US Pilots Labor Discussion 12/27- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[boeingplt]

I take it End of Alpa doesnt realize Seeham has represented El Al and Alitalia against unions.

I take it you didn't know that Seham represented AWAPA in their decert attempt.

 

[Metroyet]

What are you talking about? Discrimination against OLDER workers, without some rational basis, is ILLEGAL! You better get your facts straight.

I have an EEOC claim against the company for discrimination BECAUSE of my age/correlative years of service in relation to you (but only when the company decides to join the lists...not before, which is called NOT RIPE because we still HAVE a union!).

Why don't you go to the EEOC website and read for yourself. What rational basis, with employment at will, do YOU have a greater right and lessor years of service than mine? That is WHY we have the EEOC...just like they asked in court. When will a claim for discrimination of women over men become ripe? When the CBA is RATIFIED! NOT BEFORE! Age discrimination/longevity/tenure has always been correlative to OLDER workers...not YOUNGER! Read the act: applies to those whose age is 40 years OR MORE!!!

Deserve something because of my AGE??? What have you been smoking...THE COMPANY has to prove their reason to discriminate YOUR years of service over mine. The burden of proof rests with THEM! Go to the EEOC website and EDUCATE yourself about age discrimination.

Age Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices
An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of age, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older and is not based on a reasonable factor other than age.

We don't have ANY award unless and until a CBA IS RATIFIED. Until then, ANY process in the negotiating pipeline is not completed until ALL processes are completed. Even Judge Wakr AFFIRMED...repeat....AFFIRMED that premise!!!

I'll tell you what. Why don't you go to the USAPA website and red the companies position letter to the NMB in answer to Cleary's letter. This sum's it up very well. USAPA "reopened" many of the other sections that were tentativly agreed to before and are renegotiating them as well. Does that allow AOL to sue for THOSE sections TOO? Think about it.

Again, what we have now is NOT a union, we have an ONION and the only way from this point forward is to chop up (which is what WEST pilots WANT) and dissolve the union and go to employment at will. Let's let the company support those who will compete the most for the least. JUST THE WAY WEST PILOTS WANT IT...with an ANTI-UNION corporation and law firm.

Guys, it's time to give the West pilots what they want.

See you ALL on the line!

The Wheels have Officially come off the Looney Wagon. Any clock towers near where you live? I hope not. :unsure: :unsure:

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

I take it you didn't know that Seham represented AWAPA in their decert attempt.

You didn't add that Seham FAILED with that endeavour as well.

Seham is just another blind squirrel. And you eastyz are the acorns he stumbled upon.

Happy 2010 to us all.......especially the Westyz.

 

[N924PS]

What are you talking about? Discrimination against OLDER workers, without some rational basis, is ILLEGAL! You better get your facts straight.

I have an EEOC claim against the company for discrimination BECAUSE of my age/correlative years of service in relation to you (but only when the company decides to join the lists...not before, which is called NOT RIPE because we still HAVE a union!).

We don't have ANY award unless and until a CBA IS RATIFIED. Until then, ANY process in the negotiating pipeline is not completed until ALL processes are completed. Even Judge Wakr AFFIRMED...repeat....AFFIRMED that premise!!!

I'll tell you what. Why don't you go to the USAPA website and red the companies position letter to the NMB in answer to Cleary's letter. This sum's it up very well. USAPA "reopened" many of the other sections that were tentativly agreed to before and are renegotiating them as well. Does that allow AOL to sue for THOSE sections TOO? Think about it.

Again, what we have now is NOT a union, we have an ONION and the only way from this point forward is to chop up (which is what WEST pilots WANT) and dissolve the union and go to employment at will. Let's let the company support those who will compete the most for the least. JUST THE WAY WEST PILOTS WANT IT...with an ANTI-UNION corporation and law firm.

Guys, it's time to give the West pilots what they want.

See you ALL on the line!

This should help you:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasping+at+straws

 

[cleardirect]

Why don't you go to the EEOC website and read for yourself. What rational basis, with employment at will, do YOU have a greater right and lessor years of service than mine? That is WHY we have the EEOC...just like they asked in court. When will a claim for discrimination of women over men become ripe? When the CBA is RATIFIED! NOT BEFORE! Age discrimination/longevity/tenure has always been correlative to OLDER workers...not YOUNGER! Read the act: applies to those whose age is 40 years OR MORE!!!

Sweet, I am over 40 so are most of the west pilots so we must be protected also. Can’t discriminate against the elderly. Maybe you want the list reordered by date of birth? Otherwise I guess someone could cry discrimination. Maybe we should reorder the list by flight hours. After all that would be rational criteria.

Deserve something because of my AGE??? What have you been smoking...THE COMPANY has to prove their reason to discriminate YOUR years of service over mine. The burden of proof rests with THEM! Go to the EEOC website and EDUCATE yourself about age discrimination.

The company has an easy out. They agreed to allow the pilots to decide the integration. We decided that an arbitrator would make that decision. The company accepted that decision. Just because the east pilots did not like the outcome and changed union twice to eliminate that list does not relieve the company of their obligation to use the accepted list.

We don't have ANY award unless and until a CBA IS RATIFIED. Until then, ANY process in the negotiating pipeline is not completed until ALL processes are completed. Even Judge Wakr AFFIRMED...repeat....AFFIRMED that premise!!!

Excuse me!!!! But have many not been telling us that with no union the company can impose any contract and conditions they want? There does not have to be a ratified CBA. The company imposes the Nicolau list because they accepted it, they impose a contract and working conditions because you say they can. No vote required

Again, what we have now is NOT a union, we have an ONION and the only way from this point forward is to chop up (which is what WEST pilots WANT) and dissolve the union and go to employment at will. Let's let the company support those who will compete the most for the least. JUST THE WAY WEST PILOTS WANT IT...with an ANTI-UNION corporation and law firm.

Why do we have an onion? The east pilots imposed by your majority this union on the whole group. The east pilots are in complete control of this disaster. So if there are any problems or less than perfect things going on you all have no one to blame but yourselves. No ALPA, no national union, no long gone pilots that wrote a C&BL not agreed to by you. Nope not this time. Only the current east pilots living with the mess that you guys created.

BTW never answered my question. Why go to the EEOC if the ninth is going to rule in favor of the east????

Anti union corp. interesting perspective. A union that sues it's members and avoids it deals. Compared to a group that is only trying to implement the deal that we made. How is that anti union? Because we refuse to be taken advantage of by the majority? I think that court found that it is usapa that is acting anti union. DFR proven fact.

BTW I guess you better change your name to end of usapa. Oops already taken. How about getting ahead of the crowd and changing it to "I want ALPA back". That will be the next claim when ending usapa does not work.

 

[Dogandsuds]

QUOTE (Dogandsuds @ Dec 26 2009, 03:07 PM)
Hate2fly had it right, two differing ideas on how to get to the same goal.

BoeingBoy=Yesterday, 03:38 PM
Shame Hate didn't say that...

Dear Boeing,
Hate said almost exactly that. Please refer to his post # 547 in the previous thread. Please be more accurate. It would give you more credibility in posting. Hate wrote:

The westies bring out some old news about Mike and Dave and their different views. The EVP position was going away anyway. Dave is a great guy with great ideas. Both Dave and Mike are heading to the same destination. Just on different highways! The BPR has been dealing with this personality issue for some time. The BPR holds all the power. Not Mike, Randy or Dave.

Now how far from what I posted is that?

Boeing boy=Interesting too that you speak of DC & MC's ideas of how to get to the same goal - I thought MC followed the instructions of the BPR. Isn't that what everyone says?

Boeingboy, I believe you are nit-picking. As I said, "the same goal." As Hate said, "same destination." Are the two words that much different? Except for those committed to posting just to make themselves feel good, I think most of us get it - the BPR, answering to the membership, sets the destination. If the BPR/membership doesn't like the road now being followed to the destination/goal, they can change the driver.


QUOTE
The West guy who said the company was carrying more aircraft than allowed under the TA was flat wrong.

Forgetting the 15 E190's?

Jim

No, Jim. The company is carrying the exact number (or close to) the minimums in the TA. There were no E-190 minimums set in the TA. You know that. You also knew exactly where I was going with my post. I am not sure what motivates you, retired with no dog in this fight. I have tried very hard to keep my posts civil and on point, not criticizing anyone, only offering my thoughts. But sometimes you stretch the patience of those who attempt to use this web board for information and conversation.

Sincerely,

Dogandsuds

 

[luvn737s]

The EEOC is not likely to hear the case due to the fact that the methodology for integration was not age-based, it was not arbitrary nor capricious. No pilot is being discriminated against because of age. Age based restrictions apply to both east and west pilots uniformly.

The west doesn't scare very easily, especially when they occupy the high ground in virtually every issue in this war. I say do what's necessary to force the integration outside of a CBA and then see where the chips fall. I would bet a new union with bipartisan-crafted C&BL's would arise that would meet the needs of all the pilots. The potential for good that comes from bipartisan pilot participation would no longer be overshadowed by the stalemated civil war that USAPA depended on for it's survival.

 

[nycbusdriver]

The EEOC is not likely to hear the case due to the fact that the methodology for integration was not age-based, it was not arbitrary nor capricious.

You are missing the point.

The methodology for integration, whether it be the Nicolau shame or DOH, is irrelevent if there is no union. There is no "seniority list" that legally means anything when there is no contract.

However, whether there is a union or not, federal law still provides for protection from age discrimination.

I find it amazing that folks are believing that somehow Nicolau will survive the loss of the CBA. With out a CBA, there is no Nicolau simply because there is no contract.

 

[Metroyet]

You are missing the point.

The methodology for integration, whether it be the Nicolau shame or DOH, is irrelevent if there is no union. There is no "seniority list" that legally means anything when there is no contract.

However, whether there is a union or not, federal law still provides for protection from age discrimination.

I find it amazing that folks are believing that somehow Nicolau will survive the loss of the CBA. With out a CBA, there is no Nicolau simply because there is no contract.

Why do I get the feeling that Seham is now shoveling this EEOC line of B.S. onto the East? If so, please recall the Seham has completely failed you every step of the way. He doesn't want this perfect storm of a cash cow to die so quickly. Why not, fools and their money are easily separated.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Why do I get the feeling that Seham is now shoveling this EEOC line of B.S. onto the East? If so, please recall the Seham has completely failed you every step of the way. He doesn't want this perfect storm of a cash cow to die so quickly. Why not, fools and their money are easily separated.

Why do I get the feeling that the full ramifications of losing the CBA is maybe, just maybe, beginning to sink in? Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

I doubt attorneys are needed to file a complaint with the EEOC. If the EEOC accepts a complaint as valid, then they notify the company of the violation and demand their compliance with the law. Absent compliance, the EEOC would turn it over to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution. I doubt Seham would get involved, let alone make any money on it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

QUOTE (Dogandsuds @ Dec 26 2009, 03:07 PM)
Hate2fly had it right, two differing ideas on how to get to the same goal.



Dear Boeing,
Hate said almost exactly that. Please refer to his post # 547 in the previous thread. Please be more accurate. It would give you more credibility in posting. Hate wrote:

The westies bring out some old news about Mike and Dave and their different views. The EVP position was going away anyway. Dave is a great guy with great ideas. Both Dave and Mike are heading to the same destination. Just on different highways! The BPR has been dealing with this personality issue for some time. The BPR holds all the power. Not Mike, Randy or Dave.

I stand corrected - thanks. Now, what I was referring to was the part of the above that I bolded for you vs the later statement by Hate: "With Dave C. stepping down rumor has it JA AKA Stay Safe is going to be high on the list of replacements!"? (Hint - post #572).

Do you see the discrepancy between the two posts? Unfortunately, our friend Hate gets his story mixed up at times.

Likewise, when you said "The West guy who said the company was carrying more aircraft than allowed under the TA was flat wrong", I was merely pointing out that the company is carrying more planes that the minimum. Do you dispute that? Apparently so - "No, Jim. The company is carrying the exact number (or close to) the minimums in the TA."

The E190's are airplanes - are they not? The company is at/near the minimum TA fleet plus the E190's - true or false? As for knowing where you were going, all I have is the words you type, and those words said that it was wrong to say that the company is carrying more aircraft than allowed under the TA. So which is it - the E190's are in excess of the TA minimum and thus are aircraft above the TA minimums or it's wrong to say that the fleet contains more aircraft than the TA minimum?

Jim

 

[nic4us]

Why do I get the feeling that the full ramifications of losing the CBA is maybe, just maybe, beginning to sink in? Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

I doubt attorneys are needed to file a complaint with the EEOC. If the EEOC accepts a complaint as valid, then they notify the company of the violation and demand their compliance with the law. Absent compliance, the EEOC would turn it over to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution. I doubt Seham would get involved, let alone make any money on it.

I doubt Seeham is pushing this EEOC fairytale. It is too far out in left field even for Seeham.

End_of ALPA's logic is so far off base it is not even in the realm of possibility. He is arguing that the company would have to institute DOH because of past practices, but does not mention that all pilot seniority integrations at all former company integrations into what is now USAirways followed ALPA merger policy. So the past practice is ALPA merger policy, and that was followed to get the Nic.

He also argues that it is his age/LOS vs my age/LOS otherwise the company is discriminating, when in actuality it is his position/status vs. my position/status regardless of age, and if the company promoted he or I, based soley on age, that would be the illegal act.

So yes, Federal law provides protection against age discrimination, but is does not protect the east any more than it does the West, so minus a CBA the company still has to come up with a way to do the monthly line bid, and fill vacancies,etc.. and I highly doubt that way would be by DOB.

 

[700UW]

If you all decertify, you are playing into the company's hands, I guess you east pilots dont remember what the company did to the non-union employees in 92. You are fools if you think being an employee at will would be better than having a cba.

 

[Pacemaker]

The Wheels have Officially come off the Looney Wagon. Any clock towers near where you live? I hope not. :unsure: :unsure:

Looney Wagon....or a carefully orchestrated strategy that so far has been a resounding success? Think about it. The East so far has got their DOH list and enjoys all the benefits of the merger without any of the downside. They've kept their airline and jobs alive for another 4+ years. They still have the Bid Sheet, they're going to HNL and ANC, the Nic. so far is only a piece of paper, a CBA and combined ops. years away, with attrition soon to kick in.

I bet you'll find few if any east pilots willing to climb off that wagon. They know exactly what they're doing.

 

[700UW]

How about those pay rates?