US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/13-- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Al Legheny]

Re-read my post - check.

Management is in control so long as USAPA negotiates in bad faith and provides no leverage to move the process to a successful conclusion. Management can point back to the Kirby proposal as their last best offer to bring a new JCBA to the pilots. Has USAPA made a reasonable counter offer to this proposal? If not this will not look too good for USAPA at NMB time. Neither will putting out proposals that are impossible for Management to accept.

If USAPA can be shown to have negotiated in bad faith, then damages may be forthcoming. At any rate a strong union has power and some level of control in their relations with Management. A weak union has none. I think we all know what kind of union USAPA is - no unity, no union, no power.

So long as USAPA negotiates in bad faith....Huh!

Judge Wake and the company stipulated that both sides were negotiating in good faith towards an agreement. Good luck bringing that up with Judge Silver.

"the substantive rulings in Addington have been vacated pursuant to mandate, and both cases would now write on clean slates if there were anything to write in Addington, which there is not."

The findings of fact, if plaintiffs reserect them, show that the plaintiffs have stipulated as fact that the parties are negotiating in good faith.

 

[Al Legheny]

That clean slate does not nullify any sworn factual statements, testimony or sworn affidavits. Judge Silver will get to make rulings as she sees fit, but any testimony or affidavits had best not differ from anything that was sworn to be true in the Addington v. USAPA case.

You are correct, however findings of fact and conclusions of law will not be admitted. Both sides will have the discovery items and the text of depositions and other evidence. However both sides can object to evidence being entered into any new action.

 

[hp_fa]

You are correct, however findings of fact and conclusions of law will not be admitted. Both sides will have the discovery items and the text of depositions and other evidence. However both sides can object to evidence being entered into any new action.

Agreed.

 

[CallawayGolf]

So long as USAPA negotiates in bad faith....Huh!

Judge Wake and the company stipulated that both sides were negotiating in good faith towards an agreement. Good luck bringing that up with Judge Silver.

"the substantive rulings in Addington have been vacated pursuant to mandate, and both cases would now write on clean slates if there were anything to write in Addington, which there is not."

The findings of fact, if plaintiffs reserect them, show that the plaintiffs have stipulated as fact that the parties are negotiating in good faith.

Thank you counselor, I’ll rephrase the statement so that it has a broader, less legal definition.

So long as USAPA continues to throw out unrealistic and completely unattainable proposals in the hopes of delaying a negotiated agreement between the CBA and Management in order to avoid implementation of the NIC, they will continue to forfeit all negotiating control to Management. If Management offers $120M in annual salary increases and USAPA counters with $1B in annual increases, I’m sure Management would simply say, “No, try again.” Is there any doubt Management relishes in sophomoric moves such as this from USAPA as it gives them far more credibility at the NMB, even if it doesn't legallly qualify as "bad faith".

 

[john john]

takling in circles

 

[BoeingBoy]

Hi Jim,

I just talked to a Wye River participant. There was no compromise on the West side of the room according to him.

Oddly enough, a West participant says much the same about the East. Go figure...

Didn't the ALPA Lawyer who represented the West say that the Nic was a "bargaining position"?

Taken out of context it doesn't mean anything. At the time that was said, the Nic hadn't been presented to and accepted by the company. So it was ALPA's bargaining position to the company, which had put limitations on the combined list.

Not addressed to anything you've said, but it's amazing how "the desert Judge" and "West's boy" is considered so wise after his latest ruling, even being quoted as giving the unvarnished legal truth.

Jim

 

[crazystnic]

USAPA has proposals on the table for most if not all sections. All in line with "industry average", not industry leading. The mediator assigned to the case has stated she views things from an "industry standard" perspective. So, what you consider reasonable is irrelevant. US Airways operates in a competitive industry overlapping its routes with many carriers, most if not all of the carriers are at the "average asks" of USAPA or higher. Spirit, an "ultra LCC" has negotiated pay rates that far exceed the Kirby proposal.

So by going to an "industry average" ask position, the argument for stalling and the burden of picking up the pace would rest on your company's shoulders not USAPA. Your own management has insisted that seniority is a union matter, that as long as the result doesn't create excessive training costs, they could care less as to composition. Funny, how they consider a union matter and the 9th circuit refers to it as a internal union affair.

How would you propose to make it a strong union? If you use the argument that 1700 west pilots would never support striking or work action over the USAPA's seniority proposal, the equal argument is that 2000 or more pilots would never support a strike or work action for a contract that includes Nicalou. If you want to use the argument that a top dollar contract with all the trimmings would convince enough East pilots to vote for Nicalou, then the same argument could be made in the opposite. Those are zero sum arguments.

All the union can do is look at the current contracts, and bargaining positions of other pilot groups to craft "industry average" asks which this particular mediator says she gives great weight to, let the process run its course and the mediator move it along. If you are looking for some 5000 pilot unity solution, no one can provide that, USAPA, ALPA, or Jesus Christ. Section 22 will be decided by the courts. USAPA feels it has already been decided, and US Airways complaint, or portion's there of run afoul of the Ninth Circuit's ruling and have crafted motion to stay and dismiss the complaint accordingly because they view it as a delaying tactic.

You do nothing but rant, throwout some specious moral opinion argument and expect people not to see right though it.


If you look at the NAC updates... there have been some small sections closed in the past few months... Most in favor of what USAPA was looking for.

 

[crazystnic]

That clean slate does not nullify any sworn factual statements, testimony or sworn affidavits. Judge Silver will get to make rulings as she sees fit, but any testimony or affidavits had best not differ from anything that was sworn to be true in the Addington v. USAPA case.

HP-FA.. you sound like the legal expert here, when in reality I think you have no clue.

Silver will dismiss this in a NY minute.

 

[nic4us]

Someone has to make a legal decision if Nic lives outside of ALPA.

Someone already has, it does, usapa is bound by the Nic.

The legal question that needs to be answered before usapa will live up to its obligations is, how much is it going to cost.

The company does not want to be part of that answere.

 

[nic4us]

If ours is third says a lot for yours you have have won squat.

We have kept the squatters out of our house and off our land.

 

[luvthe9]

I don't really see that there's anything to gloat about. Having the case heard by Wake was just an opportunity for entertainment, watching the USAPA circus tap dance in Wake's courtroom again. Wake or Silver, doesn't really matter. The company's case goes forward one way or another. If it is dismissed, then USAPA wins some breathing room, and I'm sure the gloating will commence. That is, until they find out that the company will still stick with Nic.

IMO Silver is probably a better option simply because it denies USAPA one more thing to whine about if it doesn't go their way. I still haven't heard any explanations from the east as to why they are opposing the case in the first place, since around here many claim it is just a stalling tactic, the outcome of which is already predetermined.

But wait! I thought you and the other legal eagles said Addington was going to be archived and used for the jury when the always threatened DFR is filed. Now Wake himself said Addington is nothing. Which is it boys? Is it you and your ongoing bad legal advice or is it going to be Wake? This gets funnier as it unfolds. Circus Tap Dance? Just like when the 9th ruled, you fail to understand the import of what really happened. Addington wasn't ripe, and allowed USAPA to take Addington to the cleaners and the prize! The 9th made it clear that Nic is not what you say it is(routinely denied) Now, you file to have Wake hear the company garbage, and USAPA scores another HUGE elucidation of the fact Addington means nothing! This gets better by the minute. Keep the spin coming, I'll get some more popcorn ready. Say what you want about Seham. Jacobs has absolutely trashed any semblance of a chance if you had one to start with.

 

[767jetz]

The Nic will shortly be dead.

But wait. I thought Nic was already dead?? Has been for years, right?

Apparently not. Thankfully we all know that binding actually does mean binding. Time will tell.

 

[hp_fa]

HP-FA.. you sound like the legal expert here, when in reality I think you have no clue.

Silver will dismiss this in a NY minute.

How does USAPA's benefit by getting the Declaratory Relief action dismissed or stalled? The mediator will certainly be impressed if USAPA were somehow to get this dismissed. She would ask why you want my help when you dismiss a company lawsuit that could have cleared the way for your internal union dispute that is currently an unripe DFR action.

I seriously doubt that Silver will dismiss a Declaratory Relief action by the company under this factual scenario. Remember, in any Motion to Dismiss all inferences of fact are, by law, decided in favor of the plaintiff and/or cross claimant.

 

[767jetz]

"Addington proceedings are concluded."

For those who love to use words like "dismissed" and "reversed" and "mis-trial," or misuse words like "remanded" notice here that the word used is "CONCLUDED."

It had a starting point. It had an ending point. It still exists as a concluded matter, preserving any evidence for future reference. It did not simply evaporate as if it never happened.

 

[Schultz]

For those who love to use words like "dismissed" and "reversed" and "mis-trial," or misuse words like "remanded" notice here that the word used is "CONCLUDED."

It had a starting point. It had an ending point. It still exists as a concluded matter, preserving any evidence for future reference. It did not simply evaporate as if it never happened.

"CONCLUDED."---
Like OVER, FINNISHED, DONE, DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS ANY MORE. MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE!!!!