US Pilots' Labor Discussion 10/27-11/?

[Phoenix]

It did, please remember we have the weakest pilot group in the industry group with CLT leading the way. I'll give you that.

Wasn't LOA 93 voted on with 1500+ pilots on the street that couldn't vote? ALPA rules didn't allow them to vote.. just like ALPA didn't allow retirees (or everyone else) to vote on the pension giveaway. ALPA prevented huge blocks of "no" votes that allowed company favorable outcomes. ie. ALPA gave the company concessions by framing the votes before they even allowed a vote on the concessions.

Last I heard, USAPA allows furloughees in good standing to vote for a year after their furlough, making a repeat of an LOA 93 type concession very difficult. Anyone familiar?

 

[cleardirect]

Wasn't LOA 93 voted on with 1500+ pilots on the street that couldn't vote? ALPA rules didn't allow them to vote.. just like ALPA didn't allow retirees (or everyone else) to vote on the pension giveaway. ALPA prevented huge blocks of "no" votes that allowed company favorable outcomes. ie. ALPA gave the company concessions by framing the votes before they even allowed a vote on the concessions.

Last I heard, USAPA allows furloughees in good standing to vote for a year after their furlough, making a repeat of an LOA 93 type concession very difficult. Anyone familiar?

Nope! You heard wrong.

USAPA C&BL's

D. Inactive Membership may be granted to pilots who have completed the probationary period and meet the qualifications set forth in Article II, Section 1, upon application and approval. Inactive members shall not be eligible to vote, accept nomination for, run for, and/or occupy any elective or appointive office, including committee assignment.

E. Pilots in the following employment statuses shall be eligible for inactive membership:
1. Furlough, or
2. Medical or Personal Leave of Absence, or
3. Military Leave of Absence.

F. An active member in good standing shall be transferred to inactive membership status upon:
1. Being furloughed; or
2. Immediately upon beginning family medical, maternity, medical, military or personal leave of absence from the employer for a term of ninety (90) days or longer and/or after the expiration of paid sick leave; or
3. Becoming disabled and no longer qualified to remain an active member under this Article.

G. Honorary membership may be conferred upon any individual by action of the Board of Pilot Representatives. Members in good standing as of the date of their retirement from the airline shall automatically be granted honorary membership. Honorary (retired) members shall not have the right to vote or serve in elective office.

Gee I guess usapa is more like ALPA than anyone wants to admit. So because usapa does the same thing as ALPA does that make usapa bad now too?

 

[Reed Richards]

Really! You think that the line pilots are in charge of usapa?

Did you get a vote on the legal strategy for the Addington loss? When was the vote to go to appeal? Will you get to vote on going to the supreme court? What was the vote tally on the union operating manual that gave the officers a $1000.00 stipend? I recall about 6-8 votes so far. If someone did not vote 6-8 time in the last 22 years at ALPA that was by choice not design.

Clear, the pilots that choose to vote really are in charge, and to look back in time at the changes 1600 voting pilots and possibly 5 reps from the West could have had early on are, well food for thought. Who knows.

The NMB election and the following vote ratifying and amending the CBL was fuel enough, and votes enough, that you can count on Addington going to SCOTUS. Not a valid comeback, but did the Addington litigants poll the membership to see if their DFR should have been filed? The litigation is what it is, and will move forward to satisfy the CBL. Even you know that.

You have a point on the stipend, but not really based on the lack of a membership vote. The communications from your own reps (all the reps), and the entire union was piss poor, and very late in even trying to explain what that was all about. I won't spell it all out here, but after taxes, and with no benefits the 1K stipend will not even bring the affected pilots up to the point of matching their loss of tax free per diem for a single month. You can go to Unfactualbias.com and search for the article on Chris Bebee's compensation at ALPA if you really want to see greed. But I give you a win on this particular argument..the poor communication, and then late communications on the stipend issues was unacceptable. Maybe a vote would still be a good thing, at least making USAPA make the case for the need for stipend. USAPA knew early on they might be required.

Different subject entirely, but word on the street is your LAS rep indeed is the real deal and doing a standup job. Being a rep is not always about your personal beliefs, or even from where you came. Some have made a big deal that he was a principal at AOL. Heck, all the rest are principals at USAPA. It's how you do the pilot's business. Hopefully you guys will find him a place in PHX.

Hope you were home to enjoy Halloween with your loved ones. If not, at least take that turkey chit, buy the bird, and try your best to bid and don't miss Thanksgiving at home!

RR

 

[electricjet98]

The NMB election and the following vote ratifying and amending the CBL was fuel enough, and votes enough, that you can count on Addington going to SCOTUS. Not a valid comeback, but did the Addington litigants poll the membership to see if their DFR should have been filed?
RR

Actually, yes. We voted with our donations.

 

[BoeingBoy]

to look back in time at the changes 1600 voting pilots and possibly 5 reps from the West could have had early on are, well food for thought.

Yes it is. My thought is in this specific case (furloughees voting) is that it shows how much some of the most ardent supporters of USAPA don't know about the union they so ardently support. Of course, the same was true of ALPA, probably the AFA, IAM, etc.

Another example of the same is the vote "ratifying and amending the CBL." I've been sternlly informed here that the representational election was a ratification vote of the CBL, That the representational election was a vote for the initial officers and base reps. That the representational vote was a vote on a few other things. None of them on the ballot, of course.

So perhaps you can enlighten me - how would someone have voted against the CBL if they didn't like parts of it in the vote "ratifying and amending the CBL?" Was there a space to write in those sections such a person disagreed with? Perhaps a choice to completely rewrite the CBL? A "Yes" or "No" choice for each section possibly? Maybe not voting counted as a "No" vote on the entire CBL? Or was the vote "ratifying and amending the CBL" really only a vote for or against certain changes to the CBL and nothing else was allowed?

You see, to me it would be a much better answer to the question of who runs the union to just say "The pilots can bring any resolution forward to be voted on" instead of making up ballot choices that didn't exist.

Jim

 

[HPDriver]

Wasn't LOA 93 voted on with 1500+ pilots on the street that couldn't vote? ALPA rules didn't allow them to vote.. just like ALPA didn't allow retirees (or everyone else) to vote on the pension giveaway. ALPA prevented huge blocks of "no" votes that allowed company favorable outcomes. ie. ALPA gave the company concessions by framing the votes before they even allowed a vote on the concessions.

Last I heard, USAPA allows furloughees in good standing to vote for a year after their furlough, making a repeat of an LOA 93 type concession very difficult. Anyone familiar?

Funny how USAPA is so quickly morphing into another ALPA.

Same people. Same politics. Same crap.

 

[Reed Richards]

Yes it is. My thought is in this specific case (furloughees voting) is that it shows how much some of the most ardent supporters of USAPA don't know about the union they so ardently support. Of course, the same was true of ALPA, probably the AFA, IAM, etc.

Another example of the same is the vote "ratifying and amending the CBL." I've been sternlly informed here that the representational election was a ratification vote of the CBL, That the representational election was a vote for the initial officers and base reps. That the representational vote was a vote on a few other things. None of them on the ballot, of course.

So perhaps you can enlighten me - how would someone have voted against the CBL if they didn't like parts of it in the vote "ratifying and amending the CBL?" Was there a space to write in those sections such a person disagreed with? Perhaps a choice to completely rewrite the CBL? A "Yes" or "No" choice for each section possibly? Maybe not voting counted as a "No" vote on the entire CBL? Or was the vote "ratifying and amending the CBL" really only a vote for or against certain changes to the CBL and nothing else was allowed?

You see, to me it would be a much better answer to the question of who runs the union to just say "The pilots can bring any resolution forward to be voted on" instead of making up ballot choices that didn't exist.

Jim

Jim, I understand your objection to the initial NMB election, but sorry, such a one time (probably) election was indeed take it or leave it.

As to the amended CBL, there was more than enough time for MIGS to provide input (in fact many did) as to the new and improved CBL prior to being put out for a vote. That process is eternal, and will in fact come to the forefront again. The committee that addressed the changes was formed in open session, and was more than receptive to input from the members. Again key word members. I will never agree with your idea, at least as I perceive it, that all pilots get equal input member or not. As to voting when off the property, I have mixed feelings, mostly about involvement. But I will agree, there were a lot of LTD guys that had a better grasp of the issues at hand during the representational election than did actual active members.

Interesting changes at hand at the NMB, many thanks to Sully and Jeff, that may radically affect the outcome of union elections going forward, especially at DAL.

Next time you start your own union, with thousands of votes in tow, I wish you luck. But for now you are stuck watching USAPA succeed or fail, ALPA past be damned.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim, I understand your objection to the initial NMB election, but sorry, such a one time (probably) election was indeed take it or leave it.

No problem with the NMB election - it was indeed take it or leave it ("it" being ALPA). My "objection" is to folks claiming that such and such vote was a vote on something it clearly was not a vote on - if something is not on the ballot how can pilot's vote on it?

As to the amended CBL, there was more than enough time for MIGS to provide input (in fact many did) as to the new and improved CBL prior to being put out for a vote.

All well and good, but that doesn't make the vote for/against the changes a "ratification vote on the CBL."

I will never agree with your idea, at least as I perceive it, that all pilots get equal input member or not.

Again, something I never said and never intended to imply. All I was saying is that the union (whatever it's called) is expressly charged with representing all employees in the craft/class in contract related issues but nowhere in USAPA's representational structure is the non-member's presence counted or represented. ALPA handled the issue by having the roll count vote based on pilots assigned to a base, not members. That had the side effect of non-members counting on non-contract issues that were decided by the roll call - a problem. I'm sure other methods could be devised without allowing non-members to vote. But, as I said before, non-members are required to pay the agency fee so their mere presence should count somewhere in the representational chain. Isn't that what they're paying for - representation? They're certainly not paying 90+% of full dues to be told they don't matter. effectivley don't exist.

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

But, as I said before, non-members are required to pay the agency fee so their mere presence should count somewhere in the representational chain. Isn't that what they're paying for - representation? They're certainly not paying 90+% of full dues to be told they don't matter. effectivley don't exist.

Jim

You have nailed it Sir. Non members at USAPA are indeed provided only the minimum service as mandated by the DOL, and no more. The fact they won't, or don't desire to pay the next 6% to become MIGS is their own choosing. Welcome to USAPA. Again, new union, new rules. Jim, in your heart, I know you and I agree about what is right for all pilots, and having been on the inside I am smug in my opinion that many and most decisions, in the in end, have been in compliance with idea of proper representation for all pilots.

But leave no doubt, this is not ALPA, and don't confuse contract representation with input. Non members simply have no say, and can sue (as some are now doing) if they are not happy. USAPA is a pay to play union. Just paying 94% of the ante is not enough to play.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

I am smug in my opinion that many and most decisions, in the in end, have been in compliance with idea of proper representation for all pilots.

Sounds like another complaint against ALPA - those in power thought they knew what was best for the pilots better than the pilots did...

But leave no doubt, this is not ALPA, and don't confuse contract representation with input.

I guess I'll just have to give up trying to make my position clear - no sense beating my head against that wall any longer...

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

Actually, yes. We voted with our donations.

Indeed you did.

And maybe you should take some of those "donations" and pay off your debt to the legal team you contracted with to help you get out of ALPA the first time..you know..the time you failed and stiffed your lawyers. Who were those lawyers? My memory is not what it used to be.

RR

 

[Phoenix]

Gee I guess usapa is more like ALPA than anyone wants to admit. So because usapa does the same thing as ALPA does that make usapa bad now too?

Your a legal clerk too?

So we have evidence that USAPA isn't perfect yet. But are they just like ALPA..? Its funny how a couple Henny Pennys are yelling about the sky falling because the BPR bought a couple Fords for company cars. Next thing ya know the BPR is gonna deny membership ratification of a $3Billion dollar giveaway. I heard it from yall first.

It is Holloween... scary times they are.

 

[USA320Pilot]

USAPA's initial East Pension Investigation Committee assessment was for $270 and the union has opened balloting today for another $540 assessment.

Last week Pension Investigation Committee member Robert Witt told me that USAPA's attorney David Butler believes the union's lawsuit against the PBGC will last about two more years and that Witt expects the pilots will need to pay about a $600 to $800 assessment each of the next two years.

These monies will pay David Butler $100,000 per month and the Committee members their FPL.

This investigation is designed to have the court order the PBGC to do an investigation into DB Plan Fund transactions, but will not return the pilot's DB Plan. USAPA's desire is for each East pilot to pay an assessment per Witt's estimate of $1,470 to $1,870, with the potential this number could be higher depending on the length of the litigation.

The PBGC's memorandum in opposition to USAPA's suit dated September 11, 2009 states, "And even if an unusual and unexpected fiduciary breach recovery led PBGC to redo its valuation and allocation in this case 56 the pilots' statutory benefits could increase only if the recovery for such a breach exceeded half a billion dollars. This is because there are assets in the Plan sufficient to pay all benefits through statutory priority category 3, but not through priority category 4 (PBGC-guaranteed benefits)."

"Thus, if PBGC (or a "special trustee") recovered any additional assets, they would go first to PBGC to help offset the guaranteed benefits in priority category 4 that PBGC is already paying. Participants could benefit from that recovery only if the monies were sufficient to pay all priority category 4 benefits and some or all of the benefits in priority category 5. That would require recovery of more than $510 million. Id. at 15. Since that is unimaginable under any scenario, there is no harm to USAPA based on its allegations," the PBGC noted.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[cleardirect]

Indeed you did.

And maybe you should take some of those "donations" and pay off your debt to the legal team you contracted with to help you get out of ALPA the first time..you know..the time you failed and stiffed your lawyers. Who were those lawyers? My memory is not what it used to be.

RR

Funny where myths come from.

The source to ask is available. Lee Seham. He made a deal very much like usapa did. Only with usapa he only charged 1/2 his going rate with a promise to cover the rest if usapa won. The deal he made with the weat was the work was free until he won the election then he got paid back. The election failed so he was owed nothing.

Maybe he had less confidence in usapa then the west guys. Either way the lawyers were not stiffed it was the deal they made.

You know like arbitration. Agree to a deal and live up to it.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I hate to break it to you, but all that webposting is still going on, you are even participating in it.

Yes, of course. But the bogus calls to USAPA tying up their lines, and the envelopes of excrement have stopped. And that was the point all along. When asked nicely to stop, they didn't. When threatened with legal action, they continued anyway. When the courts got involved, it was like magic. I say, let's keep the magic alive to keep the nonsense at bay.