Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nycbusdriver]

Their dependency on our dues money to further their objectives of entitlement are evident. If you have been following the Supreme Court case below, Justice Scalia mentions a form of entitlement in his arguments.

I think this applies with our dispute. It's the "perpetuation of dues entitlement" which screams of DFRII when the statement is made concerning the use of dues money to further the objectives of one group of another within the same union.

Justice Scalia goes on to mention that it is hard to get out of them through the normal political processes. I could not agree more. Some disputes are best settled in court.

http://www.supremeco...ripts/12-96.pdf

: ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., : ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. : -----------------x
1
2
3
4 5v.
Petitioner
: No. 12-96
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES -----------------x
SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA

3 I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to
4 a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial
5 entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a
6 society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult
7 to get out of them through the normal political
8 processes.

Your post is SOOOOO stupid.

 

[dca319]

No question, Nicolau should be thanked for his service and sacrifice in the military.

Does his heroic service and loss give him special aptitude as a lawyer or arbitrator? No.

Point is that he is in that position. Just because one becomes a judge doesn't automatically give him unerring insight to all cases presented but that person is the one sitting on the bench. Nicolau was also backed up by two pilot advisors who agreed (almost completely I might add) with his award.

 

[snapthis]

nycbusdriver, on 02 March 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

"No question, Nicolau should be thanked for his service and sacrifice in the military.

Does his heroic service and loss give him special aptitude as a lawyer or arbitrator? No."

Your post is SOOOOO stupid.

There you go. Using your words, I could not agree more.

I'll add another thing, does Sully's hero status make him qualify as an expert witness in Duty of Fair representation trial?

 

[Pi brat]

Me? Spun up? On the contrary. I personally have no dog in the east-west fight, but I do have strong opinions and convictions.



You fool!

Clueless isn't he?

 

[Res Judicata]

That is all irrelevant now. No need for the company and USAPA to negotiate a US Airways JCBA.

Exactly. Wait and see what happens at the POR cementing that JCBA in stone. My point about Addington is that it's still very much controlling the companies behavior. Far more than your fake union is capable of.

 

[prechilill]

SYICWHENITSRIPE

Will it be ripe? Probably never get there. You ladies out east are about to say uncle. Your delay of game strategy is all you really ever had and that's about to stop

 

[Walmartgreeter]

.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I am not going to rebut this nonsense again about us somehow having a magical East/West JCBA at the POR. Like Clear you just keep saying the same thing over and over.

Speaking of "over and over" we have heard for years that it’s the NIC or nothing. No compromise, on participation in any, ANY other process that does not lead to the full and unwavering implementation of the NIC.

Everyone. Sit back and watch. Marty knows he is out of options. You can read my list of missteps here yesterday. It really is a sad commentary on the quality of his work. If there is even the slightest of waiver on the "NIC or nothing" you will all know it really is over.

Greeter

Exactly. Wait and see what happens at the POR cementing that JCBA in stone. My point about Addington is that it's still very much controlling the companies behavior. Far more than your fake union is capable of.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I'll add another thing, does Sully's hero status make him qualify as an expert witness in Duty of Fair representation trial?

Actually, no.

I thought that was a stupid stunt, too. Although I admire the job Sully did, his being asked to testify was an irrelevant sideshow gimmick. I'm surprised Sully acquiesced to the request.

 

[snapthis]

Actually, no.

I thought that was a stupid stunt, too. Although I admire the job Sully did, his being asked to testify was an irrelevant sideshow gimmick. I'm surprised Sully acquiesced to the request.

There, we have some common ground. I've said it before, I applaud the outcome that day and am thankful all were OK that winter day in 2009.

I feel he tarnished his image a spring day in 2009. I agree, he did not use the best judgement having his status exploited.

 

[Piedmont1984]

So that's it? We ignore an arbitrator's list for all these years and will simply be awarded a new list for our "effort" to avoid it with no retribution from the west. I think you're in for a surprise.

I wouldn't call the time, effort and money spent thus far as a case of simply ignoring anything. I also have little doubt that some person or persons will file a DFR. Finally, one should not underestimate the significance of the MOU which the west deliberated upon and voted for by a near unanimous margin.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

His participation in the event may have indeed tarnished his "public" image. That being a public that has no skin in, much less an understanding of the seniority issue as it relates to the piloting profession. But to me it was an confirmation of his loyalty to the pilots he had worked with for decades, and his understanding and support of the concept of DOH.

The fact he was willing to do that for us, in basically an internal affair (understanding it was a public courtroom) speaks well to his character.

At the time, I would guess even Sully and his publicist were still unsure of the capital he had to use for both personal improvement, and in the fantastic job he did promoting the profession for the last 4 years. But he showed up anyway, and told all those who thought a probation pilot could go ahead of a 17 year pilot to pound sand.

He does not need my thanks, nor does he care about any of you trying to tarnish his entire image (private and public) on a little, trash talk forum like this.

Greeter

There, we have some common ground. I've said it before, I applaud the outcome that day and am thankful all were OK that winter day in 2009.

I feel he tarnished his image a spring day in 2009. I agree, he did not use the best judgement having his status exploited.

 

[snapthis]

I wouldn't call the time, effort and money spent thus far as a case of simply ignoring anything. I also have little doubt that some person or persons will file a DFR. Finally, one should not underestimate the significance of the MOU which the west deliberated upon and voted for by a near unanimous margin.

What exactly is the significance of MOU when it relates to seniority? She-man ski would not answer any questions related to seniority at the Phoenix road show.

If it was not relevant before the vote, why would it be relevant after the MOU passed?

 

[snapthis]

He does not need my thanks, nor does he care about any of you trying to tarnish his entire image (private and public) on a little, trash talk forum like this.

Greeter

He's a grown man, he made a decision to show up in court that day and slap his co-workers in the face.

He sullied his image and his words spoke volumes more than any of his previous actions.

Actions speak louder than words? Not that day in April, 2009.

 

[EastUS1]

He sullied his image and his words spoke volumes more than any of his previous actions.

Actions speak louder than words? Not that day in April, 2009.

"his words spoke volumes more than any of his previous actions."...? Aww....How cute. You didn't like his telling the nicsters to pound sand, so that's the west's "thoughts" here?....That disparaging a buncha' punks little greed-soaked notions, in a lunatic judge's courtroom/circus somehow diminishes his prior actions?....Seriously? Grow Up!