US Pilots Labor Discussion 3/11- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Freebird]

"Why didn't this work for the flight attendants, mechanics dispatchers, fleet service, passenger service, engineers"



Or, in other words; "Because we think we can get away with it....reason and fairness be damned!".

Relative Seniority is the MOST FAIR way to integrate. But that didn't happen. Your side got Date of Hire for the top 517, correct? The rest we slotted in as close to RELATIVE SENIORITY as Nicolau could do it. Right? The furloughed pilots came in under Odell as agreed to by the T/A, right? What part are YOU missing?

So, EastUS, you are wrong. "Because we think we can get away with it....reason and fairness be damned!". We played by the rules and we have an outcome, known as the Nicolau Award. What part did you miss?

Unless you are quoting USAPA when you say : "Because we think we can get away with it....reason and fairness be damned!". Then, I guess you're right. However, you are on the losing side of this one. Integrity Matters to all, but USAPA and the AFO Club.

 

[hp_fa]

thank you hp fa and this could be anywhere from next week to 6 months from now?

Tomorrow to six months from now, yes.

 

[nic4us]

(Harry Callahan @ Mar 17 2010, 09:22 AM)
Would some one on the West please answer a simple question ? Why should some one with " a few years" be put ahead of some one with "many" years ?



"Your question is not "simple". = That's pure BS, just total and unmitigated BS. The only concern within which said qustion can be spun as other than simple is that of easilly exposing the flagrant selfishness and opportunism of those that would seek to make such an inquiry into something somehow magically mysterious and complex.

Seemed complicated to me. After all, why would usapa seek to steal jobs by promoting an agenda that would put " those with a few years" ( i.e. an east '89 hire with all of 4-6 years LOS or less, now maybe 9 yrs) ahead of those with "many years" ( a West '90 hire with 15 years LOS, now 20 yrs) ?

But you are correct. The answere is "simple". Because usapa is nothing more than an association of malcontents trying to steal what is not theirs.

 

[luvn737s]

Ah yes..Sigh..."the good guys" What more truly "noble" a quest could any true kingiht errant be...

OK, here's a challenge, not only to you but all defenders of USAPA:

Can you articulate the Nicolau decision without interjecting any opinion or criticism?

Simply state the facts of the decision and prove that you have a full understanding of the underlying issue. Then your criticism will carry much more weight and fewer west posters will feel the need to educate anyone based on the assumption of ignorance or prejudice.

 

[nic4us]

Ah yes..Sigh..."the good guys" What more truly "noble" a quest could any true kingiht errant be embarked upon than to strive to place s person with all of 3 month's worked ahead of some doubtless "bad" people with only say, 16+ years worked?
How could anyone ever esteem it not the highest purpose for human existence than to seek out "seniority" for people who were often literally grade-shcool children when those they seek to become "senior" to began professional flying careers? What higher demonstration of pure "goodness" or more ultimate expression of the very finest within the human spirit could ever be found anywhere?

Again with the grade-school children type of dharacterizations and comments?

I do not care how much older than me the muggers is when he tries to take my wallet, nor do I care if you are older or younger than me, when you try to steal my job.

By the way, no one "seeks" to be senior to......they either are or are not.....it is usapa that "seeks" to become senior, but as I have already pointed out numerous times, they are nothing more than attempted thieves, soon to be of little consequence.

 

[Phoenix]

I thought we had established who resembled a broken record.

Gotta laugh at the irony of YOU coming up with that response.

Well.. yeah.. uh... uhmmm..

But don't you know what binding means? Well.. uh.. don't you? Please, don't you? Pretty please?

 

[EastUS]

"Your question is not "simple". = That's pure BS, just total and unmitigated BS. The only concern within which said qustion can be spun as other than simple is that of easilly exposing the flagrant selfishness and opportunism of those that would seek to make such an inquiry into something somehow magically mysterious and complex."

Seemed complicated to me.

I couldn't help but notice...

 

[flybynite]

Well.. yeah.. uh... uhmmm..

But don't you know what binding means? Well.. uh.. don't you? Please, don't you? Pretty please?

I've been a union member for most of my working life and I can say that binding arbitrations started out to be a means to fast tract issues between companies and the unions.

And it's become somewhat different.

I don't think binding arbitrations should be part of anyone's contract anymore.


IMO

 

[EastUS]

But, you know I am right.

Guess again....What incredible arrogance! truthfully; Should the day ever dawn when I find myself "thinking" as your entire library of postings indicate you do...I'd take myself out of the gene pool as simply common courtesy to the rest of the species....

 

[EastUS]

Again with the grade-school children type of dharacterizations and comments?

BS!!!...and the standard west tap dancing. Do you now DENY that many of yours were, in actual fact, in grade school when others out east began their professional flying careers?....others that the nic would magically make "junior" to said "kids"? Again...just more west BS...

Tough luck if you don't like the "characterizations"/FACTS!!

 

[EastUS]

So, EastUS, you are wrong. "Because we think we can get away with it....reason and fairness be damned!". We played by the rules and we have an outcome, known as the Nicolau Award.

Ok...I must be "wrong" then....ummm...just one further question sir; What's the/ANY difference between: "We played by the rules and we have an outcome, known as the Nicolau Award." as opposed to "We think we can get way with it!...Uncle Nic said so!!"

 

[hp_fa]

I don't think binding arbitrations should be part of anyone's contract anymore.

As long as the rules aren't changed after the game has been played that would be fine. However, besides litigation being incredibly slow, there is an issue of privacy. A private arbitration remains private and the public can't attend proceedings or obtain records from the proceedings. If there were no arbitration there would be a lot of information that would be wide open to public review. I'm not sure that is a great thing to happen to an otherwise internal dispute.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Well.. yeah.. uh... uhmmm..

But don't you know what binding means? Well.. uh.. don't you? Please, don't you? Pretty please?

"Ultimately, the decision to use arbitration cannot be made lightly. Most arbitration is considered binding: parties who agree to arbitration are bound to that agreement and also bound to satisfy any award determined by the arbitrator. Courts in most jurisdictions enforce awards."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary....ing+arbitration

 

[flybynite]

As long as the rules aren't changed after the game has been played that would be fine. However, besides litigation being incredibly slow, there is an issue of privacy. A private arbitration remains private and the public can't attend proceedings or obtain records from the proceedings. If there were no arbitration there would be a lot of information that would be wide open to public review. I'm not sure that is a great thing to happen to an otherwise internal dispute.

HP,

These are just my opinions. But I will say binding arbitrations became something of a "fad" back in the middle to later 70's. Maybe fad is the wrong word but I think you know what I mean. And it was a means to expedite issues between unions and their companies to save money. For both parties. As a result of this..it has become something of the norm to include this in union contracts. I, for one, don't agree with this for a number of reasons. One of which, is there is no wiggle room. There is no recourse. Which for me is a basic right within our justice system.

I don't think things should be put in the hands of one person....nor do I think that one person is the "end of the discussion".

Privacy isn't an issue here. Nor has it been. If it were, these discussions would have been gagged.

The public isn't that interested anyway and it's silly to think they would. That's a non issue.

Let the public see.....so what??? What's the big deal???

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

HP,
I, for one, don't agree with this for a number of reasons. One of which, is there is no wiggle room. There is no recourse.

Which seems to be the problem.
When you have have a chance to "wiggle" and you don't, then, when you don't have have a chance to "wiggle" you do.
Just doesn't seem right.
It has always been about "me" but the sheer bald faced audacity of screw the other guy for my circumstances is amazing. Especially when you agree, then back out of a decision.
What is also amazing is the crime being shrouded in patriotism, age, location and many other irrelevant criteria.
It may be expedient but it is cowardly.