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

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

No, I get this, and I also understand what the union owes me.

I think the definition of that is "ENTITLEMENT"! MM!

 

[ROACLT]

No, I get this, and I also understand what the union owes me.

See though in a real DFR case, not what occurred in Wake's court, there are a lot of pilots who have contributed more time and talent in their craft at US Airways, union and seniority structure that will speak as to what they are owed. If a future case, ever made it as far as a trial, seniority as a vested benefit, is a union standard as the very nature of a seniority structure denies advancement on merit. No integration based on the concept of longevity has every been found in breach of DFR for that reason amongst others.

So a case about what is owed, is perfect for USAPA because of the long body of evidence that will clearly demonstrate their policies meet the "good faith" standard that SCOTUS has established as precedent.

 

[nic4us]

So merged seniority as you put it is at the determination of the union merger policy, an arbitration was not final and binding as you assert but part of an overall process of merger policy as so eloquently defined by the 9th Circuit. There is no merged, nor has there been merged seniority between US Airways pilots and America West pilots. There was an uncompleted attempt to produce an acceptable "seniority proposal" that might be incorporated into a single collective bargaining agreement. USAPA is now in control of that process to produce a seniority proposal to become a codified list if it completes a single collective bargaining agreement.

Most of what you said here would be correct if usapa became the union prior to the Nicolau award. Then they would have been free to use their "overall process of merger policy". However, since usapa was formed after, and as a direct result of, the Nic; and as a means to specifically renege on "final and binding" arbitration, you are going to find out that it is both.

Once the arbitrator ruled that was it. Once the company accepted the results the deal was sealed. Voila, all parties had reached what was an "acceptable seniority proposal". For the east to decide that their majority status somehow gives them the right to then break contracts, not only with the West, but also the company, is reprehensible. That is why you pissed off Wake and Bybee, and why you are not going to get anything other than the Nic.

usapa got itself the right to represent all usairways pilots, not just the ones who want out of the Nic award. usapa is now in control of the process to produce a CBA, if secion 22 has anything other than the Nic, get sued, waste money, lose "unquestionably ripe DFR".

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Most of what you said here would be correct if usapa became the union prior to the Nicolau award. Then they would have been free to use their "overall process of merger policy". However, since usapa was formed after, and as a direct result of, the Nic; and as a means to specifically renege on "final and binding" arbitration, you are going to find out that it is both.

Once the arbitrator ruled that was it. Once the company accepted the results the deal was sealed. Voila, all parties had reached what was an "acceptable seniority proposal". For the east to decide that their majority status somehow gives them the right to then break contracts, not only with the West, but also the company, is reprehensible. That is why you pissed off Wake and Bybee, and why you are not going to get anything other than the Nic.

usapa got itself the right to represent all usairways pilots, not just the ones who want out of the Nic award. usapa is now in control of the process to produce a CBA, if secion 22 has anything other than the Nic, get sued, waste money, lose "unquestionably ripe DFR".

That's about the STUPIDEST thing I've read here. It doesn't matter why USAPA was founded. It is bound by it's C&BL to negotiate a list with DOH principles. PERIOD. Get over it.

 

[nic4us]

See though in a real DFR case, not what occurred in Wake's court, there are a lot of pilots who have contributed more time and talent in their craft at US Airways, union and seniority structure that will speak as to what they are owed. If a future case, ever made it as far as a trial, seniority as a vested benefit, is a union standard as the very nature of a seniority structure denies advancement on merit. No integration based on the concept of longevity has every been found in breach of DFR for that reason amongst others.

So a case about what is owed, is perfect for USAPA because of the long body of evidence that will clearly demonstrate their policies meet the "good faith" standard that SCOTUS has established as precedent.

See though, in a real union, the purpose of the constitution and bylaws is to establish the operating priciples of the entire group. They are not written, campaigned for, and elected as a means to commit a DFR breach against a minority within the group.

I guess what the east does not understand is, usapa's DOH "proposal" alone does not violate members rights; the seeking of the DOH "proposal" when the matter was already concluded, violates the Wests's DFR rights.

Just like the last time, the next trial will be about starting a union to specifically breach a minority's rights. And yes we still have the e-mail to Bradford from his lawyer telling him to keep it quiet because what he is doing is illegal.

And now we also have past company testimony and the 9th cementing the fact that we will not miss a statute of limitations.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

OLDIE, tuche, "UNQUESTIONABLY" Only 2mill, heck ASK.com is alot cheaper, ROACLT, got it right , now they want to spend more money for clarification, heck if they didn't get it in LAW SCHOOL the first time maybe they should hire a real law firm , who was the caddy? MM!

 

[cleardirect]

See though in a real DFR case, not what occurred in Wake's court, there are a lot of pilots who have contributed more time and talent in their craft at US Airways, union and seniority structure that will speak as to what they are owed. If a future case, ever made it as far as a trial, seniority as a vested benefit, is a union standard as the very nature of a seniority structure denies advancement on merit. No integration based on the concept of longevity has every been found in breach of DFR for that reason amongst others.

So a case about what is owed, is perfect for USAPA because of the long body of evidence that will clearly demonstrate their policies meet the "good faith" standard that SCOTUS has established as precedent.

You east guys all like to say that no union has ever been found liable of DFR by integrating by longevity or DOH. That great. It is not a DFR to want or even to negotiate for DOH/LOS. If the two sides can come to an agreement using DOH/LOS than it is not a DFR. Look at AA/TWA. Would anyone other than the majority of AA pilots consider that list fair? But it was agreed to. If an arbitrator awards a DOH/LOS list, not a DFR.

Name another integration that a union has used DOH/LOS that was not agreed to or part of an arbitration award but simply dictated by the majority. Name another integration that was changed to DOH/LOS after an arbitration award was issued.

There is none. So you guys are trying to force incorrect law into a situation that it will not fit. How do you prove good faith when you compare USAPA’s list to an arbitrated list? How do you prove good faith when the other party to the integration is not even in the room?

Step carefully.

 

[ROACLT]

You east guys all like to say that no union has ever been found liable of DFR by integrating by longevity or DOH. That great. It is not a DFR to want or even to negotiate for DOH/LOS. If the two sides can come to an agreement using DOH/LOS than it is not a DFR. Look at AA/TWA. Would anyone other than the majority of AA pilots consider that list fair? But it was agreed to. If an arbitrator awards a DOH/LOS list, not a DFR.

Name another integration that a union has used DOH/LOS that was not agreed to or part of an arbitration award but simply dictated by the majority. Name another integration that was changed to DOH/LOS after an arbitration award was issued.

There is none. So you guys are trying to force incorrect law into a situation that it will not fit. How do you prove good faith when you compare USAPA’s list to an arbitrated list? How do you prove good faith when the other party to the integration is not even in the room?

Step carefully.

The AFA integrated DOH because it is mandated by their Constitution and By-Laws, and there are hundreds if not thousands of labor organizations that do the same across the country. It won't be a comparison to an arbitrated list, it will be a comparison to the incredible body of seniority integrations that have take place. I.E. wide range of reasonableness. Your flight attendants had no say in the integration, it was simply a part of being a member. That constitutional mandate has never been successfully challenged because of the merits of longevity and the broad definition of 'good faith." I am sure many of your flight attendants felt disadvantaged. The idea of fair is subjective and their will be a wide range of views on what constitutes fair, however a strong standard exists amongst organized labor and its been legally upheld, time and again.

If you sue again, which is your right, the case will resolve around all the competing claims, the unions desire to balance those and DOH, especially with significant protective conditions to ameliorate the impact of the integration and whether that will fall within that wide range. You bring up arbitration because the largest pilot union has always taken the easy way out but even then, they have continually tinkered with it, vacillating on the makeup and at the whim of their larger members. A near plurality of other unions do not do so but their behavior has been found to be within the "good faith", standard.

The day the merger was announced, your flight attendants knew how it was going down before the first meeting. Good faith only requires consideration of all issues and a good faith effort to try and balance everyone's interest. Longevity has always met that standard when it has been challenged and coupled with protection through fencing, and as I understand it, one-way fencing seeks to balance the vested seniority of members and accommodating a disparagement in average longevity. Two people in the room has nothing to do with it. When they negotiate your contract, the committee that handles that doesn't requires a member from every position or seniority range in order to arrive at an acceptable solution for the collective group. It is simply evaluated as a whole on its own merits.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Eye,

The West is not trying to steal seniority. The West has our own, thank you very much. east seniority was merged with that West seniority by an arbitrator as per the TA and ALPA merger policy. Read, done deal.

So not only are usapa supporters attempting to steal West seniority, as traderjake points out, in their seniority stealing campaign, they have been stealing West jobs for the last two years. That is no BS.

The East has their own seniority, thank you very much. Nobody in the EAST is stealing jobs. In fact it it wasn't for the EAST operations making profits the downsizing in PHX and LAS would have been much more substantial--read the company financials. Since you guys will never get it don't expect a joint contract. The EAST is happy to keep the flying they brought into the merger. You guys can keep what you brought to the merger.. You should be satisfied with that, right? Nobody is taking any jobs from anybody, right? Don't worry someday you'll get your A330/767 seat the old-fashioned, ethical way -- you'll earn it through attrition.

Later,
Eye

 

[ROACLT]

See though, in a real union, the purpose of the constitution and bylaws is to establish the operating priciples of the entire group. They are not written, campaigned for, and elected as a means to commit a DFR breach against a minority within the group.

I guess what the east does not understand is, usapa's DOH "proposal" alone does not violate members rights; the seeking of the DOH "proposal" when the matter was already concluded, violates the Wests's DFR rights.

Just like the last time, the next trial will be about starting a union to specifically breach a minority's rights. And yes we still have the e-mail to Bradford from his lawyer telling him to keep it quiet because what he is doing is illegal.

And now we also have past company testimony and the 9th cementing the fact that we will not miss a statute of limitations.

According to the 9th Circuit, the matter is only concluded with a ratified contract, one that ALPA never completed. Now the collective bargaining authority resides with another union and it and the company are the only legal parties to any agreement. The company already allowed USAPA to negotiate a modification to the West collective bargaining agreement. It was USAPA that filed for Mediation for both contracts as they are the legal representative and the company has already clearly showed they understand that legal authority by negotiating a change to the West agreement with them.

 

[nic4us]

How good was that legal advice that cost 2 million dollars for zero result? To infer any message from the 9th coming from the same sage advice that led you down a 2 million dollar, 2 year black hole, implies the catching on needs to be done by the face staring back in the mirror, wouldn't you say? You should have listened to Jeffrey Freund, someone who probably understood labor law, and union obligations. If I were in your shoes, that is what I would be thinking about and catching on that your attorney's didn't understand the law and just cost you big time. Relying on their interpretation of the 9th Circuit's ruling, should be a dream for the USAPA and ensure their continued legal success.

Man, just about everything you east posters put on here needs correction.

It did not cost us 2 million dollars, it cost us over 4 million dollars. 1.8 million for Polsinelli-Shughart and 2.5 million for Seeham.

Here is another little gem for the "should have listened to Freund" crowd. Freund told both Bradford (usapa) and Parker(the company), you touch the Nic, we are suing you. I have both letters archived. So I am glad you put so much credence behind his knowledge and advice. Maybe the next suit will come with the West represented by his firm now that Harper and Leonidas have held usapa at the metaphorical Thermopylae. No, on second thought, I think Polsinelli-Shughart scares the hell out of the company, best to stick with them.

You east posters are a laugh at every post; Nicolau was senile. Desert judge Wake was out of his league, does not know the law. Jury was biased. Bybee got it wrong. Our lawyers "didn't understand the law", and you think I need to become enlightened and honest with myself?

 

[nic4us]

It won't be a comparison to an arbitrated list, it will be a comparison to the incredible body of seniority integrations that have take place. I.E. wide range of reasonableness.

I will say it real simple like.

There will not be a comparison of the lists. It will be a question of why is there a second list, and why are we even discussing this after and arbitration has taken place.

For the company it will be a question of, why did you breach your contract with the West pilots?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Nicolau was senile. Desert judge Wake was out of his league, does not know the law. Jury was biased. Bybee got it wrong. Our lawyers "didn't understand the law", and you think I need to become enlightened and honest with myself?

First true thing you've posted. And, yes, you do.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Man, just about everything you east posters put on here needs correction.

It did not cost us 2 million dollars, it cost us over 4 million dollars. 1.8 million for Polsinelli-Shughart and 2.5 million for Seeham.

Here is another little gem for the "should have listened to Freund" crowd. Freund told both Bradford (usapa) and Parker(the company), you touch the Nic, we are suing you. I have both letters archived. So I am glad you put so much credence behind his knowledge and advice. Maybe the next suit will come with the West represented by his firm now that Harper and Leonidas have held usapa at the metaphorical Thermopylae. No, on second thought, I think Polsinelli-Shughart scares the hell out of the company, best to stick with them.

You east posters are a laugh at every post; Nicolau was senile. Desert judge Wake was out of his league, does not know the law. Jury was biased. Bybee got it wrong. Our lawyers "didn't understand the law", and you think I need to become enlightened and honest with myself?

NO, the EAST paid dues, DUES + Shughart= well whoever, WAKE = 9th = DIMISS- EAST( DAMAGES, CLEARY IN HANDCUFFS, EAST DEFECTIONS, WHATEVER!! That post is a betterclassic OLDIE! MM!It is a free country , but halloween is only once a year and even then the scare factor looks more like a comedy club! Didn't the WEST dismiss FREUND?!

 

[nic4us]

According to the 9th Circuit, the matter is only concluded with a ratified contract,

The matter of whether or not usapa is guilty in failing its DFR. Not the matter of how to go about seniority integration at LLC.

Oh, only then does the statute of limitations start on the "pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR".

Maybe you are from CLT, so I will say it in a way you will understand, " Ladies and Gentlemen, start your lawyers".