Larry Pike of 567 FIRED ?

[Overspeed]

Overspin you say father like son. Does that mean that all apples don't fall far from the tree. Don Vs son must not fall far from the tree either B&E and possesion. WOW I wonder what he is going to teach the kid that he had with the local 565 secretary. Oh thats right he is a man of moral fiber right,while he was having bible study meetings at the 565 union hall he was also fathering a child with the local secretary. You said before that you did not father a child with the local secretary. This would be a lie if you were Don V,so I guess you are not Don V. I see that Don's buddy Van der loo is back on the boards again.

I would like to say I know what you are talking about but I don't. You stumped me here.

Stay on topic. Pike made up a bogus crisis and used an ambulance chaser lawyer.

 

[767 mechanic]

Good try at playing stupid,but some how I don't believe you playing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are a liar on both counts. Oh and I can say the samething to you about staying on topic.

 

[1AA]

I would like to say I know what you are talking about but I don't. You stumped me here.

Stay on topic. Pike made up a bogus crisis and used an ambulance chaser lawyer.

Your just jealous because the TWU will tell you who to use for legal counsel instead of getting the best to defend you to save your job.

 

[swamt]

SWAPA fired Seham. Fact. USAPA fired Seham. Fact. APA fired Seham. Fact. They have represented many companies in anti-union drives at Lufthansa, Varig, and others. Fact,

Below is the last paragraph. Take note that SWAPA and USAPA did not fire Seham', for the reasons listed in your original postings. As stated below, SWAPA hired his firm for a pilot arbitration where he has had extensive experience at, therefore he was hired outside the pilots union's regular attorney's directly due to the expertise of Sehams prior dealings, and only for this one time representation. It also states below that USAPA also hired and used Seham, but came to a point where they no longer reqired hiring his services. It very clearly states he was not fired from the two pilots group as previously stated. Go ahead amd keep spreading your lies that Seham was fired from SWAPA for “incompetence and billing irregularities”.
Get your facts straight...

In your November 6[sup]th[/sup] letter, you stated that SWAPA “terminated their relationship with Seham just this year for “incompetence and billing irregularities”. It should be noted that SWAPA did not have a long-standing relationship with Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, so there was no relationship to be “terminated”. We hired Mr. Seham’s firm for a single System Board of Adjustment/Arbitration in Spring of 2010 in which we were attempting to get a pilot reinstated after a termination. The firm had been recommended to SWAPA by another Southwest union that uses the firm regularly. SWAPA chose to hire outside counsel for that arbitration because the subject-matter relating to the pilot’s termination was specialized, and Mr. Seham’s firm had done extensive work in that field. That single arbitration is the only experience SWAPA had with Mr. Seham’s firm. When that arbitration concluded, our relationship with the firm also ended. They were not “terminated” by SWAPA for either incompetence or billing irregularities. We elected to not use them going forward at that time.
Because your letter to the USAPA membership is misleading and inaccurate, I again request (this time in writing) that you retract the statements made to your membership and issue a correction about SWAPA’s past business dealings with Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen.
Sincerely,
Steve Chase
President
Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association

 

[swamt]

And why has every other craft union Seham has been employed by fired him? Because the members voted for it? No because he did not act on behalf of the membership and the leadership fired him. USAPA questioned his billing and what did Seham do? Hire a law firm that specializes in protecting him from disbarment. Nice.

Again you are not telling facts here. The other craft unions you speek of did not fire Seham as proven above in prior posting. It actually firms up the broad support by other craft union's that do hire Seham's services. Nice try trying to make it look like all these pilots groups fired him when they, "IN FACT", did not.

 

[swamt]

Such talk of law suits and proof might make people think you actually know what you are talking about. You write as if everything you read on the internet is the absolute truth. Did you discover that on the internet also? At the same time, what is true and factual in your mind, might have a different meaning in others. On this OPINION board, both sides are accused of lying all the time. Perceptions are not always the same, and to take to court a persons opinion or perception is a costly proposition. But at least someone will win..... the lawyers.

By the way, shame on IBT 1224 for undermining the International. At least he referenced the criticism and was clear that his is the only Teamster Local to use these carpetbaggers.

Speaking of, I agree with overspeed so go ahead and add me to that lawsuit Mr Seaham. I am of the opinion that this firm is little more than an ambulance chasing circus act sold to the highest bidder. They have found a "nitch" and will sell their allegiances for billable hours. They do not promote unionism, just defend for profits.

Think about it, AMFA and the Teamsters are bitter rivals, yet this firm suffers no moral dilemma in representing which ever side is willing to pay?

SWAPA is clearly hoping to stay on the least expensive side of any civil action, but notice how quick they are to dismiss any long term relationship with the SSMP law group?

I do not doubt their limited abilities, you have to have some success in order to stay profitable, but I do question their integrity.

AMFA can keep Seeeham. I think your two groups and questionable morals are a good fit.

Anomaly; you of all people out here know how well connected I am. To answer your very first question about lawsuits, below is a copied statement also refering to a lawsuit, happy reading...

The slanderous accusations of overbilling – made by Cleary and Mowrey – have exposed this union to a lawsuit.
There has been no proof provided to the pilots – not from Cleary, not from Mowrey, not from any union Officer or BPR member – THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF of overbilling by Seham. NONE!
In fact, the PHL Chairman has refused to answer questions regarding this matter in writing – what does he have to hide?

Any questions??

BTW the statement above came from this article; http://compasscorrec...a-headquarters/

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, Lee Seham learned from the best. Like father like son. Lee Seham was the "professional" legal counsel for AMFA during the period they lost 80% of their membership. Bob face it. The Seham law firm has done nothing but harm to labor. SWAPA, USAPA, and the APA know that and you think they are awesome. Your judgement is horrible

Calm down, or give the keyboard back to your better half. I think who is awesome? Seham, or SWAPA, USAPA and APA? Dont know whatt I've written to give you the basis to say what I think about any of them. But then again it fits your M.O. of making suff up as long as it fits the picture you want to paint.

and luckily enough smart AMTs woke up and vote yes this time. Too bad they didn't wake up and call BS when you recommended we vote down the May 2010 TA. Now we are still working through the after effects of the killer judgement of your dream team of Pike, Ruiz, Rojas, and Peterson.

Hmm, in one breath you claim its my fault we are working under these conditions then you claim we are lucky that guys like you voted it in. Here's what doesnt make sense, if the 2010 offer was good and they could have left it in place then doesnt that mean that the concessions we gave were not necessary?

The facts are there but hey, you are out for yourself Bob and those pesky overhaul members in TUL...you could give a damn about them as long as you get your geo-pay.

See first paragraph. Pathetic. You voted in a deal that allows them to outsource just as much OH as they want. Gless' letter to the members even cites that they expect M&R to dip below 8000 within a few years. We will have less than UAL.

 

[Overspeed]

Below is the last paragraph. Take note that SWAPA and USAPA did not fire Seham', for the reasons listed in your original postings. As stated below, SWAPA hired his firm for a pilot arbitration where he has had extensive experience at, therefore he was hired outside the pilots union's regular attorney's directly due to the expertise of Sehams prior dealings, and only for this one time representation. It also states below that USAPA also hired and used Seham, but came to a point where they no longer reqired hiring his services. It very clearly states he was not fired from the two pilots group as previously stated. Go ahead amd keep spreading your lies that Seham was fired from SWAPA for “incompetence and billing irregularities”.
Get your facts straight...

In your November 6[sup]th[/sup] letter, you stated that SWAPA “terminated their relationship with Seham just this year for “incompetence and billing irregularities”. It should be noted that SWAPA did not have a long-standing relationship with Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, so there was no relationship to be “terminated”. We hired Mr. Seham’s firm for a single System Board of Adjustment/Arbitration in Spring of 2010 in which we were attempting to get a pilot reinstated after a termination. The firm had been recommended to SWAPA by another Southwest union that uses the firm regularly. SWAPA chose to hire outside counsel for that arbitration because the subject-matter relating to the pilot’s termination was specialized, and Mr. Seham’s firm had done extensive work in that field. That single arbitration is the only experience SWAPA had with Mr. Seham’s firm. When that arbitration concluded, our relationship with the firm also ended. They were not “terminated” by SWAPA for either incompetence or billing irregularities. We elected to not use them going forward at that time.
Because your letter to the USAPA membership is misleading and inaccurate, I again request (this time in writing) that you retract the statements made to your membership and issue a correction about SWAPA’s past business dealings with Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen.
Sincerely,
Steve Chase
President
Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association

Okay where did I say SWAPA fired Seham for billing irregularities or incompetence. I said that USAPA did that.

 

[Bob Owens]

Okay where did I say SWAPA fired Seham for billing irregularities or incompetence. I said that USAPA did that.

From what you quoted it looks to me like Steve Chase wrote that to somebody other than you.

 

[Overspeed]

Calm down, or give the keyboard back to your better half. I think who is awesome? Seham, or SWAPA, USAPA and APA? Dont know whatt I've written to give you the basis to say what I think about any of them. But then again it fits your M.O. of making suff up as long as it fits the picture you want to paint.



Hmm, in one breath you claim its my fault we are working under these conditions then you claim we are lucky that guys like you voted it in. Here's what doesnt make sense, if the 2010 offer was good and they could have left it in place then doesnt that mean that the concessions we gave were not necessary?




See first paragraph. Pathetic. You voted in a deal that allows them to outsource just as much OH as they want. Gless' letter to the members even cites that they expect M&R to dip below 8000 within a few years. We will have less than UAL.

Bob,
The thread has to do with Pike's bogus crisis and his bringing Seham onboard. You consistently defend Seham as awesome and TWU lawyers as lousy.

You know why. You are the one that said the TWU was participating in BK scare tactics. Bottom line Bob is you are whining about why we did not get at least what UA/CO got in 2011. We had that over a year before but for you that wasn't good enough. You and your bubba's got played plain and simple. AA is now in BK, they can leave the deal in place but in order to satisfy the creditors they need to restructure their costs. They did that and they had no other choice. You are the smart one Bob, there is difference between could have and have to. AA does not have to do anything as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law. They did and we have what we have now. You played the game and the outcome wasn't what you wanted.

I voted in a deal that caps outsourcing at 35% of maintenance spend. The number Gless quotes has to do with declining work requirements. That is temporary, as the new planes get older they need more work. More work costs money and only 35% of the direct labor and material spend can be outsourced. So future work is protected under the TWU scope clause. You know this but you continue to distort and lie.

 

[Overspeed]

From what you quoted it looks to me like Steve Chase wrote that to somebody other than you.

Ok.

 

[Overspeed]

Below is the last paragraph. Take note that SWAPA and USAPA did not fire Seham', for the reasons listed in your original postings. As stated below, SWAPA hired his firm for a pilot arbitration where he has had extensive experience at, therefore he was hired outside the pilots union's regular attorney's directly due to the expertise of Sehams prior dealings, and only for this one time representation. It also states below that USAPA also hired and used Seham, but came to a point where they no longer reqired hiring his services. It very clearly states he was not fired from the two pilots group as previously stated. Go ahead amd keep spreading your lies that Seham was fired from SWAPA for “incompetence and billing irregularities”.
Get your facts straight...

In your November 6[sup]th[/sup] letter, you stated that SWAPA “terminated their relationship with Seham just this year for “incompetence and billing irregularities”. It should be noted that SWAPA did not have a long-standing relationship with Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, so there was no relationship to be “terminated”. We hired Mr. Seham’s firm for a single System Board of Adjustment/Arbitration in Spring of 2010 in which we were attempting to get a pilot reinstated after a termination. The firm had been recommended to SWAPA by another Southwest union that uses the firm regularly. SWAPA chose to hire outside counsel for that arbitration because the subject-matter relating to the pilot’s termination was specialized, and Mr. Seham’s firm had done extensive work in that field. That single arbitration is the only experience SWAPA had with Mr. Seham’s firm. When that arbitration concluded, our relationship with the firm also ended. They were not “terminated” by SWAPA for either incompetence or billing irregularities. We elected to not use them going forward at that time.
Because your letter to the USAPA membership is misleading and inaccurate, I again request (this time in writing) that you retract the statements made to your membership and issue a correction about SWAPA’s past business dealings with Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen.
Sincerely,
Steve Chase
President
Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association

So just want to get this straight. AMFA recommended SWAPA use Seham one time and they never use him again? Hmmmm....Seham must be wicked awesome.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob,
You consistently defend Seham as awesome and TWU lawyers as lousy.

Really? Where have I said either? Actually certain ATD officials feel that way when they say to me that "Lee Seham writes your posts because you arent smart enough to write that stuff".

You know why. You are the one that said the TWU was participating in BK scare tactics. Bottom line Bob is you are whining about why we did not get at least what UA/CO got in 2011. We had that over a year before but for you that wasn't good enough. You and your bubba's got played plain and simple.

Wrong, it wasnt even close, vacation, holidays , work rules, we were nowhere near what UAL got.

AA is now in BK, they can leave the deal in place but in order to satisfy the creditors they need to restructure their costs. They did that and they had no other choice. You are the smart one Bob, there is difference between could have and have to. AA does not have to do anything as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law. They did and we have what we have now. You played the game and the outcome wasn't what you wanted.

There you go again, making excuses for management while pretending to be Union. They didnt have to take concessions from us. they were especially spiteful, sick time is a pefect example, we showed them how giving us back the two full days pay would save them $7 million a year, but they rejected those assumptions, based on their own information and put together by Tom Roth and decided to charge us for the one half day they put back in. They undervalued the jobs they outsourced as well, using US OH rates vs the Asian rates where they are sending the work. So you can go on kissing managements butt while pretending to be union and saying they were forced to do this but no one believes you, you dont even believe yourself, thats why you do it from behind an alias.

I voted in a deal that caps outsourcing at 35% of maintenance spend.


The number Gless quotes has to do with declining work requirements. That is temporary, as the new planes get older they need more work. More work costs money and only 35% of the direct labor and material spend can be outsourced. So future work is protected under the TWU scope clause. You know this but you continue to distort and lie.


You know why. You are the one that said the TWU was participating in BK scare tactics. Bottom line Bob is you are whining about why we did not get at least what UA/CO got in 2011. We had that over a year before but for you that wasn't good enough. You and your bubba's got played plain and simple. AA is now in BK, they can leave the deal in place but in order to satisfy the creditors they need to restructure their costs. They did that and they had no other choice. You are the smart one Bob, there is difference between could have and have to. AA does not have to do anything as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law. They did and we have what we have now. You played the game and the outcome wasn't what you wanted.

I voted in a deal that caps outsourcing at 35% of maintenance spend.

Because thats all the company wanted, what is the cap on OH Spend?

The number Gless quotes has to do with declining work requirements. That is temporary, as the new planes get older they need more work. More work costs money and only 35% of the direct labor and material spend can be outsourced. So future work is protected under the TWU scope clause. You know this but you continue to distort and lie.

Yes but that will not be till the next contract, when despite Dons efforts, OH will not be big enough to vote in more concessions to bring that work back in. Surely you are aware that management, including Ream and Rodriguez went around the line telling the guys to vote for this because it would allow the company to get rid of OH and then they could pay the line market rates?

 

[FWAAA]

There you go again, making excuses for management while pretending to be Union. They didnt have to take concessions from us. they were especially spiteful, sick time is a pefect example . . .

Actually, the bankruptcy code requires that all workgroups share equally in the labor cost reductions. Everyone knows that AA's mechanics were not well-positioned for Ch 11. Sure, you're the lowest paid. Unfortunately, there aren't any exceptions in the law for "turned down payraises prior to bankruptcy filing because those raises were conditioned upon overly costly concessions." Unlike pilots and FAs, the mechanics didn't appear to have as many costly workrules that could be gutted to come up with the 20% (subsequently reduced to 17%) labor cost savings. Even if management had wanted to spare the mechanics of the painful concessions (if they didn't do things to you out of "spite"), they had no choice - other workgroups would object to favorable treatment, and even if they didn't, the judge would notice when ruling on the motions to abrogate. Unequal treatment (different percentages from different workgroups) would cause the 1113 motion to be rejected.

Your choice of words, like "spiteful," is interesting. I can't believe that there's as much petty animosity on the part of management as you allege, but you are closer to the situation and maybe you're right and they're just mean. My guess is that your substandard representation (from the worthless union) is a large part of the problem. Your negotiators aren't convincing. Better negotiators tend to fare better in negotiations. If you're right and there's a less painful way to save the same $$$, then better negotiators might have been able to convince the other side.

From where I sit, AA had to reduce labor costs. And unlike every other legacy airline bankruptcy, AA did it without reducing hourly pay rates (yes, many of the concessions, like higher medical costs, reduce your pay). Last year, in late November or early December, I posted my prediction that AA would demand hourly pay cuts plus the various other concessions to the tune of $2 billion each year. Turns out I overestimated (by double) the labor cost concession demand. Assuming the pilots ratify their TA, the total annual labor cost savings will be just shy of $1 billion. And AA's overall labor costs (as a percentage of revenue or per ASM or however you want to measure them) will still be higher than the bottom feeder US labor costs.

 

[Overspeed]

Really? Where have I said either? Actually certain ATD officials feel that way when they say to me that "Lee Seham writes your posts because you arent smart enough to write that stuff".





Wrong, it wasnt even close, vacation, holidays , work rules, we were nowhere near what UAL got.






There you go again, making excuses for management while pretending to be Union. They didnt have to take concessions from us. they were especially spiteful, sick time is a pefect example, we showed them how giving us back the two full days pay would save them $7 million a year, but they rejected those assumptions, based on their own information and put together by Tom Roth and decided to charge us for the one half day they put back in. They undervalued the jobs they outsourced as well, using US OH rates vs the Asian rates where they are sending the work. So you can go on kissing managements butt while pretending to be union and saying they were forced to do this but no one believes you, you dont even believe yourself, thats why you do it from behind an alias.

I voted in a deal that caps outsourcing at 35% of maintenance spend.


The number Gless quotes has to do with declining work requirements. That is temporary, as the new planes get older they need more work. More work costs money and only 35% of the direct labor and material spend can be outsourced. So future work is protected under the TWU scope clause. You know this but you continue to distort and lie.


You know why. You are the one that said the TWU was participating in BK scare tactics. Bottom line Bob is you are whining about why we did not get at least what UA/CO got in 2011. We had that over a year before but for you that wasn't good enough. You and your bubba's got played plain and simple. AA is now in BK, they can leave the deal in place but in order to satisfy the creditors they need to restructure their costs. They did that and they had no other choice. You are the smart one Bob, there is difference between could have and have to. AA does not have to do anything as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law. They did and we have what we have now. You played the game and the outcome wasn't what you wanted.




Because thats all the company wanted, what is the cap on OH Spend?




Yes but that will not be till the next contract, when despite Dons efforts, OH will not be big enough to vote in more concessions to bring that work back in. Surely you are aware that management, including Ream and Rodriguez went around the line telling the guys to vote for this because it would allow the company to get rid of OH and then they could pay the line market rates?

Bob,
Lee Seham isn't paranoid enough to post your stuff.

I agree, the May 2010 TA wasn't even close...to the amount of outsourcing of overhaul as UA and CO.

I think the company overvalued the value of outsourcing as well. But not for the reasons you state. Bottom line on outsourcing is it will come down to AA management, not any union. Lower costs come not from labor alone but how they manage the company. AA when they went in to BK agreed that they can't manage any better and the only solution was to outsource their inefficiencies at lower labor cost.

No the company wanted to outsource 40% of everything on top all work currently outsourced (10%) for a total of over 50% cap. No cap on line maintenance. AA wanted to outsource BC's in the 1113c ask. You keep lying Bob.

And the truth. You are excited about one thing aren't you? The hope that in the near future enough overhaul jobs, outsourcing, and new aircraft will allow the elite line AMTs to vote in more overhaul outsourcing. It is your dream come true!