US Pilots Labor Discussion 2/10- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[nycbusdriver]

sanctity of BINDING ARBITRATION

Oh, puleeeze!

Sanctity?

Is this a religious thing now? Are you going to get that golf club fellow on the west to misinterpret some more bible passages for us, too?

Your own lawyer admitted that it was an internal ALPA process and nothing more.

Sanctity, my a ...ah...tush!

 

[ChuckBewFarley]

Supporting guys who jam safety hot lines, mail rocks, threaten their fellow employees, and mail dog excrement is HIGH INTEGRITY. You guys would have fit right in with another organization that likes to wear bedsheets..........

Love this!!! Prove it!!! Where's the charges from the post master? Any criminal charges yet? Seems this was a civil mater to me.

Who's to say this wasn't east pilots???

Bed sheets? Cleary and company seemed to have the market cornered on that. When's the ALPA boogey man going to be mentioned?

 

[nycbusdriver]

Let's see, a few days later Judge Wake does just that, issues a stay. Kinda makes you go Hmmmmmm?

Unless, of course, you're a westie. Then it's proof positive that Wake expects to be upheld.

 

[nic4us]

Premature adjudication by your crack legal team. I can't wait to see you guys on the crew vans or around the campus. You better get some more red lanyards.

Hate

You mean you would actually talk to me in a crew van? Last 3 east crews I encountered were sooo above giving me the time of day. I had to leave one standing on the curb in PHL while the remainder of his crew seemed puzzled while looking on with him as we drove away without them heading for the same hotel they were heading for, but his refusal to even acknowledge my presence will only cost him another 15 minutes or so,,,,, oh well, wait on the next van, contract, attrition, merger, fragmentation, snap back, appeal or whatever the Hail Mary de jour is, you will just be left standing on the curb and it looks like it is about to rain.

 

[Metroyet]

Unless, of course, you're a westie. Then it's proof positive that Wake expects to be upheld.

Exactly! Spend a minute and actually READ the comment from Wake. He's wondering out loud, "If the 9th was going to overturn this thing they would have already issued the stay The East is looking for but they didn't. What is that implication?" He then basically says that if it were him...and he was on the panel, that if he knew he was going to overturn a lower courts decision, it would make sense to him, as a 9th ciruit judge, to issue the stay. THE 9TH REFUSED TO ISSUE THE STAY!!


Wake is telling Seham that if the East was going to win this thing, the stay would have already come from the 9th...again......s...l.....o......w.....l.......y, The 9th has refused the stay.

What does that tea leaf tell you?

You guys have your blinders on again. Wake issued the stay because he rationalized that the length of the delay on any further action will be limited only until the 9th rules. Then the game is back on if he's upheld.

What makes me go "hhhmmmmm" is how you guys continually misunderstand what is happening to you.

 

[EastUS]

(Hate2fly @ Feb 14 2010, 08:50 AM)
Republic is going to luv you guys.

Slotted, of course. Integrity matters, remember?

Integrity Matters indeed. Given that well established west mantra, coupled with the equally set-in-stone belief that DOH's an utterly insane methodology for establishing seniority (outside of their own efforts with ATA, and their own west list being DOH of course); well...I'm completely certain that any/all AWA folks with say, even so very few as five years on the line now would be perfectly happy with being placed beneath any/all new hires at Republic or whomever's establishment.....It logically follows that the most senior pilot at Republic should immediately be able to bid into an AWA 757 left seat as either the first or second most "senior" person on the combined list. After all...isn't everything merely "relative"? :blink:

The above might need some adjustment though. Let's further assume that, without the transaction, taht the west's future looked dim. Hmmm...That would argue that Republic/whomever "saved" them, and should thusly be granted even further concessions per "seniority"...should it not?

 

[EastUS]

You mean you would actually talk to me in a crew van? Last 3 east crews I encountered were sooo above giving me the time of day. I had to leave one standing on the curb in PHL while the remainder of his crew seemed puzzled while looking on with him as we drove away without them heading for the same hotel they were heading for, but his refusal to even acknowledge my presence will only cost him another 15 minutes or so,,,,, oh well, wait on the next van, contract, attrition, merger, fragmentation, snap back, appeal or whatever the Hail Mary de jour is, you will just be left standing on the curb and it looks like it is about to rain.

A perhaps noteable difference between us/our respective philosophies is that I'd not have left one of your crews in the described scenario...not for reasons of any personal fondess, respect, nor desires for warm companionship and congenial conversation on the van ride.... but because it simply isn't the right thing to do.

"Integrity Matters"...Sure, if you say so.

 

[Hate2fly]

Exactly! Spend a minute and actually READ the comment from Wake. He's wondering out loud, "If the 9th was going to overturn this thing they would have already issued the stay The East is looking for but they didn't. What is that implication?" He then basically says that if it were him...and he was on the panel, that if he knew he was going to overturn a lower courts decision, it would make sense to him, as a 9th ciruit judge, to issue the stay. THE 9TH REFUSED TO ISSUE THE STAY!!


Wake is telling Seham that if the East was going to win this thing, the stay would have already come from the 9th...again......s...l.....o......w.....l.......y, The 9th has refused the stay.

What does that tea leaf tell you?

You guys have your blinders on again. Wake issued the stay because he rationalized that the length of the delay on any further action will be limited only until the 9th rules. Then the game is back on if he's upheld.

What makes me go "hhhmmmmm" is how you guys continually misunderstand what is happening to you.

Metro,

Wakes problem is he isn't on the panel. He has his bush buddy Bybee in his corner but the other two create a real problem for the anti labor movement bush boys.

Graber said when did harm occur........what did they do? A Memo?

Tashima and Graber had issues with page 278/279. Ripeness!

Wake knows ripeness is his biggest problem. He should have had more sleep during the trial.


Hate

 

[aquagreen73s]

You guys have your blinders on again. Wake issued the stay because he rationalized that the length of the delay on any further action will be limited only until the 9th rules. Then the game is back on if he's upheld.

USAPA wanted a three month stay from Judge Wake which, shall we say, they must have pulled the 3 month term out of their orifice. What Judge Wake did made sense for all parties: nothing further until the 9th rules. No motion to dismiss for USAPA and nothing on attorney fees.

If the 9th was leaning towards USAPA, then where's their stay? If the 9th was leaning towards Seham's "not ripe until ratification" argument, then why were Judges Bybee and Graber hammering USAPA with their lines of questioning - Bybee noting that essentially binding wouldn't be binding and Graber noting the injustice of waiting for a ratification even despite an extreme position by a union, ie putting all women at the bottom. Finally, there was Judge Tashima taking note of Ramey which found that the Statute of Limitations began running in that case before a ratification vote. Since ripeness occurs on or before the commencement of limitations, then it goes to reason that Seham's argument that ripeness does not occur until ratification obviously has no merit whatsoever. Again, that's the purpose of the hypotheticals - to illustrate the absurdity of what Seham proposed the law to be.

 

[AWE Dog]

Any Judge in America would have ruled the same way. Find me a Judge that is willing to throw the sanctity of BINDING ARBITRATION out the window. Good Luck on that one. A new trial wouldn't worry any of us one bit. Only you guys think it's some kind of "win" to work under LOA 93 for 15 years PAST the amendable date. In the end, nothing changes. Nic. is here to stay, the company won't touch anything else.

Hey Metro, Do you think I am not telling the truth when I say I'm better off with separate ops and letter 93?

 

[ROACLT]

USAPA wanted a three month stay from Judge Wake which, shall we say, they must have pulled the 3 month term out of their orifice. What Judge Wake did made sense for all parties: nothing further until the 9th rules. No motion to dismiss for USAPA and nothing on attorney fees.

If the 9th was leaning towards USAPA, then where's their stay? If the 9th was leaning towards Seham's "not ripe until ratification" argument, then why were Judges Bybee and Graber hammering USAPA with their lines of questioning - Bybee noting that essentially binding wouldn't be binding and Graber noting the injustice of waiting for a ratification even despite an extreme position by a union, ie putting all women at the bottom. Finally, there was Judge Tashima taking note of Ramey which found that the Statute of Limitations began running in that case before a ratification vote. Since ripeness occurs on or before the commencement of limitations, then it goes to reason that Seham's argument that ripeness does not occur until ratification obviously has no merit whatsoever. Again, that's the purpose of the hypotheticals - to illustrate the absurdity of what Seham proposed the law to be.

Assuming that the manpower, i.e research and use of clerks for the stay would conflict with the same needs for preparing a ruling on Addington and the time frame for returning a decision on either would be fairly quick, it makes sense to take care of it one stroke.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Assuming that the manpower, i.e research and use of clerks for the stay would conflict with the same needs for preparing a ruling on Addington and the time frame for returning a decision on either would be fairly quick, it makes sense to take care of it one stroke.

If you're going to break it down, then the correct order is: reasearch, analysis, application and conclusion. A court can figure out somewhere in the analysis phase which way they're going to go as to the parties. It's also at about that stage where oral arguments take place and that's why it is possible to read into the lines of questioning by the judges. The judges likely knew which way they were going to rule back on December 8th and given the harmony among each line of questions, it would appear they're all in agreement as to the result as it applies to the parties. Now, one must distinguish the result/conclusion with the analysis and application because it's the analysis and application phases which really make the future law, and it's there that I can see a difference between Bybee and the two liberals. How the law is articulated and the analytical rubric supplied in this case will be critical for all labor unions, and thus that's where the difference between liberal and conservative doctrines will reveal itself. I could see a dissent by Bybee with a concurrence in the result as applied to our case. USAPA is so far off the reservation that even liberals and conservatives will agree on this one, just as nine very different jurors agreed in a matter of an hour or two.

 

[Hate2fly]

Aqua,

This case is very critical with regard to labor unions in this country. This was an internal union dispute. What is unbelievable is that you got this case into the federal court system. I can't wait to see this thing get tossed out on the ripeness issue. You guys will have blown some big bucks and cost the east a ton of money on this frivolous law suit. Remember what Wilder said, this was an internal union dispute and Wake got it wrong.

Hate

 

[Metroyet]

Aqua,

This case is very critical with regard to labor unions in this country. This was an internal union dispute. What is unbelievable is that you got this case into the federal court system. I can't wait to see this thing get tossed out on the ripeness issue. You guys will have blown some big bucks and cost the east a ton of money on this frivolous law suit. Remember what Wilder said, this was an internal union dispute and Wake got it wrong.

Hate

As much as you'd like to think this case is a Watershed event for labor law...it isn't. Nobody outside of your pilot group gives a rats ### about this. This could be a watershed event though, wanna know how? If you won and Unions were then allowed to run rough shod over the minority because they felt more entitled. When the majority can throw out any written agreement and trump any arbitrator with their vote. So how long would it take for the Company to jump on board with that and ignore arbitration...2 maybe 3 seconds? That would have very serious consequences...the fact that there is no long such thing as a "failure to represent". Taken to the absurd, a union could staple all the women...something an astute 9th Judge picked up on rather quickly.

Explain to the Jury again that this is an internal dispute. So is domestic violence but there are pretty strict laws regarding that too.

Wilder is entitled to his opinion. I will remind you that he's in a very VERY small club. A two member club in fact. Him and Sleazham. Every other legal mind has sided with the West on this matter.

You guys went so far over the line with the formation of your little club, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell the 9th is going to change a solitary thing to Wake's ruling. In a round about way, Wake told that to Sehams face, but as per usual, you guys interpreted it all wrong.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Wanna bet?