The fact of the matter is that APFA needs to represent all members equally. Having one subgroup with different work rules is not representing members equally. Since all LLC F/As have a seniority date junior to any native F/Cs on the property, there is no harm to native F/As if LLC F/As were permitted to transfer.
More F/A furloughs
- Thread starter L1011Ret
- Start date
TWAnr
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 11:59:32 PM MiAAmi wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 7:29:16 PM kirkpatrick wrote:
APFA may not have represented us before the acquisition, but they are representing us now, and I expect them to bust their damn butts trying to help us.
MK
----------------
[/blockquote]
Coming from the same people who have a lawsuit against us.
----------------
[/blockquote]
MiAAmi,
The fact remains that the APFA has a legal obligation to provide fair representation to its St. Louis members regardless of any other outstanding issues and pending law suits concerning seniority integration. Failing to do so is a serious breach of duty which will result in severe legal consequences including decertification.
If your sentiments are indicative of the real reason that the union is not fighting to save jobs in St. Louis, I cannot think of better proof that there is a violation of DFR.
----------------
On 2/7/2003 11:59:32 PM MiAAmi wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 7:29:16 PM kirkpatrick wrote:
APFA may not have represented us before the acquisition, but they are representing us now, and I expect them to bust their damn butts trying to help us.
MK
----------------
[/blockquote]
Coming from the same people who have a lawsuit against us.
----------------
[/blockquote]
MiAAmi,
The fact remains that the APFA has a legal obligation to provide fair representation to its St. Louis members regardless of any other outstanding issues and pending law suits concerning seniority integration. Failing to do so is a serious breach of duty which will result in severe legal consequences including decertification.
If your sentiments are indicative of the real reason that the union is not fighting to save jobs in St. Louis, I cannot think of better proof that there is a violation of DFR.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 11:59:32 PM MiAAmi wrote:
Coming from the same people who have a lawsuit against us.
----------------
[/blockquote]
"We" don't have a lawsuit against you. There are two lawsuits against you. One was filed by the IAM, the other personally by our former union president, Sherry Cooper.
APFA should have taken into account the possible repercussions when they decided to staple us. Anyone with any sense would know that lawsuits would follow. Now APFA is standing back saying "Oh my God, they're suing us!" No $h!t, Sherlock. What did you expect?
But we're not discussing the seniority integration here. We're discussing the duty of APFA to fairly represent its dues-paying members. The company's failure to offer leaves systemwide is a travesty. APFA should be doing all it can to see that the contract is adhered to. If it doesn't, it just adds evidence to Sherry's Denial of Fair Rrepresentation lawsuit. If that's what you want, fine.
MK
----------------
On 2/7/2003 11:59:32 PM MiAAmi wrote:
Coming from the same people who have a lawsuit against us.
----------------
[/blockquote]
"We" don't have a lawsuit against you. There are two lawsuits against you. One was filed by the IAM, the other personally by our former union president, Sherry Cooper.
APFA should have taken into account the possible repercussions when they decided to staple us. Anyone with any sense would know that lawsuits would follow. Now APFA is standing back saying "Oh my God, they're suing us!" No $h!t, Sherlock. What did you expect?
But we're not discussing the seniority integration here. We're discussing the duty of APFA to fairly represent its dues-paying members. The company's failure to offer leaves systemwide is a travesty. APFA should be doing all it can to see that the contract is adhered to. If it doesn't, it just adds evidence to Sherry's Denial of Fair Rrepresentation lawsuit. If that's what you want, fine.
MK
IORFA, we agree to disagree. I believe the DFR case will hinge on the proof that LLC F/As have been harmed by language in the "integration agreement." If in fact there is demonstratable harm (economic, emotional and quality of life) - and that must be proved with evidence in this class action suit - and native AA F/As would not be harmed, then APFA may well be found to not fairly represent. If the court finds this to be true, then the language must be amended. This has nothing to do with seniority. So we shall see what the court has to say.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 8:09:38 AM TWAnr wrote:
If your sentiments are indicative of the real reason that the union is not fighting to save jobs in St. Louis, I cannot think of better proof that there is a violation of DFR.
----------------
[/blockquote]
TWAnr your reaching here. I'm allowed to find it ironic that the same group that has a lawsuit against us for not allowing them to tower over us in seniority, with a significant raise, feels that we should turn around and "bust our butts" for them. Maybe we should furlough all the f/a's at STL that are delinquent on their union dues. That should save a few dues paying members from furlough.
----------------
On 2/8/2003 8:09:38 AM TWAnr wrote:
If your sentiments are indicative of the real reason that the union is not fighting to save jobs in St. Louis, I cannot think of better proof that there is a violation of DFR.
----------------
[/blockquote]
TWAnr your reaching here. I'm allowed to find it ironic that the same group that has a lawsuit against us for not allowing them to tower over us in seniority, with a significant raise, feels that we should turn around and "bust our butts" for them. Maybe we should furlough all the f/a's at STL that are delinquent on their union dues. That should save a few dues paying members from furlough.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 9:06:39 AM MiAAmi wrote:
[blockquote]
TWAnr your reaching here. I'm allowed to find it ironic that the same group that has a lawsuit against us for not allowing them to tower over us in seniority, with a significant raise, feels that we should turn around and "bust our butts" for them. Maybe we should furlough all the f/a's at STL that are delinquent on their union dues. That should save a few dues paying members from furlough.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You're confusing your groups and your issues. You got your staple job. Whether it sticks depends on the IAM court case. This is no longer about seniority. Whatever the past or future may bring on that issue, APFA is bound to represent us. I don't expect YOU to bust your butt for me; I expect APFA to do so.
MK
----------------
On 2/8/2003 9:06:39 AM MiAAmi wrote:
[blockquote]
TWAnr your reaching here. I'm allowed to find it ironic that the same group that has a lawsuit against us for not allowing them to tower over us in seniority, with a significant raise, feels that we should turn around and "bust our butts" for them. Maybe we should furlough all the f/a's at STL that are delinquent on their union dues. That should save a few dues paying members from furlough.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You're confusing your groups and your issues. You got your staple job. Whether it sticks depends on the IAM court case. This is no longer about seniority. Whatever the past or future may bring on that issue, APFA is bound to represent us. I don't expect YOU to bust your butt for me; I expect APFA to do so.
MK
No matter what the outcome of this litigation, I would not expect much of it would seriously impact native AA F/As. The DFR suit if won by LLC F/As does not appear to impact native AA F/As in any material way. Second, the seniority case if won by LLC F/As would most likely result in some sort of integration that minimized harm to native AA F/As. That is sort of the basic rule, that significant harm would not occur to the class of native F/As based upon conditions existing on 4/10/01. So the fear that bunches of LLC F/As would suddenly massively displace native AA F/As is misguided. Probably there would be some sort of ratio in, years of TWA seniority for years of AA occupational seniority like 4 to 1 or some sort of percentage vis a vis the mechanics would be invoked.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 11:38:54 AM MiAAmi wrote:
I thought this thread was about furloughs?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It was. That is until you brought the seniority law suit as a justification for the union not performing its legal duty to fairly represent the St. Louis flight attendants by fighting for system wide furlough mitigation.
----------------
On 2/8/2003 11:38:54 AM MiAAmi wrote:
I thought this thread was about furloughs?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It was. That is until you brought the seniority law suit as a justification for the union not performing its legal duty to fairly represent the St. Louis flight attendants by fighting for system wide furlough mitigation.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 11:59:32 PM MiAAmi wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 7:29:16 PM kirkpatrick wrote:
APFA may not have represented us before the acquisition, but they are representing us now, and I expect them to bust their damn butts trying to help us.
MK
----------------
[/blockquote]
Coming from the same people who have a lawsuit against us.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This was my quote. I never said anything about it justifing anything. And I agree it should be a system wide offer.
----------------
On 2/7/2003 11:59:32 PM MiAAmi wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 7:29:16 PM kirkpatrick wrote:
APFA may not have represented us before the acquisition, but they are representing us now, and I expect them to bust their damn butts trying to help us.
MK
----------------
[/blockquote]
Coming from the same people who have a lawsuit against us.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This was my quote. I never said anything about it justifing anything. And I agree it should be a system wide offer.
C
coldplay
Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 11:28:35 AM L1011Ret wrote:
So the fear that bunches of LLC F/As would suddenly massively displace native AA F/As is misguided. Probably there would be some sort of ratio in, years of TWA seniority for years of AA occupational seniority like 4 to 1 or some sort of percentage vis a vis the mechanics would be invoked.
----------------
[/blockquote]
easy for you to say because this basically ensures you a job while bumping true AA'rs to being furloughed. how fair would that be then? oh yea, i forgot, it's fair because YOU'll have a job while some junior AA person who took the trouble of choosing AA over TWA years ago gets bumped out.
get over it, you guys lost the airline war, you're casualities and there was bound to be some. it may not be fair but LIFE isn't fair and if it was we'd all be millionaires and not have to worry about things.
the truth hurts, no matter how much spin or reasoning or justification you grasp on trying to find an answer to the spectre of a coming furlough and unemployment. get on with your life, get over it. it's not fair, ok, so it's not fair in your eyes because it affects your life. I'm just tired of hearing the same ole line about Unionism and all that crap. We're all looking out for ourselves, damn the others. just as long as I still have my job then everything is peachy and you can be damn sure I'll do everything I can to preserve it. I'm not going to hide behind UNIONISM and FAIRNESS and what was done before with air cal or ozarks or reno or whatever airline merger of the past we can think of. it all boils down to "Better You than Me". call me a greedy ******* but at least I'm honest. and i'll bet you're saying the same thing too deep inside..."why me and not him?", "why after 35 years do I have to be junior to a 5 year FA?", waah waah waah whine whine whine.
Until everyone can admit it and quit with the bull crap of Fair and equitable and true meaning of Unionism, then maybe we'll all get along better.
----------------
On 2/8/2003 11:28:35 AM L1011Ret wrote:
So the fear that bunches of LLC F/As would suddenly massively displace native AA F/As is misguided. Probably there would be some sort of ratio in, years of TWA seniority for years of AA occupational seniority like 4 to 1 or some sort of percentage vis a vis the mechanics would be invoked.
----------------
[/blockquote]
easy for you to say because this basically ensures you a job while bumping true AA'rs to being furloughed. how fair would that be then? oh yea, i forgot, it's fair because YOU'll have a job while some junior AA person who took the trouble of choosing AA over TWA years ago gets bumped out.
get over it, you guys lost the airline war, you're casualities and there was bound to be some. it may not be fair but LIFE isn't fair and if it was we'd all be millionaires and not have to worry about things.
the truth hurts, no matter how much spin or reasoning or justification you grasp on trying to find an answer to the spectre of a coming furlough and unemployment. get on with your life, get over it. it's not fair, ok, so it's not fair in your eyes because it affects your life. I'm just tired of hearing the same ole line about Unionism and all that crap. We're all looking out for ourselves, damn the others. just as long as I still have my job then everything is peachy and you can be damn sure I'll do everything I can to preserve it. I'm not going to hide behind UNIONISM and FAIRNESS and what was done before with air cal or ozarks or reno or whatever airline merger of the past we can think of. it all boils down to "Better You than Me". call me a greedy ******* but at least I'm honest. and i'll bet you're saying the same thing too deep inside..."why me and not him?", "why after 35 years do I have to be junior to a 5 year FA?", waah waah waah whine whine whine.
Until everyone can admit it and quit with the bull crap of Fair and equitable and true meaning of Unionism, then maybe we'll all get along better.
