U.S. Pilot Labor Thread 8/3 - 8/10

[ClueByFour]

Umm..sure..if you say so And here I've been operating for so very many years under the impression that the proper term was ignorant dipshi-t Thanks for clearing that up

See what I mean about obfuscation?

No need...this "person" offers up only mouth..and I'm far, far past tired of it. Within this "thing's" insults have come many at the expense of the likes of those two in your family..and all actual pilots everywhere. There's nothing the least bit professional in acceeding/agreeing with such a creature with any ground....

I'm not insinuating that pilots everywhere are as challenged as you are. Don't insult pilots everywhere like that.

Again--I've enjoyed giving you the "I told you so." If you have a problem with that (as mentioned above), get smarter.

Watching you flail about with the appendage-size insults worthy of somewhat about a 10th of your age is better than cable.

An earlier poster in this thread was correct: you don't actually answer direct questions nor do you actually address what someone wrote. Attacking the messenger is the single most common logical fallacy of debate.

 

[westcoastflyer]

See what I mean about obfuscation?



I'm not insinuating that pilots everywhere are as challenged as you are. Don't insult pilots everywhere like that.

Again--I've enjoyed giving you the "I told you so." If you have a problem with that (as mentioned above), get smarter.

Watching you flail about with the appendage-size insults worthy of somewhat about a 10th of your age is better than cable.

An earlier poster in this thread was correct: you don't actually answer direct questions nor do you actually address what someone wrote. Attacking the messenger is the single most common logical fallacy of debate.

 

[westcoastflyer]

This whole thread is just about silly, immature, personal attacks against one another. This serves no positive purpose whatsoever. How about someone actually posting something factual or newsworthy, or God forbid, something of a positive nature?

 

[signals]

Divide and Conquer 101 :huh:

Classic if I say so myself.
I have no right to speak in your union matters and that is why I try to avoid them. Since USAPA is new, one should ask questions. Is the union endorsed by other powerful unions(teamsters, AFL-CIO, etc.)? Or is it another AMFA?

I'm curious as to how two separate unions in one entity go about negotiating a 'fair' contract? What if USAPA goes on strike and ALPA doesn't? To me it seems like a futile fight for a go nowhere cause.

A union divided cannot stand. I will be closely observing the future...

 

[AAA73Pilot]

How about someone actually posting something factual or newsworthy, or God forbid, something of a positive nature?

Ok. Check this out on non payment of dues. From the latest u-turn e-mail. FYI:

OPINION: MEMORANDUM ORDER JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.

Pending before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. The pertinent facts, either undisputed or taken most favorably to plaintiffs, are as follows.

At all times relevant, plaintiffs Larry Waldon, Charles Lynn, and Gary Schaible were employed as aircraft maintenance technicians by American Airlines and were members of defendants the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO and its division the Air Transport Workers Union of America (collectively "TWU").

Beginning in October 1998, plaintiffs, along with others, launched a campaign to change their collective bargaining representative from the TWU to the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association ("AMFA"). In conjunction with this campaign, plaintiffs ceased paying their union dues to the TWU.

In response, the TWU brought charges against the plaintiffs, not for non-payment of dues but rather for their pro-AMFA activity. The TWU Constitution provides that "advocating or attempting to bring about the withdrawal from the International Union of . . . any member or group of members" or "working in the interest of or accepting membership in any organization dual to the International Union" is grounds for internal union discipline. See Affidavit of John Kerrigan, dated May 24, 2001, Ex. 2 (TWU Constitution), at 59-62. In August 1999, TWU Local 567 charged Waldon and Schaible with violating these provisions of the TWU Constitution by wearing pro-AMFA tee-shirts on the job, and TWU Local 514 similarly charged Lynn with violating these provisions by wearing pro-AMFA tee-shirts and by "talking to other [TWU] members about the AMFA and signing yellow [union authorization] cards [for the AMFA]."

All three plaintiffs were tried and found guilty by their respective locals. As punishment, they were adjudged "in bad standing" for three years. Under the TWU Constitution, "any member in bad standing" is "ineligible to attend Union meetings, to be a candidate for or hold any Union Office or position, or to vote in any Union election or referendum, or otherwise to participate in Union affairs."

[Small fines were also imposed on Waldon and Schaible, but not on Lynn.]

On appeal by Schaible and Lynn, n2 the TWU International Committee on Appeals ("Appeals Committee"), while affirming the findings of guilty, held that the status of being "in bad standing" could not be imposed as a penalty for the particular charges brought against Schaible and Lynn, but that most of the same penalties that accompanied being in "bad standing" could independently be imposed for these charges. Accordingly, the Appeals Committee affirmed the punishment to the extent that Schaible and Lynn were disabled for three years from holding or voting for any union office or position and from attending or taking part in any union meeting, function, or referendum except for mail ballot ratification of a collective bargaining agreement or amendment thereto or a meeting called for that purpose.

Meanwhile, all three plaintiffs continued their aforementioned refusal to pay their union dues. When, ultimately, the TWU demanded payment, plaintiffs themselves filed grievances with their respective Locals, arguing that they were no longer under any obligation to pay such dues because, as a result of the aforementioned penalties, union membership was "not available" to them "upon the same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to any other members," as required by Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 152.

Lynn's grievance, filed with Local 514, was referred to an arbitrator, who, on January 6, 2000, denied it. While Lynn and Schaible (but not Waldon) then paid their back dues "in protest," all three thereupon commenced the instant action, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that it is unlawful for the TWU to demand payment of union dues while plaintiffs' membership rights are curtailed as a result of the discipline imposed for their pro-AMFA activities. Importantly, however, they do not seek to raise, at least in this lawsuit, any claim that the underlying discipline was itself unlawfully imposed. Rather, plaintiffs' position, reduced to its essence, is that any union member who, for whatever reason, receives union discipline that takes the form of a loss of membership rights thereby no longer enjoys membership on the "same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to any other member" and therefore, under Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the RLA, no longer has any obligation to pay membership dues as a condition of continued membership in the union and continued employment.

This position, however, fundamentally misconceives Section 2, Eleventh (a), which simply requires that union membership be made available on equal terms and conditions to all who wish to join a union, see 42 U.S.C. § 152, but not that, having so joined, a member may evade the obligation to pay dues by violating the responsibilities of a union member and being disciplined therefor. Any other interpretation would threaten both the financial stability of labor organizations and their ability to maintain discipline among the rank and file, leading to the absurd result that any union member seeking to avoid paying union dues could do so simply by breaking the rules of the union and accepting discipline. It would also be inconsistent with the plain language of the Section 2, Eleventh (a), which speaks only of making membership "available" on equal terms and conditions, rather than maintaining such equality regardless of the conduct of individual union members.

Plaintiffs rely heavily on Fenderson v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants, 743 F. Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), which ruled that a union violated Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the RLA when it limited the voting powers of new union members until a certain time period had elapsed. Plaintiffs' reliance on Fenderson is misplaced, however, for it clearly concerns discrimination in the terms and conditions under which union membership is made available to new members, and not, as here, restrictions on membership rights imposed on existing members as a form of discipline for violating union rules. As for the other cases on which plaintiffs rely, such as Klemens v. Air Line Pilots Assoc. Int'l., 736 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1984), they are even further removed from the instant issue.

Much closer on point is Gilbert v. National Labor Relations Board, 312 U.S. App. D.C. 368, 56 F.3d 1438 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In that case, the plaintiff similarly argued that because he was disciplined by the union for disloyalty and thus barred from holding office and attending union meetings, he did not have to pay membership dues under Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) (a section that has been held to be "in all material respect identical" to Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the RLA, see Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, 745, 101 L. Ed. 2d 634, 108 S. Ct. 2641 (1988)). As the D.C. Circuit stated in Gilbert, "the mere fact that Gilbert was deprived of certain membership privileges as discipline for violating valid internal Union rules that applied uniformly to every other member does not mean that membership was not 'available' to Gilbert on the same terms and conditions as other employees," or that he was therefore excused from paying his dues. Gilbert, 56 F.3d at 1444-45. The Court finds this reasoning persuasive and, here, dispositive.

Accordingly, the Court hereby grants defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismisses the Complaint in its entirety. Clerk to enter judgment.

Correspondingly, plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, also pending before the Court, is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED. JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.

 

[LSS]

I'm curious as to how two separate unions in one entity go about negotiating a 'fair' contract? What if USAPA goes on strike and ALPA doesn't? To me it seems like a futile fight for a go nowhere cause.

Signals,
If I understood you correctly, to clarify, there is only ONE pilot union on this property. ALPA is history. The former AWA pilots can join USAPA and become a participant in it's direction, or they can pay germane dues, have no say in its direction, have no vote on any contract, but avoid termination.

 

[ussnark]

You may need to go back to school on your forensic writing evaluations, my friend.

"forensic" likely does not mean what you think it means.

 

[fatherabraham]

Here is a non personal pilot question? I see your 2009 vacation bidding is opening. Will yet another year come and go letting the vacation disparity between east/west be tolerated by you? You know once it closes company will claim unable to re-open.

 

[nostradamus]

Here is a non personal pilot question? I see your 2009 vacation bidding is opening. Will yet another year come and go letting the vacation disparity between east/west be tolerated by you? You know once it closes company will claim unable to re-open.

The america west pilots lived with dispairity for 25 years, what the heck a few years is nothing.

All east pilots are 1 million dollars ahead over the same 25 year career, a few more days vacation does not matter in the short term.

america west pilots pay history, click here

 

[fatherabraham]

Early on i am guessing ur reponse does not represent the majority of east pilots.

 

[nostradamus]

Early on i am guessing ur reponse does not represent the majority of east pilots.

I do not recall wanting my response to be voted on. It is a fact. If someone wants a week extra vacation for two years and a million dollars less for 25 years, that is fine with me.

 

[Megasnoop]

I went through the program in the '77, and now that you mention it, I remember hearing about the VT-0 pool from some of the instructors. They loved it! Most of the duties they were given in the pool were a joke. They got to kill the better part of a year working on their tans and playing golf before starting Primary.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks, Snoop. Your brother has provided proof positive that this loser was nowhere near a combat zone in 1972, unless you count Trader John's.

I went through AFTER '78. Saufley Field was gone, just an OLF. Trader Jon's was off limits because it served a definitely non-military clientele. VT-0 started the summer of 69, mainly with Boat School Grads. They were 0-4s when I went through the training command. I remember them telling the story about the "Brown Envelopes." Summer of 1970, NATC whacked over 500 SNAs (out of 2500 total) from the training command. If you were retained, you got handed a white envelope. If you were whacked, you got a brown envelope. The Coast Guard picked up some of the whacked guys with direct commissions, no OCS. I flew with one of them out of Mobile. Point is, there wasn't a lot of "churning" out NAs in 1970-71

One story that's probably been inflated over the years was about an infamous Boat Schooler in VT-0 who bought a bar out on Santa Rosa Island called Dirty Joe’s. He mustered by phone like everyone who didn't have some duty assignment for about six months, then disappeared. They ran an Article 31 on him for being UA but dropped it when they found out that he never left town and never cashed a pay check. He was making too much money at the bar. That place was still there when I went through. The memories, Evelyn’s Grunge Bar, the Oyster Bar, Happy Hour at Mustin Beach. I couldn't stand Whiting.

There is actually an organization that investigates and debunks fake "war heroes." Amazingly, there are hundreds of them. You are talking about a very disturbed bunch of folks.

USCGA. The Guardians. Great flick! You guys have a beautiful campus.

Who knows whether he's fake or not, but his story didn't add up.
New London was great. But the best part of the academy was the Eagle. That's something you never forget. Snoop

 

[Barberpole]

The america west pilots lived with dispairity for 25 years, what the heck a few years is nothing.

All east pilots are 1 million dollars ahead over the same 25 year career, a few more days vacation does not matter in the short term.

america west pilots pay history, click here

The short term is all you guys have left. Might as well make the most of it.

 

[nostradamus]

The short term is all you guys have left. Might as well make the most of it.

You are preaching to the choir sir.

 

[N924PS]

Here is a non personal pilot question? I see your 2009 vacation bidding is opening. Will yet another year come and go letting the vacation disparity between east/west be tolerated by you? You know once it closes company will claim unable to re-open.

Until such time as a new contract is in place I guess it will be tolerated.

They may not be able to redo the entire vacation bid, but they can pay you for the additional days above 21, however many are negotiated.