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

[CallawayGolf]

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

Sorry to throw you off track with the rebuttal reference. The comments were actually towards the end of his opening statement beginning at 9:20 into the proceeding. Here's what Seham said:

And this is also a federal policy, a policy our nation recognizes in the context of Age Discrimination and Employment Act that as people grow older they have less job mobility. This is the nature of a social compact [sic] not unlike social security. Why do you look after people who are older? you take care of them because you're going to grow old too.​

So according to Seham the older pilots - not the ones who have a greater length of service or oldest DOH - but based purely on age should have the greater position on the seniority list! When exactly did seniority by age and age discrimination come into question prior to Seham making this statement before the panel of judges? Seriously; why would he use the precious minutes he had to plead USAPA's case to throw out the charge that NIC was equivalent to a violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act? This was not in response to a question. He planned to say this and my question is - why?

This rabbit trail testimony of Seham has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard uttered in an appeals court testimony. It's not like he is an average Joe citizen who just started making stuff up while he was on the witness stand. He is a practicing attorney who was granted an appearance at a federal circuit court and he comes out with this absurd linkage. Like I said, I almost fell out of my chair when I heard him say it. He must have been really, really desperate to decide to throw this in when he could have been making the case for ripeness or misinterpretation of the laws concerning this specific case. He's gotten rich because his clients are willing to fund his failures, not because he is good at what he does in legal profession.

 

[luvn737s]

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.

I wouldn't go HMMM. I'd just say'"look a vacancy bid with right of first refusal back to my old equipment. It's was fun and all, but see ya later Philly!"

 

[end_of_alpa]

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.

My bad. Missed #10. Haven't reviewed TA for a while

 

[HPDriver]

Haven't reviewed TA for a while

I don't think you've ever read it.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Sorry to throw you off track with the rebuttal reference. The comments were actually towards the end of his opening statement beginning at 9:20 into the proceeding. Here's what Seham said:

And this is also a federal policy, a policy our nation recognizes in the context of Age Discrimination and Employment Act that as people grow older they have less job mobility. This is the nature of a social compact [sic] not unlike social security. Why do you look after people who are older? you take care of them because you're going to grow old too.​

So according to Seham the older pilots - not the ones who have a greater length of service or oldest DOH - but based purely on age should have the greater position on the seniority list! When exactly did seniority by age and age discrimination come into question prior to Seham making this statement before the panel of judges? Seriously; why would he use the precious minutes he had to plead USAPA's case to throw out the charge that NIC was equivalent to a violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act? This was not in response to a question. He planned to say this and my question is - why?

This rabbit trail testimony of Seham has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard uttered in an appeals court testimony. It's not like he is an average Joe citizen who just started making stuff up while he was on the witness stand. He is a practicing attorney who was granted an appearance at a federal circuit court and he comes out with this absurd linkage. Like I said, I almost fell out of my chair when I heard him say it. He must have been really, really desperate to decide to throw this in when he could have been making the case for ripeness or misinterpretation of the laws concerning this specific case. He's gotten rich because his clients are willing to fund his failures, not because he is good at what he does in legal profession.

You hate Seham. Got that. Stick to the argument, not the man. BTW, Lee is NOT wealthy, contrary to popular opinion. He puts his pants on the same as you.

Lee is correct. You can have a 46 year old pilot with 23 years of company experience flying but you can't have a 23 year old pilot with 23 years company experience flying. That is because, BEFORE the enactment of ADEA the protections afford to labor based on age were only found in labor union agreements to make the company promote in hiring sequence rather than random company choices. Those of you who did NOT fly for non-union carriers may remember this...I do. The ADEA was passed to afford hiring protections to older workers that companies did not want to hire OR promote that were NOT part of a labor union.

Historically, Lee is correct. Labor unions and now non-labor union employees have civil rights proctections since 1967.

Lee was saying that Nicolau discriminates against East pilots in their years of service versus that of West pilots and a solid argument could be made that Nicolau violates ADEA protections.

The court asked him when and where ripeness protections become active. He told them ADEA. He was then saying that it could reasonably be inferred that ADEA protection can also be incurred to protect the East pilots from the discriminatory unequal treatment the Nicolau award infers regarding a day of West employment vs. a day of East employment.

Here's a good read:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa082.html

"....two crucial characteristics distinguish this act from Title VII. First, unlike Title VII, which provides equal protection from discrimination for men and women, blacks and whites, and so on, the ADEA extends only to individuals over the age of 40. The creation of a "protected age group" could be taken to imply a requirement of preferential treatment, were the contrary intent and language of the act not so explicit on this point. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has observed, the ADEA's clear mandate is that age be accorded a "neutral status." As the court explained, the act requires an employer to "reach employment decisions without regard to age, but it does not place an affirmative duty upon an employer to accord special treatment to members of the protected age group."[12] Moreover, Alfred Blumrosen, a law professor at Rutgers and an ally of the civil rights establishment with regard to Title VII issues, notes that any application of the ADEA that provides preferential treatment to older workers at the expense of new labor-market participants invariably limits equal employment opportunities for minorities and women.[13]

The second crucial distinction is that whereas Title VII prohibits employment decisions in which race plays any role (except, of course, to the extent that courts have interpreted Title VII to tolerate race-conscious "affirmative action"), the ADEA, in the words of Sen. Ralph W. Yarborough (D-Tex.), one of its prime sponsors, is "not directed to all instances of differentiation on the basis of age," and thus permits "reasonable differentiations not based on age alone."[14] Thus, the act contains a number of defenses for employer actions that are not based solely on age, such as when age is a bona fide occupational qualification or a legitimate factor in a seniority or benefit system. Most significant, however, is the defense provided by section 4(f)(1), which allows employers to "take any action otherwise prohibited" that is "based on reasonable factors other than age." This provision flows logically from the purpose of the act as proscribing only arbitrary age discrimination; when the distinction is reasonable, not arbitrary, it is lawful. As the Department of Labor (which had ADEA enforcement authority until 1979, when it was transferred to the EEOC) would later instruct, whether distinctions are reasonable should "be determined on an individual, case by case basis."[15]

Tell me, have you ever read CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. v. ADAMS???

Here's the link. Feel free to opine and pontificate:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1379.ZS.html

 

[cleardirect]

Sorry to throw you off track with the rebuttal reference. The comments were actually towards the end of his opening statement beginning at 9:20 into the proceeding. Here's what Seham said:

And this is also a federal policy, a policy our nation recognizes in the context of Age Discrimination and Employment Act that as people grow older they have less job mobility. This is the nature of a social compact [sic] not unlike social security. Why do you look after people who are older? you take care of them because you're going to grow old too.​

So according to Seham the older pilots - not the ones who have a greater length of service or oldest DOH - but based purely on age should have the greater position on the seniority list! When exactly did seniority by age and age discrimination come into question prior to Seham making this statement before the panel of judges? Seriously; why would he use the precious minutes he had to plead USAPA's case to throw out the charge that NIC was equivalent to a violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act? This was not in response to a question. He planned to say this and my question is - why?

This rabbit trail testimony of Seham has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard uttered in an appeals court testimony. It's not like he is an average Joe citizen who just started making stuff up while he was on the witness stand. He is a practicing attorney who was granted an appearance at a federal circuit court and he comes out with this absurd linkage. Like I said, I almost fell out of my chair when I heard him say it. He must have been really, really desperate to decide to throw this in when he could have been making the case for ripeness or misinterpretation of the laws concerning this specific case. He's gotten rich because his clients are willing to fund his failures, not because he is good at what he does in legal profession.

Yep! I just did a search of the appeal filings. Looked for the words age, older and discrimination. Never mentioned age discrimination during the written appeal. So yes a desperate plea during oral arguments when Seham realized that he was losing.

The east guys can go to the EEOC and cry about age, but they never brought it up during the N/M/A or during the trial or the appeal. Running out of straws to grasp.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Yep! I just did a search of the appeal filings. Looked for the words age, older and discrimination. Never mentioned age discrimination during the written appeal. So yes a desperate plea during oral arguments when Seham realized that he was losing.

The east guys can go to the EEOC and cry about age, but they never brought it up during the N/M/A or during the trial or the appeal. Running out of straws to grasp.

Never mentions Federal Arbitration Act either yet Jaocbs brought it up in oral argument.

Circuit City Stores v. Adams:

Read http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1379.ZS.html

Held: The §1 exemption is confined to transportation workers. Pp. 3—16.

Sorry, Lee is CORRECT!!!

Touche!!

 

[cleardirect]

I was there at the VERY beginning and I should know.

So we know who to blame for this mess.

It was NOT FORMED in the back of a van

.
You had better go to the video tape replay.

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

.

Repeat you are wrong

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.

Yes negotiate but the contract does not live with the agent. It lives witht eh pilot and the company.

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

Think about the future of unions and arbitrations if usapa prevails. What would a trial cost for LOA93? You know courts have a little tighter control about what makes it to court. My guess is a judge would have dismissed LOA 93 before hearing it.

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

Bring it on. the west would do much better without usapa than with usapa.

Either you guys need to learn to read contracts, or stop listening to lawyers that can’t read contracts.

This is the same thing that got you all into trouble during the addington case. Who is the contract between? Who do we work for? Do we work for the company or do we work for the association? If the union goes away that does not end the contract between us and the company. Say your loan agent quits the business, does your mortgage disappear? No your have a contract with a lending institution not the agent. You can remove as represented and nothing changes. Put in there as represented by No one and I still have a valid contract, pay rates and working conditions. Otherwise if what you guys are trying to believe even airline would do everything it could to distroy the union so they can get rid of them and get rid of the contract. That does not happen because that is not the way it works.

If usapa decides that the heat or expense is to great the only thing they do is leave the pilots unprotected but does not void the contract. Yes I can work as an at will employee much better than the east guys that have always been protected by a union. Which side do you think has a better relationship with their CP?

West contract

Contract 2000

Agreement between America West Airlines, Inc.
and
The pilots in the service of America West Airlines, Inc.
as represented by
The Airline Pilots Association, International

East contract

TRANSFORMATION PLAN LETTER #93
1
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
Between
US AIRWAYS, INC.
and
THE AIRLINE PILOTS
in the service of
US AIRWAYS, INC.
as represented by
THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL

 

[CallawayGolf]

Perhaps Lee is confused as to who the employer is in this case. US Airways is the employer and they haven't taken a single action or proposed taking a single action that would violate the ADEA. USAPA is the bargaining agent an they are responsible for presenting a seniorty list to the company. Wrong way Seham strikes again.

I get it. You worship Seham and Cleary because they tickle your ears and tell you things that warm your heart towards the lie that you wish with all your might was true. That doesn't change the fact that the NIC wasn't on trial and that Seham shot himself in the foot once again - this time with an ADEA argument that must have had the judges wondering how this guy ever passed the bar.

Right, putting your pants on like everyone else defines who is and it not wealthy. If Seham isn't putting USAPA's (pilot's)money in the bank then he is just as poor at understanding financial concepts as he is at understanding the rule of law.

 

[cleardirect]

You hate Seham. Got that. Stick to the argument, not the man. BTW, Lee is NOT wealthy, contrary to popular opinion. He puts his pants on the same as you.

Interesting, how would you know how he puts his pants on? A little closer to Seham than you are admitting?

"....two crucial characteristics distinguish this act from Title VII. First, unlike Title VII, which provides equal protection from discrimination for men and women, blacks and whites, and so on, the ADEA extends only to individuals over the age of 40. The creation of a "protected age group" could be taken to imply a requirement of preferential treatment, were the contrary intent and language of the act not so explicit on this point. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has observed, the ADEA's clear mandate is that age be accorded a "neutral status." As the court explained, the act requires an employer to "reach employment decisions without regard to age, but it does not place an affirmative duty upon an employer to accord special treatment to members of the protected age group."[12] Moreover, Alfred Blumrosen, a law professor at Rutgers and an ally of the civil rights establishment with regard to Title VII issues, notes that any application of the ADEA that provides preferential treatment to older workers at the expense of new labor-market participants invariably limits equal employment opportunities for minorities and women.[13]

Blah, blah, blah removed the other nonsense.

Average age of the west pilots 48. Looks to me like most of the west pilots would fall under the protection of title VII. Sorry if both groups are protected than no one gets special treatment. But are you willing to throw your own east pilots that are under 40 under the bus to advance your own career?

Got any case law in your back pocket that shows where a seniority list has been reordered by age? NO! I am shocked.

 

[end_of_alpa]

So we know who to blame for this mess.

.
You had better go to the video tape replay.

.

Repeat you are wrong



Yes negotiate but the contract does not live with the agent. It lives witht eh pilot and the company.

Think about the future of unions and arbitrations if usapa prevails. What would a trial cost for LOA93? You know courts have a little tighter control about what makes it to court. My guess is a judge would have dismissed LOA 93 before hearing it.


Bring it on. the west would do much better without usapa than with usapa.

Either you guys need to learn to read contracts, or stop listening to lawyers that can’t read contracts.

This is the same thing that got you all into trouble during the addington case. Who is the contract between? Who do we work for? Do we work for the company or do we work for the association? If the union goes away that does not end the contract between us and the company. Say your loan agent quits the business, does your mortgage disappear? No your have a contract with a lending institution not the agent. You can remove as represented and nothing changes. Put in there as represented by No one and I still have a valid contract, pay rates and working conditions. Otherwise if what you guys are trying to believe even airline would do everything it could to distroy the union so they can get rid of them and get rid of the contract. That does not happen because that is not the way it works.

If usapa decides that the heat or expense is to great the only thing they do is leave the pilots unprotected but does not void the contract. Yes I can work as an at will employee much better than the east guys that have always been protected by a union. Which side do you think has a better relationship with their CP?

West contract

Contract 2000

Agreement between America West Airlines, Inc.
and
The pilots in the service of America West Airlines, Inc.
as represented by
The Airline Pilots Association, International

East contract

TRANSFORMATION PLAN LETTER #93
1
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
Between
US AIRWAYS, INC.
and
THE AIRLINE PILOTS
in the service of
US AIRWAYS, INC.
as represented by
THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL

Sorry, but you are wrong. Again, the ALPA arbitration as you call it is an intra-union merger "process". It's got nothing to do with the NMB. The NMB process that you are referring to will be a legally enforcable agreement between the COMPANY and the UNION!!

But I digress so let me ask you this:

If USAPA goes away, who files the grievances?
Who administers the CBA?
Who negotiates to "amend" the existing CBA??
I don't know who does YOUR legal work but if that is not correct. Voting out a union means no CBA. Better ask other unions who got rid of their agent.

Better yet: Show me a legal citation to your assertation.

As far as the video tape, the initial discussion occured in Herndon. I was not on the "bus ride" back to PHL but I WAS there for the appointment of the officers and the making of the constitution.

When you say "blame" do you plan on putting my name on the stickers???

 

[Poug Darker]

If USAPA folds and there is no replacement, since both pilot contracts are officially 'amendable' under the RLA, the company would be free to impose any conditions and pay rates it desires.
Your old contract would go 'poof' and your new (and I'll bet draconian) work rules, without any input from you or your coworkers, would be presented to you as a 'take it or leave it' proposition.
Cheers.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Interesting, how would you know how he puts his pants on? A little closer to Seham than you are admitting?



Blah, blah, blah removed the other nonsense.

Average age of the west pilots 48. Looks to me like most of the west pilots would fall under the protection of title VII. Sorry if both groups are protected than no one gets special treatment. But are you willing to throw your own east pilots that are under 40 under the bus to advance your own career?

Got any case law in your back pocket that shows where a seniority list has been reordered by age? NO! I am shocked.

Glad you've evolved from flaming to snippy. How refreshing.

You see, you didn't read the rest of the story. Hense the BLAH BLAH BLAH!!

It's not title VII. It's ADEA. It's not worth debating you if you won't read the history.

Hey, HP. Maybe you can "help them out". MAI NOI??

 

[luvn737s]

If USAPA folds and there is no replacement, since both pilot contracts are officially 'amendable' under the RLA, the company would be free to impose any conditions and pay rates it desires.
Your old contract would go 'poof' and your new (and I'll bet draconian) work rules, without any input from you or your coworkers, would be presented to you as a 'take it or leave it' proposition.
Cheers.

So if there is a subsequent representation election, and let's say so as to keep hostilities in check, the UAW ( or any other union) won. Now they inherit the contract from the former CBA. Do you suppose the company would impose a "draconian" set of work rules for a period of say 60 days- the time necessary to hold such an election.

No, actually since the negotiations are being held in mediation, the mediator would likely park negotiations, specifying status-quo, until an election is held. If the election yields no winner, then your scenario might be correct.

And if USAPA decided to pack up the circus tent and move on, who do you suppose the pilots would vote for to replace them. A brand name they are familiar with???


So let's unclutter the deck:

NO permanent separate operations
NO spin off to whichever disparaging airline you'd like to dream up
NO snap-backs in lieu of a joint contract
NO USAPA threatening to go bk if damages are awarded
NO hiring to the east side exclusively
NO reordering the seniority list by age, last name, IQ, etc.
NO further delays in violation of the spirit of the T/A (I think Wake will act once the 9th rules)

 

[hp_fa]

Hey, HP. Maybe you can "help them out". MAI NOI??

What are you proposing that I do?

Also, what is MAI NOI?