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

[BoeingBoy]

Sorry - dupe post

 

[BoeingBoy]

There are three camps here. The DOH or nothing camp. The NIC or nothing camp. And a camp that wants a solution and believes there is one if the right people took the lead.

Frankly, I hadn't thought the third option - presumably you mean new USAPA leadership willing to work in an attempt to find a mutually agreeable solution. That would be a herculean task since camp 1 & 2 are primed to file a DFR suit if their wishes don't prevail.

Other than a change in USAPA leadership, no one else is legally empowered to negotiate for any part of the pilot group, or the group as a whole, which is what I was thinking of.

Jim

 

[Metroyet]

Frankly, I hadn't thought the third option - presumably you mean new USAPA leadership willing to work in an attempt to find a mutually agreeable solution. That would be a herculean task since camp 1 & 2 are primed to file a DFR suit if their wishes don't prevail.

Other than a change in USAPA leadership, no one else is legally empowered to negotiate for any part of the pilot group, or the group as a whole, which is what I was thinking of.

Jim

Amazing that this concept STILL needs to be explained to people. Had the East stayed with ALPA, they could have POSSIBLY negotiated something else. The minute USAPA was voted in by the AFOC, the Nic award. was cast in stone.

 

[cleardirect]

Where there is a will...

There are three camps here. The DOH or nothing camp. The NIC or nothing camp. And a camp that wants a solution and believes there is one if the right people took the lead. I'd vote for ALPA in a New York minute if I thought their leadership had the courage to lead. It was a lack of leadership that got us here in the first place. Two ALPA carriers shouldn't have to go to an outside third party to settle their differences. They are forced to do that when their national union takes a hands off approach to seniority integration.


My OPINION Jim...

Driver B)

So what you think that the president of ALPA should be the decider of what seniority should be? Maybe you want a written policy that defines exactly how a list should be put together. Let me guess DOH is the only way to do it.

How about if the written ALPA policy says that mergers will be done relative seniority everytime? Does that fix the problem?

I think you guys have already admitted that straight DOH is unfair in anybodies world. So that leaves C&R. Who gets to decide those? The majority, the minority, the ALPA president? The problem here is not the method that we used. The problem is that one party refused to abide by their agreement. Contracts and deals don't work when one side fails to follow through.

 

[Barrister]

Except the 9th Circuit has already published an opinion that is precedent. It will govern the assured appeal, should this case end up in any other conclusion than dismissal. The first two requests in US Airways complaint have been asked and answered. The extreme scenario that the district court disregards this and issues some judgement that limits the company to only accept the Nicalou list as the union seniority proposal would be in direct conflict with the Appellate court's decision that clearly indicates that the union is free to bargain without judicial interference. So in essence you would have a district court issuing a judgement that requires the company to only accept a bargaining position that the by way of appellate decision, the union is not legally obligated to present in negotiation, agree to or ratify. It that were to occur, the case would be returned to the 9th Circuit and they would find that in conflict with their already published opinion. I'll give you that Judge Wake may do that as a judge can cloak any decision in some sliver of the law with only the penalty of having the decision overturned.

US Airways 3rd request for immunity doesn't stand a chance for passing the ripeness smell test. On the face of it, the whole complaint is legally absurd.

Nice post. I have said from the beginning....this things winds up back in front of the 9th where they.......
give great weight to their own previous opinions.
NICDOA
NPJB

 

[cleardirect]

Nice post. I have said from the beginning....this things winds up back in front of the 9th where they.......
give great weight to their own previous opinions.
NICDOA
NPJB

The only opinion that the ninth gave was that it was not ripe.

CONCLUSION
[10] For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’
DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to
the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED.
No costs to either side.

That is all the ninth ruled on. Read carefully. The forgoing reasons have to do with RIPNESS only.

DISCUSSION
[1] Although considerable time, effort, and expense have
been devoted to the merits of Plaintiffs’ DFR claim before
both this Court and the district court, we are without jurisdiction
to address the merits of the claim unless it is ripe.

The ninth did not address the merits because it was not ripe. When they don't address the merits they did not set any precedent. If usapa even manages to get a contract and usapa goes back to the ninth. The ninth will look at the merits then and rule fresh.

 

[cleardirect]

NICDOA
NPJB

If the Nic is DOA why are we still talking about it? Why is the company in court about the Nicolau? The company does not think that it is DOA. If the Nic is gone why is usapa going to spend another $1-2 million fighting for DOH?

 

[cleardirect]

Question for anyone.

Usapa told us from the beginning that seniority is like a crew meal. That it is negotiable. Some on here have said that seniority is the exclusive property of the union and the company must accept whatever the union presents.

First question what is it? Can the company negotiate or do they have to accept whatever is presented?

Second question. If the union has to negotiate, how is usapa going to get what you want? Currently usapa has been unable to negotiate the simple sections of the contract because they have no skill or leverage. What happens if the company says that they will negotiate but it will be the Nicolau with a small fence and that is it. Maybe protect the WB for a couple years but nothing more.

What does the east and usapa do? The company will not give you DOH but they have negotiated. Do you guys realize that you wasted 5 years of better contracts for nothing? Do you sue usapa for negotiating something other than DOH? Do you finally accept the inevitable and move on?

I am just saying that even if usapa manages to get the company DJ dismissed AND the company agrees to move off of the Nicolau. Usapa still has a major problem getting all of you what you are so desperate to have.

My opinion is that the company decides to use the Nicolau. This situation has become all or nothing. It will be the Nicolau or the company and usapa will be sued and lose if that award is changed one single bit.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Nice post. I have said from the beginning....this things winds up back in front of the 9th where they.......
give great weight to their own previous opinions.
NICDOA
NPJB

And so far the 9th has only ruled on lack of jurisdiction (ripeness). The merits of the case were never considered or opined upon by the majority. What Tashima and Graber’s staffers did was to cite textbook labor laws and protocols which, in effect, advise all would-be DFR plaintiffs (generically) not to concern themselves with the process because the end result may be different than what the interim CBA proposals might be. Their citations are intended to solidify the point that a DFR only becomes “unquestionably ripe” once the CBA is ratified.

This begs the question as to whether any DFR can be “ripe” without it being “unquestionably ripe”. Bybee and Wake were clearly of the opinion that a DFR case can meet the standards of ripeness without achieving the additional standard of unquestionable ripeness which is attained only through a ratified CBA. Their published opinions lead me to believe that Tashima and Graber never even contemplated the merits of the case or the possibility that ripeness CAN occur absent a CBA. In the final analysis, Tashima and Graber left no real case precedence to consider if and when this issue comes before the 9th again.

It also seems that Wake understood the intentions of the 9th in his recent ruling. From his perspective there is no point in sending another pre-CBA DFR case to the 9th who has now set the bar for DFRs to be “unquestionably ripe” as the only form of ripeness. Until the SCOTUS overrules the 9th (as they often do) on their arbitrarily too high standard of unquestionable ripeness, the district courts will not be accepting “questionably ripe” cases. How the statute of limitations issue will play into that now thorny issue is still yet to be seen. Wake and Bybee have a good chance of having their decisions/opinions upheld by the SCOTUS, but all legal processes take excessive amounts of time.

 

[Richard]

Hey 76, how's the United/Continental merger going? a little birdie tells me not so well.

This is not the place to discuss CO/UA -- Do that in the UA forum.

ALSO, a FINAL warning--do not argue back and forth between individuals on the public board. Discuss the posts and do NOT get into one on one arguments with other posters.....THAT is what PM's are for.

 

[hp_fa]

Question for anyone.

Usapa told us from the beginning that seniority is like a crew meal. That it is negotiable. Some on here have said that seniority is the exclusive property of the union and the company must accept whatever the union presents.

First question what is it? Can the company negotiate or do they have to accept whatever is presented?

I haven't done any research to determine whether contracts between transportation workers who are represented by a union and the company have to follow any specifically mandated formats or rules in arriving at a contract. On the assumption that there is nothing specific that precludes that I would opine that anything is possible and that a company, presented with a seniority list, could negotiate that list. In the present case the company has already agreed to accept the ALPA-provided list, while ALPA was still the bargaining agent, and ALPA's internal mechanism eventually supplied the Nicolau Award. So, the company has already agreed to accept that and has now done so as of 12/20/07.

But let's take your question a bit further and off on a tangent. In my view it has certainly seemed like company executives tend to get rather large bonuses after the conclusion of rounds of collective bargaining and subsequent ratified contracts with the major labor groups on property. Yet, during bargaining, the company will claim they lack funds for significant pay raises to the workers. So, if that scenario were to again present itself what would keep the union from saying to the company "OK, we will accept your proffer that monies don't exist for significant pay increases, however you are then going to need to agree in writing on significant limits on management bonuses and pay increases until the next contract is ratified." (I added that last clause because contracts become amenable but often linger for years later. That would keep management from getting pay increases after it becomes amenable, but before the workers get a shot at any increases.)

Second question. If the union has to negotiate, how is usapa going to get what you want? Currently usapa has been unable to negotiate the simple sections of the contract because they have no skill or leverage. What happens if the company says that they will negotiate but it will be the Nicolau with a small fence and that is it. Maybe protect the WB for a couple years but nothing more.

What does the east and usapa do? The company will not give you DOH but they have negotiated. Do you guys realize that you wasted 5 years of better contracts for nothing? Do you sue usapa for negotiating something other than DOH? Do you finally accept the inevitable and move on?

This brings us back to that folly of an action where USAPA thought it was being brilliant in neutering the West by doing away with any group that actually represents West within USAPA. So who would represent West? Does USAPA change tactics and allows the Phoenix domicile to once again legally represent West interests? USAPA's peremptory action is still going to be a subject of litigation.

My opinion is that the company decides to use the Nicolau. This situation has become all or nothing. It will be the Nicolau or the company and usapa will be sued and lose if that award is changed one single bit.

Which is the reason for the declaratory relief action. If the cross-claim is allowed to proceed as part of the declaratory relief action this is going to be a much more interesting case than the Addington DFR case.

 

[Schultz]

Don't know if this is the same article but it sounds like the same quote:

The two pilot groups remain bitterly divided and continue to work under separate contracts. But Moak said he believes ALPA can play a role in reconciling them. "There's absolutely a fix," he said. "It will take all parties coming together with an open mind and addressing issues. ALPA can help with that."

Article - it's the last paragraph.

I'm like Jetz - since there are no longer "all parties" required to reach any agreement I have a hard time understanding how Moak is going to get them together to reach a resolution. It almost sounds like he's assuming that all the players, including separate MEC's - still exist.

Jim

He might be talking about a settlement with the MDA pilots, by agreeing that the NIC list was flawed by showing them as furloughed.

 

[hp_fa]

Until the SCOTUS overrules the 9th (as they often do) on their arbitrarily too high standard of unquestionable ripeness, the district courts will not be accepting “questionably ripe” cases. How the statute of limitations issue will play into that now thorny issue is still yet to be seen. Wake and Bybee have a good chance of having their decisions/opinions upheld by the SCOTUS, but all legal processes take excessive amounts of time.

The Addington plaintiffs will not have to worry about a statute of limitations in their case, although other unions down the line may have that question arise in any case they may be considering. Since the 9th has ruled that Addington is not yet ripe and has set the threashold for them to be a point in time when a contract has been ratified, the statute of limitation for the Addington plaintiffs will begin at that point. Of course if the SCOTUS steps in and modifies the ruling of the 9th then the chance exists that the Addington plaintiffs claims are now ripe and the 9th can consider the merits of the Addington case rather than the jurisdictional issue that barred further consideration of the Addington trial.

 

[Ames]

Most people that are not, but see themselves as........"victims", can't see where they had any part of a disagreement.

Nobody ever answered my questions about the west best offers prior to the Nic award. Does that tell you something? Naw, didn't think it would.

The west offered credit for LOS as I have said in the past. The east was hellbent on DOH, all in. No further discussion. Read the transcripts from the arbitration. Even after Nicolau told the east MC that DOH would not fly they still held to DOH. Your questions have been answered ad nauseum in the past. All you are attempting to do is have bragging rights that the west can't answer your stupid questions. Then you can declare yourself right.

 

[Ames]

There we have it folks. The one that thinks he is smarter than me is not a member and does nothing but complain about the "injustice" he sees. He had no say in the C18 case. He had no vote on the current president. He has no vote on the PIC referendum. He does not even try to have voice and to even try to change the union he says was formed to screw the west.

Next question. Which new union is going to save us and what are YOU doing to see that come about? Let us all know Trader, what are YOU doing except hiding behind your keyboard?

And please tell me you have the integrity to pay your required dues.

Read your precious constitution and bylaws, then do the math. His vote is totally and absolutely worthless. As much as I hate alpa I believe they can fix this with a leader such as Moak.

We on the west have all paid what is required of us - the section 19 letters came to us first. (big surprise) I hear 140 more are going out. Looks like the disgruntled easties have to start paying now.