US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/13- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[cleardirect]

Delete duplicate post

 

[Waketurbulence]

Hi Bear,

The most senior east furloughee, Colello has a hire date of 7-18-88. Given a strict DOH seniority list he would go from furloughed to senior to all but 309 West pilots. As number 310 on the West list he would be senior to over 500 captains, at the time of the merger more like 700 captains.

At the time of the merger the most senior east furlough was hired at usair or piedmont or wherever, prior to approx 84% of all West pilots.

Another question for you easth guys...Is the senario above fair?

 

[ableoneable]

Actually, it was the West's attorney, Mr. Freund that said that. After which he was promptly "let go".

You can't ever get it right, can you?

Freund was never let go. He is still AWAPPA's lawyer and will be there to defend the seniority list should USAPPA ever attempt to put forth a fraudulent seniority list.

Keep taking one quote out of context and hanging your every hope and wish upon that quote.

 

[snapthis]

Wow, the denial is strong. Yes its important, it spells out the pure sham that USAPA is. Its a spite union, created to wuss out of an agreement.

Sorry you don't get it.

You will.

They were exposed by one of their own.

Their true selfish motives for all to see. Except for those who are blinded by denial.

 

[OTTER574]

Actually, it was the West's attorney, Mr. Freund that said that. After which he was promptly "let go".

Funny thing is oldie is that I think ex east alpa mec slappen jack stepfan said it best under oath, or words to the effect......"The best way to enforce the nic upon the usairways east pilot group is to vote alpa off and bring in usapa. Alpa would have kept seperate east/west pilot group votes to prevent the nic forever."

Because of usapa and it's founders, we now have one pilot group and ONE VOTE.

With the federal permanent injunction to enforce the nic because of usapa and it's DFR, we now have a seniority list carved in stone.

We should all thank Usapa and it's founders, for it's a gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Flippin43]

Funny thing is oldie is that I think ex east alpa mec slappen jack stepfan said it best under oath, or words to the effect......"The best way to enforce the nic upon the usairways east pilot group is to vote alpa off and bring in usapa. Alpa would have kept seperate east/west pilot group votes to prevent the nic forever."
Because of usapa and it's founders, we now have one pilot group and ONE VOTE.

With the federal permanent injunction to enforce the nic because of usapa and it's DFR, we now have a seniority list carved in stone.

We should all thank Usapa and it's founders, for it's a gift that keeps on giving.

It's amazing how this quote, (so under used by the east members here) from one of their own ex "leaders" is glossed over in favor of one from the other side by a counselor not involved in the current litigation.



Flip

 

[aquagreen73s]

With the federal permanent injunction to enforce the nic because of usapa and it's DFR, we now have a seniority list carved in stone.

Far better than that even is the rule which will be coming down from the 9th that will clearly protect minority groups within a labor union from a majority. Judge Posner framed the issue perfectly in AW v. Sanderson, but couldn't apply it in that case as the facts did not develop to that level. Ours did, and now Judge Posner's dicta transmutes from theory to application:


"We realize that majority rule is not always efficacious and that majority preferences sometimes, perhaps often, are thwarted by the machinations of interest groups; and these and other systemic problems with aggregating preferences by voting are not touched by the efforts of the Landrum-Griffin Act, of which more later, to democratize union governance. But in general, and so far as we know also in the specific setting of collective bargaining representation in the airline industry, a majority is better protected by the electoral process than a minority is. It is therefore the minority that has the more legitimate fear concerning the behavior of the collective bargaining representative. That is why the legal duty of fair representation is oriented toward the concerns of minorities, whether a racial minority systematically discriminated against by the union or a group of dissidents on the outs with the union leadership whom the leadership seeks to punish or an individual worker with a grievance against the company whom the union deliberately and unjustifiably refuses to assist."

 

[East Hole]

Far better than that even is the rule which will be coming down from the 9th that will clearly protect minority groups within a labor union from a majority. Judge Posner framed the issue perfectly in AW v. Sanderson, but couldn't apply it in that case as the facts did not develop to that level. Ours did, and now Judge Posner's dicta transmutes from theory to application:


"We realize that majority rule is not always efficacious and that majority preferences sometimes, perhaps often, are thwarted by the machinations of interest groups; and these and other systemic problems with aggregating preferences by voting are not touched by the efforts of the Landrum-Griffin Act, of which more later, to democratize union governance. But in general, and so far as we know also in the specific setting of collective bargaining representation in the airline industry, a majority is better protected by the electoral process than a minority is. It is therefore the minority that has the more legitimate fear concerning the behavior of the collective bargaining representsative. That is why the legal duty of fair representation is oriented toward the concerns of minorities, whether a racial minority systematically discriminated against by the union or a group of dissidents on the outs with the union leadership whom the leadership seeks to punish or an individual worker with a grievance against the company whom the union deliberately and unjustifiably refuses to assist."

I guess its time for the reserves (pilots and f/a) to take legal action against their unions.

 

[OTTER574]

Far better than that even is the rule which will be coming down from the 9th that will clearly protect minority groups within a labor union from a majority. Judge Posner framed the issue perfectly in AW v. Sanderson, but couldn't apply it in that case as the facts did not develop to that level. Ours did, and now Judge Posner's dicta transmutes from theory to application:


"We realize that majority rule is not always efficacious and that majority preferences sometimes, perhaps often, are thwarted by the machinations of interest groups; and these and other systemic problems with aggregating preferences by voting are not touched by the efforts of the Landrum-Griffin Act, of which more later, to democratize union governance. But in general, and so far as we know also in the specific setting of collective bargaining representation in the airline industry, a majority is better protected by the electoral process than a minority is. It is therefore the minority that has the more legitimate fear concerning the behavior of the collective bargaining representative. That is why the legal duty of fair representation is oriented toward the concerns of minorities, whether a racial minority systematically discriminated against by the union or a group of dissidents on the outs with the union leadership whom the leadership seeks to punish or an individual worker with a grievance against the company whom the union deliberately and unjustifiably refuses to assist."

dang, wish I went to law school. very sweet and enjoyable reading.

 

[mach92flyr]

I love the smell of fear and desperation in the morning. After reading the last 10 pages of posts it is obvious that my east and west brothers see the writing on the wall.
Just a few observations...
Black Swan makes what appears to him to be a compelling argument, and for a layman he is correct. However Swan, what three years of law school and practicing of law teach you is how to think like a lawyer. I won't the waste bandwidth educating you, suffice to say the 9th judges were trying to give Seaman a chance to show why decades of settled law that binding arbitration awards cannot be changed shouldn't apply in our case. Absent criminal actions, they aren't changed.
The floodgates you mention in your post that will be opened here, are not by union DFR's, but by the thousands of cases settled yearly by arbitrators. Overturning the power of arbitrators means your car accident or medical malpractice case will take decades to be heard. The courts would be overwhemed. This just isn't going to happen.
As for the ripeness argument you do not have to be actually "harmed" for a case to be ripe. If you find a ticking time bomb does it have to go off for a case to be ripe? Here the USAPA timebomb was ticking, harm was imminent to the west (and has occured as the damages case will show) and thus is ripe.
Second, the "we have the vote" or "wake can't implement" arguments won't hunt. Obviously, this lacks the understanding of the power of a Federal judge. Can he force you to vote "yes" to a contract? No, however, he can fine or imprison you for failure to adhere to his decisions. Remember the $25 million dollar fine of Allied pilots union when the American pilots had illegal sickouts?
Finally, the "three years until upgrades" is pure fantasy. Even the most self centered obtuse pilot on either side can see that Titanic Airways is hurting and will need/want relief from the block hour restrictions in TA. The quickest way is Chapter 11.
The BK judges as the east and west know are all powerful. Their job is to save the company and as many jobs as possible, no matter how much pain in inflicted. The TA will vanish, including the east/west ratification votes, LCC will impose a joint LOA 93 type contract which has to include NIC, by federal injunction, and the slow slide back to 2005 and liguidation will begin. I don't see anyway this will take 3 years, one accident, one terrorist act and we are toast.

 

[Black Swan]

Funny thing is oldie is that I think ex east alpa mec slappen jack stepfan said it best under oath, or words to the effect......"The best way to enforce the nic upon the usairways east pilot group is to vote alpa off and bring in usapa. Alpa would have kept seperate east/west pilot group votes to prevent the nic forever."

Because of usapa and it's founders, we now have one pilot group and ONE VOTE.

With the federal permanent injunction to enforce the nic because of usapa and it's DFR, we now have a seniority list carved in stone.

We should all thank Usapa and it's founders, for it's a gift that keeps on giving.

I wonder if maybe slappen Jack had ulterior motives?? He might have to possibly return to the line and fly. Then Chris Beebe, I guess he was happy to leave that 300k ALPA deal and have to actually fly a jet! How do you think that salary sat with us, or should have sat with you?? Stephan would have cut any deal to get himself into the ALPA feeding trough, including dumping the pension, selling out the MDA guys, or whatever else took to make sure the cash flow was ALPA positive. We all know this, had ALPA remained, we would have heard the same line we heard for years. Take it guys, sorry, but our lawyers say it is the best thing. Live to fight another day..... And you guys think dumping ALPA was all about the NIC? Dumping ALPA was the surest way to get rid of these leeches. They had laid one deal too many on us, and had they remained, the east pilots would absolutely have gotten up one day, and the NIC would be in full effect. We didn't trust them anymore, and we made them a SMOKING HOLE. And that, USAPA members, is the Rest Of the Story.......Good Day!

 

[Black Swan]

I love the smell of fear and desperation in the morning. After reading the last 10 pages of posts it is obvious that my east and west brothers see the writing on the wall.
Just a few observations...
Black Swan makes what appears to him to be a compelling argument, and for a layman he is correct. However Swan, what three years of law school and practicing of law teach you is how to think like a lawyer. I won't the waste bandwidth educating you, suffice to say the 9th judges were trying to give Seaman a chance to show why decades of settled law that binding arbitration awards cannot be changed shouldn't apply in our case. Absent criminal actions, they aren't changed.
The floodgates you mention in your post that will be opened here, are not by union DFR's, but by the thousands of cases settled yearly by arbitrators. Overturning the power of arbitrators means your car accident or medical malpractice case will take decades to be heard. The courts would be overwhemed. This just isn't going to happen.
As for the ripeness argument you do not have to be actually "harmed" for a case to be ripe. If you find a ticking time bomb does it have to go off for a case to be ripe? Here the USAPA timebomb was ticking, harm was imminent to the west (and has occured as the damages case will show) and thus is ripe.
Second, the "we have the vote" or "wake can't implement" arguments won't hunt. Obviously, this lacks the understanding of the power of a Federal judge. Can he force you to vote "yes" to a contract? No, however, he can fine or imprison you for failure to adhere to his decisions. Remember the $25 million dollar fine of Allied pilots union when the American pilots had illegal sickouts?
Finally, the "three years until upgrades" is pure fantasy. Even the most self centered obtuse pilot on either side can see that Titanic Airways is hurting and will need/want relief from the block hour restrictions in TA. The quickest way is Chapter 11.
The BK judges as the east and west know are all powerful. Their job is to save the company and as many jobs as possible, no matter how much pain in inflicted. The TA will vanish, including the east/west ratification votes, LCC will impose a joint LOA 93 type contract which has to include NIC, by federal injunction, and the slow slide back to 2005 and liguidation will begin. I don't see anyway this will take 3 years, one accident, one terrorist act and we are toast.

Good morning. I did not realize your specialty was labor law, but then again, I will admit mine is not either. Encapsulated in your summary is an interesting word, and that is SETTLED. Check it out. My opinion, of course.

 

[Black Swan]

I love the smell of fear and desperation in the morning. After reading the last 10 pages of posts it is obvious that my east and west brothers see the writing on the wall.
Just a few observations...
Black Swan makes what appears to him to be a compelling argument, and for a layman he is correct. However Swan, what three years of law school and practicing of law teach you is how to think like a lawyer. I won't the waste bandwidth educating you, suffice to say the 9th judges were trying to give Seaman a chance to show why decades of settled law that binding arbitration awards cannot be changed shouldn't apply in our case. Absent criminal actions, they aren't changed.
The floodgates you mention in your post that will be opened here, are not by union DFR's, but by the thousands of cases settled yearly by arbitrators. Overturning the power of arbitrators means your car accident or medical malpractice case will take decades to be heard. The courts would be overwhemed. This just isn't going to happen.
As for the ripeness argument you do not have to be actually "harmed" for a case to be ripe. If you find a ticking time bomb does it have to go off for a case to be ripe? Here the USAPA timebomb was ticking, harm was imminent to the west (and has occured as the damages case will show) and thus is ripe.
Second, the "we have the vote" or "wake can't implement" arguments won't hunt. Obviously, this lacks the understanding of the power of a Federal judge. Can he force you to vote "yes" to a contract? No, however, he can fine or imprison you for failure to adhere to his decisions. Remember the $25 million dollar fine of Allied pilots union when the American pilots had illegal sickouts?
Finally, the "three years until upgrades" is pure fantasy. Even the most self centered obtuse pilot on either side can see that Titanic Airways is hurting and will need/want relief from the block hour restrictions in TA. The quickest way is Chapter 11.
The BK judges as the east and west know are all powerful. Their job is to save the company and as many jobs as possible, no matter how much pain in inflicted. The TA will vanish, including the east/west ratification votes, LCC will impose a joint LOA 93 type contract which has to include NIC, by federal injunction, and the slow slide back to 2005 and liguidation will begin. I don't see anyway this will take 3 years, one accident, one terrorist act and we are toast.

Looking further, I ask you this, as you are reaching deep into the RLA and labor law. What does a medical malpractice judgement or arbitration have to do with a labor arbitration? Is this an INTERNAL UNION matter, or a civil matter? I have yet to see the RLA ever mentioned in a medical arbitration. I am not saying you have not, but if you have, please cite. Thanks.

 

[Flippin43]

Looking further, I ask you this, as you are reaching deep into the RLA and labor law. What does a medical malpractice judgement or arbitration have to do with a labor arbitration? Is this an INTERNAL UNION matter, or a civil matter? I have yet to see the RLA ever mentioned in a medical arbitration. I am not saying you have not, but if you have, please cite. Thanks.

Mr. Swan,

INTERNAL UNION matter


Can you explain why advancing the Majority at the expense of the Minority only rises to the level of an INTERNAL UNION matter? RLA seems to say its a bit more than that.

Two committee members fighting over which hotel to use in Tampa is an INTERNAL UNION matter.

Flip

 

[hp_fa]

Looking further, I ask you this, as you are reaching deep into the RLA and labor law. What does a medical malpractice judgement or arbitration have to do with a labor arbitration? Is this an INTERNAL UNION matter, or a civil matter? I have yet to see the RLA ever mentioned in a medical arbitration. I am not saying you have not, but if you have, please cite. Thanks.

The common thread, obviously, is the word "arbitration". I have been saying for months now that public policy would be grievously harmed by any diminishment of the finality of any full and binding arbitration. There are many thousands of arbitrations every year and if their ability to provide a final resolution of the dispute were to be harmed than why have arbitration? Because the court system encourages private resolution of disputes and that includes arbitration. As Aqua said, the court system would break down if all the matters that are currently arbitrated had to be resolved via the court system.