exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
Immediate implementation in the absence of combined operations would mean high training costs as a flurry of pilots change from base to base to fill vacancies and/or furlough-induced displacements.
US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 7/14-7/21 NO PERSONAL REMARKS
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
L
luvn737s
Guest
So, does anyone think the company will pull out all the stops to negotiate an agreement that they know the east will spitefully vote down?
The next step has to be Cleary's. Either announce today that he is stepping down, or come out and address his constituency with a plan of reconciliation with the west and a pledge to work towards an improved contract regardless of the outcome of appeals. Announcing the abandonment of the RICO suit and an all-bases road show would also be a good sign.
I think that this will be the tipping point for USAPA. Wake has given them their marching orders. Cleary can choose to ignore them at his own peril. I think he will find his agenda to be on the fringes. The mainstream will demand progress over vendetta.
Wake has lifted a great weight off the backs of ALL US pilots.
The next step has to be Cleary's. Either announce today that he is stepping down, or come out and address his constituency with a plan of reconciliation with the west and a pledge to work towards an improved contract regardless of the outcome of appeals. Announcing the abandonment of the RICO suit and an all-bases road show would also be a good sign.
I think that this will be the tipping point for USAPA. Wake has given them their marching orders. Cleary can choose to ignore them at his own peril. I think he will find his agenda to be on the fringes. The mainstream will demand progress over vendetta.
Wake has lifted a great weight off the backs of ALL US pilots.
Captain Underpants
Advanced
- Jan 6, 2009
- 191
- 100
The problem is in the "wake" of the court order lie the consequences.
- Indefinite status quo at arguably the two worst pilot contracts in the industry harming all pilots
- Perpetual stalemate with no chance for any contract ratification or negotiated improvements
- Severe losses to West pilots in excess of the Nic windfall from court denied East DOH positions going to New Hires
- Court is now required to negotiate the contract line for line "judging" what "undermines" the Nic windfall
- Extreme negotiating leverage for the company holding the Nic as a weapon against all pilots
- Inevitable NMB negotiating impasse likely resulting in a pilot strike putting the company in jeopardy
- Perpetual ruinous litigation and appeals
- Permanent dysfunctional pilot labor issues driving away investors or potential merger partners
- Increased chance of liquidation in Bankruptcy as potential investors will be unable to quantify labor risks
There are no winners today and the biggest losses will accrue West.
underpants
Whatever. You guys have been wrong some many times that these posts are nothing but wind.
Every single one of your points is baseless.
And there are winners today. The only loser is USAPA.
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
Ummm, you can believe what ever you want, but I came out a winner today. Next stop is the remedy phase where you get to write me a check. After that, the bankruptcy judge where he hands you a contract with another 10% pay cut. What a way to end a career.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Even for an anonymous webboard, for someone to say something like this just defies belief.
What planet is this coming from? Anyone? Bueller?
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
It comes from a distraught career first officer
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
This is from another webboard- an awesome and revealing statement at the tragic deceit Brafford offered his fellow pilots:
The union’s obligation to federal labor law includes an obligation to stand up to its
membership. USAPA argues that ALPA’s merger policy only requires the union to use
“all reasonable means†to implement the Nicolau Award, but this phrase is quoted out of
context. The policy requires the union to use “all reasonable means . . . to compel the
company to accept and implement the merged seniority list.†[MP Pt. 1.I.1.] It does not
allow the union to capitulate to an abusive majority.12
This principle goes to the core of union politics and bargaining assumptions. A
union is required to explain agreements to union members prior to a mandatory
ratification vote. White v. White Rose Food, a Div. of DiGiorgio Corp., 237 F.3d 174,
183 (2d Cir. 2001). Before and after its election, USAPA has misled the majority about
its power to improve their seniority prospects at the expense of the West Pilots. The will
of the East Pilots springs from a mistaken understanding of the law and mismanaged
expectations. If this is an impasse, it is one USAPA goaded on.
If the membership were correctly advised on the limits of fair representation that
constrain the agreement—and all the collective bargaining of every union—then they
would perceive no incentive to hold out for an improper bargaining objective. Those
employees would be left with a choice: To vote in favor of ratifying a single CBA that
incorporated the Nicolau Award, or to vote against it. What they could not do is vote
against it and expect the next CBA or the next union to violate the duty of fair
representation in the very same way as the first one could not. In effect, USAPA claims
that the East Pilots hold such strong objections to the Nicolau Award that they always
will vote as a bloc against any new CBA with it, enjoying the self-denial of a single CBA
with improved wages and working conditions into perpetuity. Even if this unbelievable
story is believed, it only means that the East Pilots have the power of self-inflicted harm.
It does not mean that the union’s duty of fair representation falls victim to self-hostage-
Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 593 Filed 07/17/2009 Page 32 of 53
The union’s obligation to federal labor law includes an obligation to stand up to its
membership. USAPA argues that ALPA’s merger policy only requires the union to use
“all reasonable means†to implement the Nicolau Award, but this phrase is quoted out of
context. The policy requires the union to use “all reasonable means . . . to compel the
company to accept and implement the merged seniority list.†[MP Pt. 1.I.1.] It does not
allow the union to capitulate to an abusive majority.12
This principle goes to the core of union politics and bargaining assumptions. A
union is required to explain agreements to union members prior to a mandatory
ratification vote. White v. White Rose Food, a Div. of DiGiorgio Corp., 237 F.3d 174,
183 (2d Cir. 2001). Before and after its election, USAPA has misled the majority about
its power to improve their seniority prospects at the expense of the West Pilots. The will
of the East Pilots springs from a mistaken understanding of the law and mismanaged
expectations. If this is an impasse, it is one USAPA goaded on.
If the membership were correctly advised on the limits of fair representation that
constrain the agreement—and all the collective bargaining of every union—then they
would perceive no incentive to hold out for an improper bargaining objective. Those
employees would be left with a choice: To vote in favor of ratifying a single CBA that
incorporated the Nicolau Award, or to vote against it. What they could not do is vote
against it and expect the next CBA or the next union to violate the duty of fair
representation in the very same way as the first one could not. In effect, USAPA claims
that the East Pilots hold such strong objections to the Nicolau Award that they always
will vote as a bloc against any new CBA with it, enjoying the self-denial of a single CBA
with improved wages and working conditions into perpetuity. Even if this unbelievable
story is believed, it only means that the East Pilots have the power of self-inflicted harm.
It does not mean that the union’s duty of fair representation falls victim to self-hostage-
Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 593 Filed 07/17/2009 Page 32 of 53
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Aug 23, 2002
- 2,627
- 945
I wonder what this means if the APL guys win and the Nic is found to be in error. I also think that this is going to create a HUGE issue for the company, as they will have to come up with a much better, more costly contract in order to get the majority to vote for it.
I see a long stalemate. At least until the 9th throws it out.
I see a long stalemate. At least until the 9th throws it out.
lynyrdskynyrd
Veteran
- Apr 22, 2005
- 1,182
- 558
Anyone can read your bullet points and the 53 page order and see the truth. What a crock. :down:
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Nothing, as the claim for an error in Nicolau is against the advocate. It's between the APL guys and ALPA. My money is on ALPA as the one thing they have is a crack legal team.
I thought your appeal was a lock?
Riiight.
Hey Oldie...what were you saying April 18th, 2008? Something was burning?
lynyrdskynyrd
Veteran
- Apr 22, 2005
- 1,182
- 558
Until the 9th throws it out?
Its more likely usapa gets thrown out with a "don't come back neither." Yea, we're all just slinging it around so to speak, but jeez, you guys have been proven wrong every darn step of the way. You are beginning to become parodies of yourselves.Wow, the desperation is almost embarrassing.
The Nic is just fine and isn't going anywhere.
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
Do you mean when oldie was inferring Nicolau is over?
http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...c=40968&hl=
Truly priceless! LOL
God, what a great night!!! We have totally destroyed the malicious minority out east!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
