US Pilots Labor Discussion 2/17- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[jimntx]

Well said.

But, the difference is that I am willing to admit to same.

Jimintx-

Your solution puts the west in the position of negotiating against itself everytime the TA gets voted down. The arbitration took the power of the majority to excercise tyranny away from them. Now you're proposing that it be given back to them.

No, this will only come to an end when enough east/west pilots get fed up enough to force out the USAPA leadership that thrives on disunity. Then a contract will be voted on that will determine how big an issue the Nic is. Everything else is a dozen blowhards on a internet message board.

Eleven plus me.

There are thousands of opportunities to find reasons why something will not work. Prime example...everyone in the airline business knew that Southwest wouldn't last a year. No assigned seats, cattle car boarding, no interline change of bags, flying to only two airports--both closed to commercial aviation. Preposterous.

But, the only upside to "I told you so" is a certain amount of schadenfreude. Thin gruel indeed when your children are hungry.

And, it is easy to point out mistakes and missteps in retrospect. I've always loved the saying that experience helps you make good decisions. Experience is what you get right after making a bad decision.

Are you all willing to destroy your careers and your airline for the sake of principles? I can only assume that the trust funds that daddy left you must have matured. Because you are not going to find another flying job unless your real career goal was to fly an rj for a regional and make less money than a mainline flight attendant.

And, does it ever occur to any of you that Doug Parker is laughing his behind off every day that you drag this out further? He's got all of you working for substandard wages. But, instead of a united pilot corps fighting him, you would all rather fight among yourselves. Your argument is saving DP buckets of money that can be redirected to a good cause--his bonus.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Would pilots at US consider such a pay scheme? It might, just might, take do away with some of the hopeless and uselesss East vs West vitriol.

It has been suggested. I think it's a great idea, and it would certainly go a long way toward solving the problems "casually" mentioned on this thread on occasion.

The idea never seems to get any traction because, I think, it is so alien to the way airline pilots in this country have been paid since time immemorial. It seems everyone wants to keep what it a totally arcane system of compensation. No one outside the industry understands the typical airline pilot pay system much to our collective chagrin. That's why we get pummeled in the press for making 6 figures and doing 85 hours worth of work a month. On the surface it is outrageous. But there is so much more to the story, and it is complicated and difficult for outsiders to understand how that is, at best, fair compensation for the ACTUAL time we spend on the job.

 

[nycbusdriver]

From my position it seems that USAPA is foot dragging about wanting to put anything to a vote that would contain Nicolau.

And just what IS your position besides "casual bystander?"

 

[CallawayGolf]

By either intentionally or unintentionally violating federal law, or higher court precedents.

I thought you would know that.

Every time a federal judge is overturned, he/she has overstepped his/her bounds by definition.

And how does a union breach its duty to fair representation transferring a matter from an internal to an external judicial matter...

By demonstrating a lack of a rational basis for Union decisions and egregious unfairness or reckless omissions or disregard for individual employees' fights.

The right to speak for all employees in the bargaining unit carries with it the corresponding duty to protect them as well. The exclusive agent's statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.

 

[nycbusdriver]

And how does a union breach its duty to fair representation transferring a matter from an internal to an external judicial matter...

By demonstrating a lack of a rational basis for Union decisions and egregious unfairness or reckless omissions or disregard for individual employees' fights.

The right to speak for all employees in the bargaining unit carries with it the corresponding duty to protect them as well. The exclusive agent's statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.

I agree with your post. And DOH has been found by the courts time and time again to be a fair means of integration and non-discriminatory.

 

[hp_fa]

By either intentionally or unintentionally violating federal law, or higher court precedents.

I thought you would know that.

I would invite you to go back and read the post that prompted my question. Link

I also disagree with your definition because just because any judge may make reversible error does not mean that judge overstepped his/her bounds. It means they made a mistake. Exceeding their bounds, in my eyes, would be acting without any jurisdiction in a matter. Committing error does not and would not necessarily mean they acted without jurisdiction.

 

[hp_fa]

And just what IS your position besides "casual bystander?"

Casual bystander trying to be objective with what I see and hear would be sufficient.

 

[Flippin43]

I agree with your post. And DOH has been found by the courts time and time again to be a fair means of integration and non-discriminatory.

You are correct and this method has not been generally disputed. What you wish to forget it seems is that there is a Nicolau list that exists. Any change from it by usapa or anyone else must pass the obligation to represent everyone fairly. IE A CBA cannot advance the Majority at the expense of the Minority. This too is well established in Labor Law. Had you all formed usapa prior to the Arbitration Dragging us with you and adopted DOH in the bylaws. You could have defended this, as you point out, as there would have been no other combined list to compare to. DOH would most likely have stood up to any challenge. Since the Nicolau list was the product of an agreed upon process, any change to it by usapa or Alpa for that matter, has to pass successfully the test of DFR. 9 Jurors said your new list did not.


Flip

 

[Flippin43]

I don't presume to know. I'm one of the distinct minority of AA flight attendants who thinks that the former TW flight attendants did not get a fair deal from either my company or my union. But, my friends and I have decided to accept that what is, is; and move on with our friendships and our lives.

None of you come across as particularly grown-up. The attitude that "I want my marbles back. I wouldn't have put them in the game if I had thought you had a chance in heck of winning" does not denote maturity and good judgment.

From the East, you "lost" a binding arbitration that you demanded. (Technically, you didn't lose. You just don't like the decision. Too bad.) AND, you lost a court case that you insisted on bringing. Do you ever reach the point where you take responsibility for your own actions? Actions have consequences. In this great democratic republic of ours, you have the right to do whatever you want up to and including buying a gun and killing someone with it. As long as you are willing to pay the price.

From the West, most of you are younger than the majority of East pilots. Would it just kill you to come to some agreement that is somewhere between the NIC and DOH? Then, go back to the judge and say, "Look, we have reached an agreement that is less than full NIC. Could you lift your injunction so that we can have a TA to vote on, and move on with our lives and careers?"

The end result of continuing your argument in this same vein ad nauseum will be the death of what used to be (and, could be again) a great airline. When you are working at Home Depot and trying to make ends meet on $10/hr, will you really get any comfort from the fact that you didn't budge an inch?

If this was possible there is one problem.

The east will not consider anything less than DOH. This is not my theory or a guess. The east insisted on DOH even after the Arbitrator said it will not happen. And to date there has been no such compromise initiated from the east.


Flip

 

[Phoenix]

But, the difference is that I am willing to admit to same....

Sure. Thats why you continue posting?


Nah.. the difference is you aren't on the seniority list. We still love ya !

 

[Phoenix]

Casual bystander trying to be objective with what I see and hear would be sufficient.

When a casual bystander chooses to insert themselves by meddling in affairs not their own, its sorta like separating two fighting dogs by their ears.

Where can we send the flowers and thank you letters? Or may we suggest donations to a foundation in lieu of flowers?

 

[jimntx]

Sure. Thats why you continue posting?


Nah.. the difference is you aren't on the seniority list. We still love ya !

No, but I am at the bottom of another seniority list in another company hanging on by the skin of my teeth. Besides, I don't have to come up with a solution for you. I'm a flight attendant. I'm paid to be cute; not smart.

 

[cactusboy53]

If this was possible there is one problem.

The east will not consider anything less than DOH. This is not my theory or a guess. The east insisted on DOH even after the Arbitrator said it will not happen. And to date there has been no such compromise initiated from the east.


Flip

Not to mention the fact that if you have touched one fiber of the Nicolau Award, you now invite a party to unravel the entire basket (one party has demonstrated that it is OK to change a final and binding award, why wouldn't be OK to do it again, and again, and again). Sorry bubba, but...PASS.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Besides, I don't have to come up with a solution for you. I'm a flight attendant. I'm paid to be cute; not smart.

Whoa! That's flame bait for the LCC senior mammas that happen to read this thread and see that comment! They will crush you!

 

[CallawayGolf]

I agree with your post. And DOH has been found by the courts time and time again to be a fair means of integration and non-discriminatory.

And I agree with your post so clearly we are making progress.

Here's where USAPA has crossed the DFR line and have violated their statutory duty:
to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.

complete good faith and honesty - USAPA did not have the discretion to ignore and negotiate a seniority list other than the one that was previously awarded through binding arbitration. Telling their members otherwise and negotiating with management for DOH does not meet the definition of complete good faith. The dishonest conduct of USAPA (Bradford) was presented in the federal trial and a jury ruled in the plaintiff's case that USAPA breached its duty.

Therefore USAPA's conduct has been capricious and not conforming to the law. Even Seham understood this enough to avoid to avoid the nature of the DFR in his testimony before the 9th. He played the ripeness card and threw in a few other misdirections (age discrimination) in a desperate shotgun approach. Exactly where in the documents he filed or in the oral testimony did the brilliant Seham claim that his client was negotiating a new CBA in good faith and was thus not guilty of a DFR?

I'll help you out here - he didn't. In fact, he admitted in both district and circuit court testimony that his client intends to press on with DOH in violation of federal law. This is easily proven as he asked both courts to stay the injunction which required USAPA to use the NIC. Yes, you are reading this correctly, the client that was found guilt of a DFR asked two federal courts for permission to keep violating the law which is how they were found guilty of a DFR in the first place. Nothing like telling the courts in sworn testimony that you intend to break the law. Brazen arrogance and brainless legal counsel. Nice move.