US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/10- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[oldiebutgoody]

Go ask your NC what the status is of the Nic.

The status hasn't changed, and won't change until Wake vacates his verdict. Then, the NIC will go away.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Windfall is in the eye of the beholder - an opinion, in other words. My opinion is that putting an East pilot who was furloughed at the time of the merger ahead of a West 757 Captain is a windfall.

Jim

Kirby, I believe it was, (might have been Parker) at a PHX crew "town hall meeting" more than a year ago made a statement on video, therefore on record, to the effect that: "The west pilots have a winning lottery ticket that they are unable to cash." THAT is cleary a statement that he believes the Nicolau is a windfall for the west. How else can one characterize a "winning lottery ticket" other than a windfall?

Prater, by his actions, also acknowledged that the Nicolau is a windfall for the west. If he thought it was fair and equitable, why would he even consider the "Blue Ribbon Committee," or the "Gold Ribbon Commission," followed by the Wye River meeting? What would be the purpose? If he thought it fair, he would have simply said: "The Nicolau is it. Get over it and move on." But he didn't. His actions have spoken VOLUMES.

When the contract is finally complete, and Section 22 is a DOH list with conditions and restrictions including effective protections for the careers of the west pilots in their aircraft and domiciles, it will pass. (I'll bet it even passes on the west.)

If the AOL want to then sue (as the 9th said they were then free to do,) let them. The issue of fairness to both sides will be on trial. When the president of the company and the president of the loser-union ALPA have to admit to the judge and/or jury that they thought the Nicolau was unfair to the east pilots, what else is left to discuss?

Now, bring on the contract. Bring on the lawsuit. And let's go another round in the federal court system to get this settled. When the facts, the law and the precedents are allowed to be heard (guess that leaves Wake out,) we will finally be done with this mess.

It still won't be a particularly happy place to work. We will likely still have the same substandard management. But there may be some peace. Good fences do indeed make good neighbors....or co-worker in this case.

 

[aquagreen73s]

The status hasn't changed, and won't change until Wake vacates his verdict. Then, the NIC will go away.

Well, why don't you hold your breath waiting for another DOH list to be passed across the table. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen but if it does, we'll get to tango again in the desert court and this will be the grand finale! I wonder if we can get a jury verdict in under two hours in trial 2?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Well, why don't you hold your breath waiting for another DOH list to be passed across the table. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen but if it does, we'll get to tango again in the desert court and this will be the grand finale! I wonder if we can get a jury verdict in under two hours in trial 2?

Ha Ha HA, you make me laugh. They won't neeed to pass another, since they already passed one.

Yea, we're all pretty scared put east. So scared that we can't stop laughing. AT YOU! Not with you.

 

[aquagreen73s]

When you retire in a couple of years and are still on LOA 93, I won't be one to laugh at you.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Do you realize that what you just said is utter gibberish? You Easties withdrew your suit in the DC Court!

The case was not withdrawn at all. When the two parties to the suit, the East MEC and the West MEC, disappeared from Planet Earth in April, 2007, the case disappeared along with them.

 

[Freebird]

Ha Ha HA, you make me laugh. They won't neeed to pass another, since they already passed one.

Yea, we're all pretty scared put east. So scared that we can't stop laughing. AT YOU! Not with you.

When you're on the right side of an argument/binding arbitration, you dont have to justify your postion with numerous postings and drivel.

Tread lightly, my friend...

 

[ROACLT]

When you're on the right side of an argument/binding arbitration, you dont have to justify your postion with numerous postings and drivel.

Tread lightly, my friend...

It seems for some time, most of the posters were from America West and predicting a slap down to USAPA from the 9th Circuit. Pot meet Kettle.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

When you're on the right side of an argument/binding arbitration, you dont have to justify your postion with numerous postings and drivel.

Tread lightly, my friend...

Nice pic of Jonathan Goldsmith. I remember seeing him in bit parts in the 70s and 80s. I'll bet you didn't even know his name.

I'd much rather be on the proper side of the law than just an "internal process" to quote the ninth.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

It seems for some time, most of the posters were from America West and predicting a slap down to USAPA from the 9th Circuit. Pot meet Kettle.

Yup. No matter what subject someone posted, that's what happened. That's why folks are enjoying this so much.

 

[767jetz]

I wonder if this had been plan C whether you would have been so bold?

Actually, yes. I would have... and was.

Amazing how determined you guys are to have your way with every argument. You brought it up. I showed you how wrong you were by siting one example that stands out. You blow it off as an isolated incident and further try to dismiss it as me having plenty of other options. Maybe a "good for you for sticking to your principles and not sucking it up for a free ride" would have sufficed.

Which part of the ground delay program did you not comprehend? You are a pilot, right? You know what a GDP is, right? There were no guarantees that anyone was getting to NY that day. Least of all the commuters who can't do anything better than a Cat I approach. If I'm not mistaken a 737-200 can at least do a "manual monitored Cat II approach" or whatever you guys calls it on your property. My chances were greater taking the first ride out of town, which would have been the US flight. I would have rather done the carpet dance for my chief pilot for missing a trip than sit in that J A's jumpseat. Heck, my chief pilot probably would have given me a pass for standing up to the J A. 😛

 

[767jetz]

When the contract is finally complete, and Section 22 is a DOH list with conditions and restrictions including effective protections for the careers of the west pilots in their aircraft and domiciles, it will pass.

And when that day comes, and all legal challenges have been exhausted or discontinued, and you are actually working under one contract with one seniority list, THEN you can pop open the bubbly and celebrate. Until then this whole thread is once again full of speculation, opinion, hot air, and very little fact.

Get it done already, and see if you actually get to enjoy the fruits of your campaign. Just be sure you buckle up tightly because the ride will be bumpy and the destination is still unknown.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

And when that day comes, and all legal challenges have been exhausted or discontinued, and you are actually working under one contract with one seniority list, THEN you can pop open the bubbly and celebrate. Until then this whole thread is once again full of speculation, opinion, hot air, and very little fact.

Get it done already, and see if you actually get to enjoy the fruits of your campaign. Just be sure you buckle up tightly because the ride will be bumpy and the destination is still unknown.

I guess every company needs a "caped marauder", champion of FUD and the unamerican way.

Yes, we FINALLY will be enjoying the fruits of our labor. WOOHOO! WE WON!

 

[BoeingBoy]

Pg 8010

(“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ”

As a published case, this will be precedent.

You didn't happen to notice that only the "wide range of reasonableness", "irrational", and "arbitrary" was in quotes, did you? Attributed to SCOTUS in Ford v Huffman (ironically, a DFR case claiming DFR because the union put employees with less LOS ahead of employees with more which the SCOTUS found to be fine). Let me give you the whole quote from Huffman:

"A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion."

In ALPA v O'Neill, which the 9th quoted for the "final product" terminology, SCOTUS said:

"We granted certiorari to clarify the standard that governs a claim that a union has breached its duty of fair representation in its negotiation of a back-to-work agreement terminating a strike. We hold that the rule announced in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190, 87 S.Ct. 903, 916, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967)—that a union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions are either "arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith"—applies to all union activity, including contract negotiation. We further hold that a union's actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a "wide range of reasonableness," Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338, 73 S.Ct. 681, 686, 97 L.Ed. 1048 (1953), as to be irrational."

and:

"The statutory duty of fair representation was developed over 20 years ago in a series of cases involving alleged racial discrimination by unions certified as exclusive bargaining representatives under the Railway Labor Act, see Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 [65 S.Ct. 226]; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210 [65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944) ], and was soon extended to unions certified under the N.L.R.A., see Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, supra. Under this doctrine, 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."

So as you can see, SCOTUS clearly outlines a three-prong test for DFR - arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith. The "within a wide range of reasonableness" applies to the arbitrary prong only.

Scotus does carry more weight than the 9th, right?

Jim

 

[cynic]

So as you can see, SCOTUS clearly outlines a three-prong test for DFR - arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith. The "within a wide range of reasonableness" applies to the arbitrary prong only.

Scotus does carry more weight than the 9th, right?

Jim

Allowing a straight DOH seniority list to be implemented in place of an arbitrated list would also set a precedent that create an end run around the McCaskill - Bond ammendment. I can't imagine the courts would allow that to happen and I would bet there would be a slew of amicus briefs filed as well.

That said, I don't think the company wants any part of a DOH list. Accepting that list puts them at the defendants table as well.

I guess we'll find out in three or four years, once the new contract is finally done.