! All is lost, oh the horror, the inhumanity.
Indeed sir....nothing to do but throw in the towel now...sigh!
April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Indeed sir....nothing to do but throw in the towel now...sigh!
Aww....How cute. Would just some nice milk and cookies and an afternoon nap work for now, our precious little princess? There, there now....it's really allright....and no need to fret. "The rest of the world", at least from westie BS, already knows that you little "spartans" are the true center of the universe.
"So we can add a complete lack of understanding..."...? Not at all. You clearly wouldn't know this, even being a mighty "spartan" and all, but; it's incumbent on any officer to not only question, but even disobey direct orders, that in his/her earnest evaluation, constitute immoral and/or illegal orders. I'm shocked, shocked I say, that the cute and precocious little "army" of aol, clearly-and-directly, didn't ever teach you that during all your time now spent in "spartan" day/child care....Really? They didn't?...Some "army" you've got there.
Perhaps you "spartans" should consider reconstituting your little "army" with something other than a slicked-haired, pathetic numbnutzz as it's self-styled "Supreme Commander"....Perhaps even with someone who's at least been a Girl Scout?...And would thus know the moral teachings of a properly "military" organization? Umm..."as well as a complete lack of understanding of the term "seniority"...and "without true comprehension"? THAT?...Coming from a nicster who wants to put newhires ahead of people with 17 years worked!? Wow! Thanks for the laughs. You win, hands down, the Joke of the Day, first-prize-honors.
PS: Aww...a "minus" vote already?
Shucks! Was it from the seemingly reasonable suggestion for you mighty "spartans" to at least adopt the harshly martial, moral, "all-out-warfare" code of even so much as the Girl Scouts? Sigh!...My Bad. I've obviously and rudely suggested something that'd stress "youse" far past your personal limits here. Go "spartans"!!!
Any of you perfect paradigms of "spartan", supposed "ethics" and..umm..."Integrity" that supposedly "Matters" care to take exception to that?
"... but even disobey direct orders, that in his/her earnest evaluation, constitute immoral and/or illegal orders."..? And that doesn't get me morally off the hook for even just so insignificant an "offence" as telling some exhalted, Great and Powerfull Ozbitrator to stuff his his toxic BS where the sun don't shine? Aww nuts!...And here I'd thought you were all about the Law and "morality" an' all. Sigh!...I'm guessing none of you "spartans" will ever even send me one of your self-professed-perfections of "Integrity" T-shirts...Dang it!
Oh well...sniffle...I really wanted one of the "Dire Wolves" anyway. 
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
The negative vote didn't come from me."So we can add a complete lack of understanding..."...? Not at all. You clearly wouldn't know this, even being a mighty "spartan" and all, but; it's incumbent on any officer to not only question, but even disobey direct orders, that in his/her earnest evaluation, constitute immoral and/or illegal orders. I'm shocked, shocked I say, that the cute and precocious little "army" of aol, clearly-and-directly, didn't ever teach you that during all your time now spent in "spartan" day/child care....Really? They didn't?...Some "army" you've got there.
Umm..."as well as a complete lack of understanding of the term "seniority"...and "without true comprehension"? THAT?...Coming from a nicster who wants to put newhires ahead of people with 17 years worked!? Wow! Thanks for the laughs. You win, hands down, the Joke of the Day, first-prize-honors.
PS: Aww...a "minus" vote already?
Go "spartans"!!!
So you do acknowledge that you authorized your agent to bind you personally to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement so long as you are employed as a pilot. Guess you'll need to revise your previous statement about never having personally agreed to the results of binding arbitration.
If you or anyone works for a company for 17 years and holds the bottom active position in a workgroup, who specifically is that person senior to? Conversely if you work for six months a a company and have 50 people junior to you, do you still have no seniority? Does not common sense tell you that the person that the person with six months at the second company has more "seniority" than the person with 17 years at the first company? Or were you absent the day they taught common sense at your school (a course in statistics, logistics, or critical thinking should suffice).
"The negative vote didn't come from me." You've no idea what a truly huge relief it is to hear that. There was some danger of my losing sleep.
"So you do acknowledge that you authorized your agent to bind you personally..."...? From what perverted little mental recess did you fabricate that? I wanted alpo dead and gone for many years before the nic. I didn't "authorize" those idiots so much as the sweat off a flea's arse. My admittedly over-dramatic, military based, and never-to-be-confused-with-cute-little-fantasized "spartans" example, was intended to demonstrate, perhaps to the less feeble-minded than yourself, that no requirement for blind and mindless submission to complete insanity yet exists in this Nation.
" Or were you absent the day they taught common sense at your school (a course in statistics, logistics, or critical thinking should suffice)." Cleardirect, long ago now, ventured down that road, only to prove himself a complete fool. It's most amusing that you fantasize yourself as at all "intelligent", and/or even adequately "educated."
Seriously; is it something in the very air, or just the limited water out there in your desert? I'd be more than happy to compare notes...assuming you could ever generate the least bit of a compelling argument, for...well..really anything at all. Take your best shot, if you wish to be made more a compete fool than you regularly accomplish without my assistance." Does not common sense tell you that the person that the person with six months at the second company has more "seniority" than the person with 17 years at the first company" Uh..That'd be a resounding NO! "Common sense", on the other hand, resoundingly, and even with the background accompanyment of a fully dramatic orchestra, suited for movie themes, tells me otherwise, and you've yet to advance any compelling argument that you even understand such a term as "common sense"...Much less "seniority".
"Youse" must normally be selling your pathetic BS to only the most devout, village idiots, if you're having any success with it at all. So...umm...sigh!...Still no Waaay-cool-Dude T-shirts coming my way, little "spartan"?
Btw: Given that "youse" sorry little bunch can actually imagine themselves to be "spartans"...well....the above observation's axiomatic = "Youse" must normally be selling your pathetic BS to only the most devout, village idiots, if you're having any success with it at all.
So..I'm now guessing definately no T-shirts...Right?...Mighty "Dire Wolf"?
usabusdriver
Advanced
- Aug 12, 2007
- 205
- 113
Greeter,
The complaint filed is a Declaratory Judgement request.
Any such "Declaration" of rights or liabilities by the court would be "contingent" on the POR same as the MOU.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Let's assume its ripe for hypothetical purposes, because it eventually will be.
What will be the standard to determine if USAPA has breached its DFR, and what fact(s) will be compared to that standard? That is to say, lets clarify what terms must be employed by the courts when it is ripe in order to judge if USAPA, or any successor union, has indeed breached its DFR. I'll even spot you an important fact.... USAPA will never agree to anything that uses the NIC.
Now, which standard will the court stipulate for use:
1) Will the standard be a LUP, with the alleged motives of USAPA being compared to the LUP standard (whatever that nebulous, so-called "standard" is)? First off, even if one wins such a lawsuit, how does one determine actual damages based on some subjective thing like a union's "purpose was naughty", rather than on something concrete like the union's representational product was demonstrably unfair?
2) Will the standard be strict compliance of all contractual requirements in force at the time of ripeness, as compared to USAPA's fulfillment of those contractual requirements, irrespective of the end product of negotiations? (i.e. Does the outcome of negotiations matter at all, or is it only the compliance with contracts in force that matter?) It is worth noting that the West premise to their allegation of ripeness is based solely on USAPA's supposed non-compliance with the TA (a minor dispute), and no court has found USAPA to be in non-compliance with any contract.
OR... 3) Will the standard be a "wide range of reasonableness" for the end product, with the end product of negotiations being compared to that explicit standard as rendered by the SCOTUS?
What is the measure of fairness... and is fairness revealed (and judged) according to one's purpose or by one's product?
What will be the standard to determine if USAPA has breached its DFR, and what fact(s) will be compared to that standard? That is to say, lets clarify what terms must be employed by the courts when it is ripe in order to judge if USAPA, or any successor union, has indeed breached its DFR. I'll even spot you an important fact.... USAPA will never agree to anything that uses the NIC.
Now, which standard will the court stipulate for use:
1) Will the standard be a LUP, with the alleged motives of USAPA being compared to the LUP standard (whatever that nebulous, so-called "standard" is)? First off, even if one wins such a lawsuit, how does one determine actual damages based on some subjective thing like a union's "purpose was naughty", rather than on something concrete like the union's representational product was demonstrably unfair?
2) Will the standard be strict compliance of all contractual requirements in force at the time of ripeness, as compared to USAPA's fulfillment of those contractual requirements, irrespective of the end product of negotiations? (i.e. Does the outcome of negotiations matter at all, or is it only the compliance with contracts in force that matter?) It is worth noting that the West premise to their allegation of ripeness is based solely on USAPA's supposed non-compliance with the TA (a minor dispute), and no court has found USAPA to be in non-compliance with any contract.
OR... 3) Will the standard be a "wide range of reasonableness" for the end product, with the end product of negotiations being compared to that explicit standard as rendered by the SCOTUS?
What is the measure of fairness... and is fairness revealed (and judged) according to one's purpose or by one's product?
Btw: Given that "youse" sorry little bunch can actually imagine themselves to be "spartans"...well....the above observation's axiomatic = "Youse" must normally be selling your pathetic BS to only the most devout, village idiots, if you're having any success with it at all.
So..I'm now guessing definately no T-shirts...Right?...Mighty "Dire Wolf"?
Addendum: Speaking of village idiots: Since "youse" finds 'dis kinda' waay-cool-"Dude" Fantasyland BS to be at ALL acceptable in representing your group, and you're even astonishingly proud of it!?....Well...the average IQ and "maturity" levels of your group have then been long and well established.
GO "spartans"...or should I say heroic "knights who've fought with valor in many battles"? No surprise that "youse" can imagine anyone with 6 months being made magically 'senior" to another with 17 years....since "youse" have a proven propensity for indulging in hopelessly infantile and absurdly narcicisstic fantasy, I suppose.
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
You have made my point perfectly regarding your misunderstanding of the terms seniority and agency. Thanks for proving this beyond all doubt."The negative vote didn't come from me." You've no idea what a truly huge relief it is to hear that. There was some danger of my losing sleep.
"So you do acknowledge that you authorized your agent to bind you personally..."...? From what perverted little mental recess did you fabricate that? I wanted alpo dead and gone for many years before the nic. I didn't "authorize" those idiots so much as the sweat off a flea's arse. My admittedly over-dramatic, military based, and never-to-be-confused-with-cute-little-fantasized "spartans" example, was intended to demonstrate, perhaps to the less feeble-minded than yourself, that no requirement for blind and mindless submission to complete insanity yet exists in this Nation.
" Or were you absent the day they taught common sense at your school (a course in statistics, logistics, or critical thinking should suffice)." Cleardirect, long ago now, ventured down that road, only to prove himself a complete fool. It's most amusing that you fantasize yourself as at all "intelligent", and/or even adequately "educated."
" Does not common sense tell you that the person that the person with six months at the second company has more "seniority" than the person with 17 years at the first company" Uh..That'd be a resounding NO! "Common sense", on the other hand, resoundingly, and even with the background accompanyment of a fully dramatic orchestra, suited for movie themes, tells me otherwise, and you've yet to advance any compelling argument that you even understand such a term as "common sense"...Much less "seniority".
So...umm...sigh!...Still no Waaay-cool-Dude T-shirts coming my way, little "spartan"?
Btw: Given that "youse" sorry little bunch can actually imagine themselves to be "spartans"...well....the above observation's axiomatic = "Youse" must normally be selling your pathetic BS to only the most devout, village idiots, if you're having any success with it at all.
So..I'm now guessing definately no T-shirts...Right?...Mighty "Dire Wolf"?
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Wow! Seriously!? Please tell us all that even "youse" can generate something/ANYTHING better in the way of even the most truly pathetic attempt at cogent argument/discussion.....No?...That's REALLY and truly your best, pathetic effort in response? Whew! "...were you absent the day they taught common sense at your school (a course in statistics, logistics, or critical thinking should suffice)." ...? No matter. Thanks again for the always predictable, "spartan"-generated chuckles.
...Although "youse" do have my honest sympathy, if that's your best effort, but you are on the wrong side of the table here, and thus, fair game. "You have made my point perfectly.."...? If you wish to play anything other than the most complete, village idiot; logically support that, if you can...?
Do so at your peril, as this might turn out to be some actual fun. Suggested reading, just for starters, since it's very lightweight, and perhaps suitable to "youse" needs:
http://www.virtualsc...tion/Logic.html
http://www.pomindcak...-and-reasoning
Res Judicata
Veteran
LUP. Do you live under a rock? A Jury already smoked you on the Merits and every single Judge that has ever even commented on this situation has very directly warned the company and USAPA about their intentions. Why else is USCABA betting its life on ripeness? It's their only hope. But you can't run forever. I'm 98% sure this is the end game.
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
http://gma.yahoo.com...-114050379.html
ABC News Videos
Cargo believed to have loosened, causing the 747 to go down shortly after takeoff.
ABC News Videos
Cargo believed to have loosened, causing the 747 to go down shortly after takeoff.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
So if LUP is the standard of DFR, what is the measure of damages? The NIC? If the Nic "has to be used" why doesn't it have to be used? And if it is the Nic, how do you get damages for all the years you haven't had the Nic that "had to be used" but that didn't have to be used?
- Status
