US Pilots Labor Discussion 3/26- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[veritasaequitas]

I don't care about you as a person, or anyone else here, I'm here to talk about USAirways.

We could talk about what Binding means....

I asked you about the transition agreement part of separate ops until a combined contract. Your thoughts sir?.

You are here to talk about USAirways and you worked at America West HQ long ago, where you moved on to bigger and better things.

Your relevance in this discussion is questionable sir, not your apparent vigilantism.

 

[CallawayGolf]

What is the cost for a West Pilot, for a gold badge backer? What are the monthly cost of the other colors?

DFR damages and attorney fees to be paid by USAPA in all likelihood. The cost of defeating despotism can be temporarily high, but the rewards of doing so are far more beneficial to both the cause of freedom and to tangible finances. It's an investment rather than an expense. The same cannot be said for USAPA's total waste of pilot funds on futile personal vendettas and delaying the inevitable.

 

[veritasaequitas]

DFR damages and attorney fees to be paid by USAPA in all likelihood. The cost of defeating despotism can be temporarily high,..................

You have many furloughed pilots that will not be called back for several years. You are leading them on to think they will get their job back and pay, in exchange for a badge backer

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual (Despot), or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power.

Poor choice of word sir. USAPA allows a vote by the majority, you are the tightly knit group that wants absolute political power.

 

[CallawayGolf]

You have many furloughed pilots that will not be called back for several years. You are leading them on to think they will get their job back and pay, in exchange for a badge backer

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual (Despot), or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power.

Poor choice of word sir. USAPA allows a vote by the majority, you are the tightly knit group that wants absolute political power.

So when was the vote on the new contract? I know what despotism means and I used it because it is descriptive of USAPA's self-created, temporary position of power.

 

[veritasaequitas]

So when was the vote on the new contract? I know what despotism means and I used it because it is descriptive of USAPA's self-created, temporary position of power.

I do not recall in my studies of an offer that was worthy of a pilot voting for. Enlighten us please on my omission of facts.

 

[luvn737s]

I do not recall in my studies of an offer that was worthy of a pilot voting for. Enlighten us please on my omission of facts.

I thought USAPA was all about the "Professional Negotiator". Is Cleary diverting funds from negotiating to continuing the pursuit of pyrrhic victory with Seham? And who is the one to choose which offer is deemed worthy of voting on?

Have you called your rep and demanded to see the 2010 budget?

 

[CallawayGolf]

I do not recall in my studies of an offer that was worthy of a pilot voting for. Enlighten us please on my omission of facts.

Since USAPA's attorney admitted to negotiating in bad faith (trying to use DOH seniority), it's no surprise there hasn't been a TA to vote on. USAPA has designed it this way so as to delay the NIC. USAPA's leadership are despots all right, they just think the rest of us are too stupid to realize what they are doing. Of course we're not and we know exactly what these despicable narcissists are doing.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Actually, first the east would be recalling hundreds, 142 of which happen to be out of seniority West furloughs. Further, if the company does not recall them ahead of former east new hire furloughs, I would expect a grievence from usapa.

Not part of the transition agreement.

East is NOT required to recall west pilots to east open positions after recalls are completed.

I advocate new hire pilots only.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Seham brought this up in his rebuttal time at the ninth. It was like he knew the appeal he was in the middle of would be lost so he had better throw something else out for the east pilots to hang their hopes on again. I almost hit the floor when I heard him say it.

That was NOT the way it happened and if you listen to the tape, I'll paraphrase:

Judge asked Seham IF and WHEN a case COULD be made for ripeness. Lee was NOT prepared for this question (he told me) gave a few seconds of thought and QUITE PROPERLY responded that, title VII (EEOC) offered the floor protection necessary to prevent such a scenario the judge proposed (men over women) if a collective bargaining agreement would be ratified with such a provision. With the existence of a labor union, the protections kick in AFTER the CBA is ratified....not before. Ergo, statute of limitations kick in at that time.

In short, Title VII protections kick in only AFTER the final product of negotiations between the Union and the Company are consumated...not before.

However, AOL now runs across the problem of IF and WHEN a CBA comes before the "rank and file" members in good standing, AOL will have to argue that NO WEST pilot group voted within that majority. The problematic question then occurs: How many West pilots voted in the majority??? Since it is a secret ballot, there is no way to tell. Since all of you West pilots want any contract, if the shoe is on the other foot and a CBA is ratified with DOH, how do YOU prove that NO WEST PILOTS voted with the majority and felt that the CBA was good enough for them??? Try convincing a federal judge to issue a subpoena to ballotpoint asking them to reveal the names of the pilots who voted and WHAT THEY VOTED FOR. Even Wake would most likely have a constituional problem violating the sanctity of a secret ballot.

I know your "take" is to skewer Lee as much as you can, but how about sticking to the FACTS!!!

Lee is a lawyer, Andy is a lawyer and there BOTH scum. OK. Let's get by that and stick to the argument. FOCUS!!!

If you wish to see the "thinking" of the Supreme Court about seniority, US Airways v. Barnett is a good read.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1250.ZS.html

 

[end_of_alpa]

Well, EoA (and somebody else - Hate or EastUS maybe?) says that USAPA will be gone if the 9th affirms Wake's ruling, so how long do you think it would take the company to impose a combined contract?

Then BS says the new hires will vote with the East but those new hires will be predominately be on Gp II (making all of about $60/hr) so will wait years for the attrition to increase their pay (after being furloughed 3 years and counting). They might just want a raise a little faster since they're going to be below everybody else no matter whether it's Nic or DOH. Why vote down a raise just to keep a shrinking group of pilots who can't live up to their agreements happy?

Everything I see indicates that once the 9th and LOA 93 arbitrator rule things will move along, leaving some in the dust.

Jim

Jim, what I said was that, now please pay attention, If AOL ultimately prevails all the way to the Supreme Court the state of labor-management negotiations will be turned on it's head and open the doors of the federal courthouse to special interests (minority, outside corps like AOL, other companies, psycho individuals, whatever) who want to interfere with the negotiating process on their own behalf. This time, seniority, next time, pay...healthcare, vacation, etc....what's it going to be??

You name it, and if and when this occurs, the courts and NOT the labor unions will negotiating CBA's and NOT the unions. Therefore, the need for ANY labor unions get sued out of business because the court system then becomes the defacto representative of labor. CAPICHE??

I just love this "shrinking group of pilots" you so aptley love to skewer. BTW, that SHRINKING group of pilots don't reside at the bottom of the East seniority list, FWIW!! It starts at the top and works it's way DOWN!

 

[Freebird]

I thought USAPA was all about the "Professional Negotiator". Is Cleary diverting funds from negotiating to continuing the pursuit of pyrrhic victory with Seham? And who is the one to choose which offer is deemed worthy of voting on?

Have you called your rep and demanded to see the 2010 budget?

Is Cleary sharing the profits of his personal lawyer and getting rich of the dues money?
Is he still Supremely Confident?
Wheres the contract he promised you 2 years ago?
Why cant you accept the outcome of Binding Arbitration that you agreed to and actually 'drew a line in the sand' over DOH and instead got relative seniority?
Do you think it would be a windfall for an unemployed pilot to return to the line as a Captain?
Is it really all about you?


USAPA = Broken Promises delivered

 

[end_of_alpa]

It was not meant to be patronizing. I regret that you took it that way.



My wish ("motive" is too strong a word for how I feel) is to see a wrong series of acts corrected. In this case those acts revolve around the various facts that arose regarding the pilot integration after the merger, including the failure to abide by an agreement to accept the results of a full and binding arbitration that was fully intended to resolve all seniority issues between the pilots of the former America West Airlines and the former US Airways.

You are absolutely wrong that it is my wish to see the pilot's union go away. I have repeatedly posted on the US Aviation site that unions are absolutely needed in the air transportation industry. It is, perhaps unfortunately, the nature of the beast in this business, but I absolutely deny that my intent is to have the pilots not be unionized.

On the other hand I would like very much to see the union terminate all dealings with Lee Seham and his firm. They have been demonstrably wrong on so many things that it defies logic that his firm is still employed by the union. This goes all the way back to the advice, in the public record or otherwise public information, that he appears to have given Mr. Bradford when he was seeking to form a union for the stated intent of somehow overcoming the Nicolau arbitration award.

As for your theories on why I am here I am not trying to learn law online. I was employed in that field for ten years. I also am not a management/corporate or law firm plant. I have taken my share of shots at the management of this company, more than enough to not be welcome as an employee. If I was working for a law firm, which I am not, I would likely be restricted on what I could or would say online by attorney/client privilege, which also does not apply because I am not so employed or restricted.



I'm sorry if you believe I am flaming you. I doubt that anyone else here believes that I was trying to flame you. I was, rather, trying to have a civil discussion. Remember, you have the option to ignore me on these boards and never again see a single thing I post. The option is yours.



The answer is "None of the above."

Have a nice day and remember to fly safe.

First, you are WRONG about Bradford and Seham. I was there at the VERY beginning and I should know. Bradford did NOT START THE "USAPA MOVEMENT" (or conspiracy as west pilots portray it)! It was NOT FORMED in the back of a van. The case law does NOT REFLECT the wishes of west pilots and we'll find that out no matter WHAT the courts do. Seham is here to stay, at least for the immediate future. So let's get past that. We, repeat WE, chose Seham and that's the way it was. It is obvious you "believe" the injustice the West pilots received from the evil East pilots. Let's get PAST THAT "counseler".

Because you, I, ALPA, USAPA, whomever...call an arbitration an arbitration is in the eyes of the beholder. ALPA promised what THEY called an arbitration that becomes validated by a vote after a TOTAL vote is taken. Pay becomes validated by a vote. etc., etc. If the MAJORITY wants a CBA, again...they'll vote for it. You may think that unfair, but thats the way it is. You imply that I am NOT abiding by a "final and binding" agreement. You guys mix RLA and contract law in the same bundle. Does labor want the courts to negotiate CBA's if the 9th rules in AOL's favor?? Judge Wake said that separate ops until a CBA is voted in. Then he (Judge Wake) will ORDER THE NICOLAU AWARD. Why didn't he rule the award implimented IMMEDIATELY?? Judge Wake is telling ME with a legal gun to MY head that I can vote, but only within the narrow confines of HIS ruling. How about the next time a minority or special interest group doesn't like the way their labor union "proposing" to treat them??? Another lawsuit. Heck, if AOL did, by god, we can too!!

I am not ALPA, USAPA, IAM, TEAMSTERS, or otherwise. These are unorganized legal entities voted in by statute to represent the craft or class. They are NOT a West pilot or East pilot. Even though the consitution mandates the officers BE pilots, they don't have to be if the rank and file amend the constitution. I am NOT USAPA. A West pilot is NOT USAPA. They are the bargaining agent. I am not. They are the legal entity that gets sued. Not you or me. That is a LEGAL FACT!!!

If you're going to "opine" about the bad of USAPA, go ahead. But why don't you "opine" about what happens if the union goes away?? Why don't you tell your West friends who love your "valued" support about whether damages accrue to the individual pilots IF the union disappears?? Why don't you "opine" about what happens to the collective bargaining agreements if the union goes away?? Who protects your employment provisions if there IS no union? Will you tell them???

What's the point of a labor union then??? Let's just let the courts negotiate instead because that's what we have now, isn't it??

Separate "agreement" meaning employment at will contract with an arbitrative provision from a "collective", repeat "collective" "bargaining" repeat "bargaining" "agreement".

They may be similar and in some respects look alike but in reality are SEPARATE BODIES OF LAW.

But the fact REMAINS that the old adage in RLA and NLRA is that, in a labor union, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" is most appropriate here. No matter WHO the bargaining agent is...USAPA, ALPA, IAM, TEAMSTERS....and no matter WHO their leaders are, whether they are pilots or not, is not the point. Their ONLY job, as the representative of the respected craft or class, is to "negotiate" repeat, "negotiate" with the company and "hopefully", repeat "hopefully", come back to the craft or class with an agreement they will RATIFY. And if they DON'T, then they go back to the negotiating table and start again OR the craft or class can VOTE in a new CBA and let THEM try. No crime, just bargaining.

Come on, you guys, think about the future of labor unions if AOL prevails.

Just know that I can stomach employment at will, the question is, can YOU???

If you want civil debate, I'm game. But I know that time is on my side and time will validate my position. Time is a value West pilots DO NOT value, at least when it comes to their East brothers and sisters.

 

[nic4us]

Not part of the transition agreement.

East is NOT required to recall west pilots to east open positions after recalls are completed.

I advocate new hire pilots only.

Do not care what you advocate, the TA most certainly has it all spelled out, Paragraph II sect 6 thru 10. If the east recalls while West is furloughed you have to offer the recalls to the West prior to new hires. However, the effected pilots can turn it down and wait for a West recall to mainline if they desire, and never lose their West seniority and what it entitles them to, which is the Nic at LCC.

 

[cleardirect]

QUOTE DELETED BY MODERATOR--Please don't feed the trolls

Average age of east pilot 53.
Average age of west pilot 48.

I disagree with your description of "very young"

 

[Poug Darker]

Do not care what you advocate, the TA most certainly has it all spelled out, Paragraph II sect 6 thru 10. If the east recalls while West is furloughed you have to offer the recalls to the West prior to new hires. However, the effected pilots can turn it down and wait for a West recall to mainline if they desire, and never lose their West seniority and what it entitles them to, which is the Nic at LCC.

i believe, even if they take the east position offered (E190 FO), then upon the ratification of a new contract they would be accorded the seniority enbodied in the new agreement. During the interim, however, they would be on the bottom of the east seniority list for bidding purposes, with the payrate determined by time on the property. Its an interesting conundrum: furloughed westies coming east to a large paycut sitting reserve on the 190; then if the west happens to recall, the east 'new-hire' furloughs accepting higher paying seats on the 73 or AB.....who says the pilot group can't be integrated without a new contract?
Things that make you go "hmmmmm"....
cheers.