Pilot labor thread week 4/27-5/3

[sharktooth]

quote name='LOA93' "Another core tenet of unionism, you guys never cease to amaze me"...while, by "name"..seemingly exulting in the east-west pay disparity....words are inadequate for addresing some levels of hypocrisy. Some might actually think that willfuly striving to take the postion of anyone with nearly twenty more service years hardly represents the finest tenets of true unionism as well.....just a side thought.

I too wondered at the brazen hypocrisy but, as usual sir, you handled it with your typical aplomb and common sense. Thank you.

 

[700UW]

When Glass was at NW, and their FAs left the IBT for PFAA, Glass has the IBT CBA written that DCO was only for the IBT.

Is the current CBA written the same way?

 

[prechilill]

Are you just angry you lost your cushy ALPA "job"? Get involved. Roll up your sleeves and work to help, if not your fellow pilots, at least yourself.

What job did I lose?

 

[ChuckBewFarley]

East-

St. Bradford showed up in PHX in his white van with the other boys purporting to represent the entire pilot group.

How can he represent the entire group when he won't speak to 1800 of us? Are they truly wanting west reps? Several have volunteered but have been rejected because they won't drink the cool aid. What gives? Does this "union" only represent one opinion? Do you control dissension by not allowing it? (thinking like the great evil ALPA now aren't we)

The west gets to have the reps we choose, not those that march in Stepford (Bradford?) fashion. A new term Bradford reps!!

What's this I here there is a pension for the union officers, oh the slippery slope to full time flight pay loss!! So much for the we're better than ALPA. Let's feather our bed!!

Please to help me on the time line now that 2 weeks have past and we don't have a contract. The committee system is still fuzzy as the van hasn't come to PHX yet, oh, they did and are here now but won't meet with their pilot group here. They can sneak to the training center to see the new hires (and make sure that it's new hires only, don't want the secret codes to get out) and omit the informational presentation to the masses. Some inclusive bunch you got going there!! And I was so looking forward to a yellow lanyard and being able to shout 'seniority matters' from the hill tops.

I know you have the address list, the master of disaster and his u-turd cohort made sure of that, why no communication? Afraid to be honest?

Are you going to be the Cornell group leader- hope you bring the corn oil for us, it's the least you could do. Haven't we gone through this 'let's talk it out thing once before?

Let's get over the St Nic thing, we have St Bradford and his van crew running the show.

Jinkies Steven, I think we lost Scooby and Shaggy! Can't wait for the end- If it weren't for you meddling westies... :blink:

 

[ClueByFour]

That said, I really do hope that no westie pays dues for now. That leaves only the east pilots as members in good standing with the ability to vote in a new contract, or just let Hemenway do exactly as he intimated in November, 2005, and that is to invoke LOA 93 as the "surviving" contract and make you westies work under it until you get a clue. If the company decides to do it, I for one hope USAPA agrees that they have the right.

It only takes one pilot (one) out west to actually sue. He can then be certified as the entire disenfranchised class of pilots. If what you are suggesting were to happen, notably USAPA conceeding the point to the company, you could plan on spending the Angry FO Club's Pensions on the West Lawsuit fund. USAPA will lose that, and lose it large.

As a practical matter, if Bradford is really sneaking into the training center but not yet appointing PHX reps, he's nicely working up tons uf supporting documentation for any DFR suit. Apparently, as I've intimated here many times, even the majority cannot fix stupid.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

It only takes one pilot (one) out west to actually sue. He can then be certified as the entire disenfranchised class of pilots. If what you are suggesting were to happen, notably USAPA conceeding the point to the company, you could plan on spending the Angry FO Club's Pensions on the West Lawsuit fund. USAPA will lose that, and lose it large.

As a practical matter, if Bradford is really sneaking into the training center but not yet appointing PHX reps, he's nicely working up tons uf supporting documentation for any DFR suit. Apparently, as I've intimated here many times, even the majority cannot fix stupid.

Absolutely CLUELESS! If the west CHOOSES to NOT participate, they have NO CASE. Just go ask your lawyer, Mr. know-it-all.

 

[prechilill]

Absolutely CLUELESS! If the west CHOOSES to NOT participate, they have NO CASE. Just go ask your lawyer, Mr. know-it-all.

You confuse the issue, my friend, in who is charged with the conduct of a contract and representation. The actions of USAPs go on trial in a DFR lawsuit, regardless of who the representatives are. If your view were to prevail, then the actions of individual officers could be held against them. Again, the idea behind DFR concerns the union, not individuals.
Because the west pilots refuse to endorse the DOH provision, which is a condition USAPs made for anyone wishing to be a representative out west (and the reason there are no west pilots willing to sell their seniority to the angry fo club to get a token union job), you will probably not see any west pilots filling that role. This does not excuse the angry fo club from reckless conduct, however, in the administration of its duties as a CBA.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Court Decision: “It is axiomatic that a union practice that principally looks to union membership or non-membership to determine the type of representation that will be provided bargaining unit employees is discriminatory.â€￾ This means that the union must provide the same services in the same manner for non-members as they would for members.

Jim

 

[prechilill]

From the Yahoo LCC message board, from a UAL pilot:

USAPA= United Staples Arrogant Pilot Association

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Court Decision: “It is axiomatic that a union practice that principally looks to union membership or non-membership to determine the type of representation that will be provided bargaining unit employees is discriminatory.â€￾ This means that the union must provide the same services in the same manner for non-members as they would for members.

Jim

Not arguing that. I'm arguing that if you CHOOSE to NOT have your point of view considered by the negotiators, then you get what you get. The Association WILL provide services (a contract) for ALL parties. You cannot argue that your point of view was not considered when it has been solicited but you CHOOSE TO NOT OFFER IT. That is the crux of this. The ONLY folks I know of that have a real case of DFR so far is the MDA folks against ALPA, since ALPA knew and even negotiated their position, then chose to NOT EVEN CONSIDER their plight. The West situation is totally different. Input has been solicited, and they refuse to participate. How about an analogy: If you choose to NOT VOTE in the upcoming election, you have NO RIGHT to complain when your candidate doesn't get elected.

Also, if the West folks claim that they do not have to pay agency fees, then the agency does not have to protect them, since it is their position that we are not an agency shop any longer. They'll get a contract and contract administration, but other functions will not necessarily be provided.

 

[AWA320]

Absolutely CLUELESS! If the west CHOOSES to NOT participate, they have NO CASE. Just go ask your lawyer, Mr. know-it-all.

How do you know he's not a lawyer 🙄 !!!! Know thy enemy old man...

 

[oldiebutgoody]

How do you know he's not a lawyer 🙄 !!!! Know thy enemy old man...

If he's a lawyer, then it's no wonder there are so many lawyer jokes!

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Because the west pilots refuse to endorse the DOH provision, which is a condition USAPs made for anyone wishing to be a representative out west (and the reason there are no west pilots willing to sell their seniority to the angry fo club to get a token union job), you will probably not see any west pilots filling that role. This does not excuse the angry fo club from reckless conduct, however, in the administration of its duties as a CBA.

I'll bet this isn't true. After all the heartburn over ALPA and their "loyalty oath" issue I really doubt that USAPA would require the same thing. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion. It just happens to be a majority view that DOH should be a provision in the constitution and bylaws of USAPA. No one has said that people cannot have their own opinions on the matter. There may be some East folks that disagree with it as well (doubtul), or there may be West folks that agree with the premise (also apparently doubtful).

I, personally, would NOT be a member of ANY organization that stifled or dictated personal opinions. That's only one of MANY reasons to get out of ALPA.

The fact that the West side is conspiring to prohibit ANY personal opinions of their members from being heard is the true crime here, NOT DFR. If anyone has a DFR suit, it is the West pilots against AWAPPA and it's leadership, except that AWAPPA doesn't really represent anybody. It's just a means of making some lawyers a lot of money off of the West pilots.

 

[hp_fa]

Not arguing that. I'm arguing that if you CHOOSE to NOT have your point of view considered by the negotiators, then you get what you get. The Association WILL provide services (a contract) for ALL parties. You cannot argue that your point of view was not considered when it has been solicited but you CHOOSE TO NOT OFFER IT. That is the crux of this. The ONLY folks I know of that have a real case of DFR so far is the MDA folks against ALPA, since ALPA knew and even negotiated their position, then chose to NOT EVEN CONSIDER their plight. The West situation is totally different. Input has been solicited, and they refuse to participate. How about an analogy: If you choose to NOT VOTE in the upcoming election, you have NO RIGHT to complain when your candidate doesn't get elected.

If any of this is factually incorrect, please feel free to inform me.

If I recall correctly USAPA planned on having one representative for every 300 pilots. If I also recall correctly the elected representative did not need to be domiciled in the same base that he/she represented because there was not going to be base representation per se. When I first saw the post that mentioned that method I immediately thought that method could potentially be used to disenfranchise one or more groups and the PHX pilots were the biggest ones to potentially lose a voice in that method. I guess they could make some proposed formula to vote for reps either based on the alphabet or seniority numbers that would from outward appearance at least seem to have the appearance of representing all, but in my opinion would effectively neuter the pilots from the former AWA.

Now, based on what I have read on the boards, one or more AWA pilots did make themselves available for the representative position, but were turned down because they differed on at least one policy issue, in this case the potential pilot seniority methodology. IF USAPA is using some form of litmus test to decide who can be a potential representative that to me smacks of being entirely inappropriate.

Finally, it is entirely possible that the former AWA pilots have been apprised that paying dues or other activities may raise some form of estoppel argument in any future litigation that may arise against USAPA and therefore are not doing anything to provide USAPA with any form of affirmative defense in any potential future litigation.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

If any of this is factually incorrect, please feel free to inform me.

If I recall correctly USAPA planned on having one representative for every 300 pilots. If I also recall correctly the elected representative did not need to be domiciled in the same base that he/she represented because there was not going to be base representation per se. When I first saw the post that mentioned that method I immediately thought that method could potentially be used to disenfranchise one or more groups and the PHX pilots were the biggest ones to potentially lose a voice in that method. I guess they could make some proposed formula to vote for reps either based on the alphabet or seniority numbers that would from outward appearance at least seem to have the appearance of representing all, but in my opinion would effectively neuter the pilots from the former AWA.

Now, based on what I have read on the boards, one or more AWA pilots did make themselves available for the representative position, but were turned down because they differed on at least one policy issue, in this case the potential pilot seniority methodology. IF USAPA is using some form of litmus test to decide who can be a potential representative that to me smacks of being entirely inappropriate.

Finally, it is entirely possible that the former AWA pilots have been apprised that paying dues or other activities may raise some form of estoppel argument in any future litigation that may arise against USAPA and therefore are not doing anything to provide USAPA with any form of affirmative defense in any potential future litigation.

Here's the EXACT verbage:
Section 1. Representation
526
527 A. The Board of Pilot Representatives shall consist of the Chairman and Vice Chairman from each
528 domicile except that domiciles having one hundred (100) or less members shall have one (1)
529 representative (Chairman), and domiciles having one thousand (1000) members or more shall have
530 three (3) representatives (Chairman, and two (2) Vice Chairmen).
531
532 B. Domiciles not meeting the criteria of Article IV, Section1.A, above, shall be represented by the
533 geographically closest USAPA domicile. Members of a base represented by geographically closest
534 USAPA domicile have the right to run for elective office in the base that represents them.

So, No, there are NOT one represetstive for every 300 members.

As far as I know there are NO litmus tests. There may have been some sot of requirement BEFORE USAPA was the official Pilot represetative but I know of none now. The West group is CHOOSING to not participate. USAPA is THEIR representative as well as the East's. Rather than try through legitimate means to bring their issues to light, the are choosing to not play the game at all. That's their choice, but they cannot blame anyone when their issues ar not addressed in the negotiations.

The NMB held a fair election using their rules. ALPA did NOT file any sort of protest. I have never heard ANYWHERE that paying dues to an organization or participating in our own contract representation automatically limited your right to file any sort of lawsuit, so that is a stupid argument if that is what the are saying, especially in a case like this where other "protections" are provided by the dues.