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

[nic4us]

The majority in many unions voted freezes to pension, ie. CAL and NWA. For those fully vested or near being fully vested, there was no financial loss, or smaller loss. For those with intermediate seniority, 15-20 years, the hit was huge. In the case of CAL, it was near a 1 million dollars. Scope relief disproportionately effects the bottom of the list as do work rule changes or scheduling changes. Outright terminating a DB pension plan destroys those who just retired or are near retirement. The majority make decisions all the time, with various effects to different subsets of seniority within the entire bargaining unit. I am not advocating or rationalizing any of these things, as in some cases things that occur are tragic and many would consider wrong but legally the majority can do things that are entirely damaging to a specific subset in the group if it can be justified in the best interest of the whole.

If the majority as in any of these cases support a position that advances the interests of the entire unit, then yes the majority can always defend being within a wide range of reasonable behavior. In the case of seniority, it is widely established that longevity is the standard for combing groups of workers within the same craft and skill set. It was used by each party respectively within their own group, all other unions on the property integrated the same way, courts have upheld every legal challenge to the standard and it has been referred to at the appellate level as a "gold standard". You would be correct that whatever the majority wants could lead to breach of "good faith", if the way in which seniority or any other issue was done in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The majority deciding on many things is routinely upheld as right and within the bounds of DFR. As you can see from some of the examples of what majorities do, there is a wide range for a collective bargaining unit's behavior in advancing the interest of the entire unit, and USAPA using a longevity based system which is the common labor standard not only is "good faith" but the generally accepted method for a plurality of labor organizations. Nor can it be argued that it damages someone to place them within a system that allows for their seniority to vest in the same manner as everyone else in the same craft at the same company. If you couple that with C & R's, in a true DFR case where the proper legal standard apply, a union can easily defend longevity based seniority.

While it may matter to you that both sides were in ALPA, the 9th Circuit clearly disagrees. You point out that USAPA lost a DFR case, when in reality they lost nothing. There was no jurisdiction to hear any claim and somebody with an opposing viewpoint could argue that if Wake was so wrong or biased that he couldn't understand the basic concept of Ripeness, then they could infer that all other aspects of the case are in doubt. What isn't in doubt is that the 9th clearly iterated the legal standard that USAPA must use in moving forward with negotiation, which is to bargain in good faith for all its members. They also made it clear that ALPA's process was internal to arrive at a proposal, which is no different than USAPA having a internal policy. The fact that ALPA's process and voting structure allowed for indefinite veto by either party advances USAPA's argument, one clearly commented on by the 9th circuit, that a union overall objective is to advance and promote the interest of the entire bargaining unit so long as it acts in good faith, i.e a wide range of reasonableness and is neither arbitrary or wholly irrational. The 9th circuit chose to cite two cases heard before the SCOTUS and cites specific legal precedent from these cases to emphasize the "good faith" standard.

You may call it silly to believe the majority can do what it wants, but it happens every day in unions all across this country and is upheld as long as it is withing that wide range of reasonable behavior. Discrimination, is a non-starter in the case because the same standard is applied to everyone under DOH, and it also passes the Arbitrary standard. If you had taken the time to read the transcript from Wake's court you would be aware of the fact, the Plaintiffs conceded that USAPA's actions were neither Arbitrary or Discriminatory and the entire case was framed around the breach of DRF being tied to "good faith." A standard that Wake either didn't understand(wide range), or he attempted to narrow it, so USAPA could not properly defend itself so the verdict he though fair would be assured. The 9th Circuit had no reason to revisit the standards of "good faith" pursuant to a Union's DFR responsibilities when they only ruled on jurisdiction but they did, and courts do things deliberately, especially at the appellate level and an opinion they decide to publish.

USAPA is a signatory to all agreements as the legally authorized bargaining unit and has the ability to modify or revisit and negotiate any of these agreements. Clearly, the company agrees as a provision in the West contract was modified and voted on by all pilots East and West because their is only one union, and in accordance with its Constitution and By-Laws, all agreements are voted on by all the pilots. This too is established by the precedent in this opinion. The court made it clear that USAPA is free to abandon the award as ALPA was and when coupled with them acknowledging that any contract USAPA is forced to bargain with the Nicalou award as likely to be rejected, along with the fact USAPA's final proposal may not work to the disadvantages plaintiff's fear even if it is not Nicalou all indicate that they are saying USAPA as signatory of the TA is free to act on behalf of its members. An appellate panel just doesn't say things without express legal meaning nor would they use language enticing behavior that would be in violation of the law.

LCC does not have an integrated seniority list. They have a "seniority proposal", generated by an "internal union process" of ALPA. 9th Circuit's words not mine. Apparently whenever questioned by west pilots, LCC management has stated on numerous occasion that seniority is a "union deal" and that their legal obligation is to negotiate with the authorized collective bargaining agent. So, you either weren't aware or you aren't taking the time to understand the issues.

By your posts you seem to be an avid ALPA supporter and your are entitled to your opinion but your reading of the 9th Circuits opinion is as poor as the legal advice given to the Addington plaintiff's that cost them 1.8 million, 2 years, and severely harmed any chance of success in a future claim. What is amazing, as a so called unionist, you applaud the efforts of 2 anti-labor NeoCon judges appointed by GW BUSH, when the union you loudly support would consider them wrong minded and harmful to the interests of Labor. Why don't you ask your ALPA attorney's whether they are pleased or disheartened by the 9th Circuit's rulings? I can tell, that they are very happy, especially for a union that runs afoul of so many DFR cases and is constantly defending in court. Trust me, they like that a union is free to revisit agreements and defense of their DFR responsibilities are held to a wide standard and not a narrow standard. You should be happy too but as I have said before, what kind of unionist supports a group that claims to represent highly trained and educated people who make $17,000 a year and qualify for public assistance. Before you jump on me, I walked away from flying in 1991, shortly into my career and I thank God every day, life worked out the way it did. When you were taking a bath in 2002, the union that represents me, negotiated significant pay and work rule improvements, despite what was going on in the country and economy. I have many friends at US Airways and as I am still tied to the organized labor movement and take great interest in what is going on here. I routinely over the years have told them they are insane for giving their time in talent to a job that has been so poorly represented by a labor union. It's absurd that people with $100,000 education or former military officers make the pitiful wages that are present, or the time in craft can become meaningless due to bankruptcy or job loss and is no wonder that Colgan, MESA, or Tran States make the wages they do, or mighty UAL for that matter. I have to laugh every time I see a press release with the statement 50000+ standing strong shoulder to shoulder. I wouldn't call it strong by any means. I have actually had hope for my friends at US Airways over the last couple of years. Leaving ALPA was the best thing they ever did and if all they spend is a a million a year in legal fees, they are still way ahead of the game.

WOW, you write long posts. Sure you have not been to law school?

Rather than pick apart all the same tired arguements Seeham has been making since Bradford first bought his snake oil, I will just ask you two questions.

1. Do you see anywhere in the 9ths opinion, (that said they had no jurisdiction to rule on merits of the case) that would bar a federal judge from granting an injunction to stop the implementation of a future usapa ratified non-Nic contract?

2. Do you know any "spanked,whack job, desert" federal judges?

 

[nic4us]

LCC does not have an integrated seniority list. They have a "seniority proposal", generated by an "internal union process" of ALPA. 9th Circuit's words not mine.

I will pick at this a little.

If you are going to quote the opinion, please quote Tashima and not yourself, Underpants or luvthe9.

The author of the opinion called the Nic, "the product of internal rules and process".

Not proposal, not suggestion, but "product". A word with an entirely different meaning.

Also, "internal rules and process", entirely diffrent from what you are implying by using the word union in your misquote..

 

[ROACLT]

I will pick at this a little.

If you are going to quote the opinion, please quote Tashima and not yourself, Underpants or luvthe9.

The author of the opinion called the Nic, "the product of internal rules and process".

Not proposal, not suggestion, but "product". A word with an entirely different meaning.

Also, "internal rules and process", entirely diffrent from what you are implying by using the word union in your misquote..

PG 8002

The two merging airlines and ALPA entered into a Transition
Agreement (“TA”), which incorporated by reference
ALPA’s Merger Policy. Under the TA, the carriers agreed not
to object to ALPA’s seniority integration proposal, provided
it did not result in certain additional costs. The seniority integration
proposal could be implemented only as part of a single
CBA. The single CBA would require approval by the East
Master Executive Council, the West Master Executive Council,
and a majority of each of the East and West pilot groups,
effectively giving each side a veto. Until the single CBA was
negotiated, with few exceptions, the TA placed a “fence”
between East and West operations, such that each would continue
to operate under its respective CBA.

 

[end_of_alpa]

What possible difference would that make to your "DOH is the gold standard" argument? Are you making personal notations about how much the west are paying for dues (for Seham's legal bills) AND to defend a final and binding arbitration??

Here. The existing bill is in (I believe) in excess of 1.8 Million dollars. You will be pleased to know that pilots from OTHER AIRLINES have donated to Leonidas. Parents & other relatives of our pilots have donated to Leonidas. Many (if not ALL) of our pilots that are furloughed (OUT OF SENIORITY ORDER) have donated to Leonidas. Every paycheck, I send a bi-monthly stipend to Leonidas (it's less expensive than therapy, and feels MUCH better). I hear that we are planning a Tempe car wash with Megan Fox, Shakira & Eva Mendez (OK, my three favorites) to do a fund-raiser (as necessary).

We simply don't have a choice. USAPA has forced us to defend our position. How much more are you sending to USAPA to help with your "DOH..The Gold Standard" campaign?

Whoa, Tex!!!

Don't shoot the messenger. I know it will be close to 2 mill by the time this parts over. I'm glad you have the "We are the world" support of the minions of Gozer and AOL is the Key master.

I get to write my union dues off. If you are a member in good standing, YOU get the same EQUAL RIGHT...AN EQUAL VOTE! Let's see, didn't the Ninth just say that??? Majority vote. That's it. Oh, and that DOH is the gold standard bit...not my words, but the Ninths!

Keep those donations coming in.

 

[end_of_alpa]

PG 8002

The two merging airlines and ALPA entered into a Transition
Agreement (“TA”), which incorporated by reference
ALPA’s Merger Policy. Under the TA, the carriers agreed not
to object to ALPA’s seniority integration proposal, provided
it did not result in certain additional costs. The seniority integration
proposal could be implemented only as part of a single
CBA. The single CBA would require approval by the East
Master Executive Council, the West Master Executive Council,
and a majority of each of the East and West pilot groups,
effectively giving each side a veto. Until the single CBA was
negotiated, with few exceptions, the TA placed a “fence”
between East and West operations, such that each would continue
to operate under its respective CBA.

Give it up. Either they can't read or they're just baiting you.

AOL technique to torture you since water-boarding is outlawed on the "left" coast!

 

[ROACLT]

WOW, you write long posts. Sure you have not been to law school?

Rather than pick apart all the same tired arguements Seeham has been making since Bradford first bought his snake oil, I will just ask you two questions.

1. Do you see anywhere in the 9ths opinion, (that said they had no jurisdiction to rule on merits of the case) that would bar a federal judge from granting an injunction to stop the implementation of a future usapa ratified non-Nic contract?

2. Do you know any "spanked,whack job, desert" federal judges?

1. There was no jurisdiction for the case, USAPA's other 4 claims which were tied to merit weren't discussed. If there had been jurisdiction, the 9th Circuit would have been required to review and rule on them. When you appeal, you appeal all errors. In this instance, the first claim was an obvious error and dealt with jurisdiction.

2. No but I do know judges with a more pro-labor political bent and their opinion of this affair is not consistent with Wake's.

Two question's for you.

1. Since the merits of the case were not heard, why did the court frame USAPA's obligation as a requirement to bargain in good faith and then take the time to cite a SCOTUS case and specifically cite within the case where the DFR standard for "Good Faith" was defined?

2. Do you know any staunch, pro-union, pro-labor judges?

USAPA contended all along that it had the right to bargain freely in attempt to advance the process forward for the entire unit as long as it bargained in good faith to try find a solution that could be found acceptable to the majority. They also contended in the Phoenix trial, that good faith allowed them this, wanted the court to properly define and establish the "good faith" standard per prior case precedent so the trial was framed properly and proper evidence and defense could be presented.

While the 9th Circuit didn't address the merits of the case, they made certain points within their opinion that properly framed USAPA's obligation's and the legal requirements of "good faith" pursuant to a union's DFR responsibilities. They used a SCOTUS case to emphasize what constitutes a DFR violation. This does not differ from what USAPA has stated all along, so who do you think the audience of these clarifications were? Plaintiffs? Future judge who may be presented with a DFR claim? hmmm......

 

[end_of_alpa]

WOW. Where do I begin? I'll start at the end. To quote another LCC pilot.."It't not personal, it's business.". No, we do not hate you. In fact I think that Matt. 5:43-44 is especially germane.

Believe it or not, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS PART!! VERY APROPO.

Unity is non-existent simply because "we" can not get past a final and binding arbitration.

Unity is non-existent simply because "YOU" can not get past a "MAJORITY VOTE".

The AOL forces are not "anti-labor", they are anti-DOH cram-down. You should have USAPA immediately put forth the best contract possible with a date-of-hire section 22 (?). That should take care of all of our problems. Give it shot Buckaroo.

When USAPA bestows upon me the ultimate powers of the universe, I will certainly do that. Until then, if you have read the consitution and bylaws, (just like ALPA), there is a "process and procedure". USAPA cannot unilaterally "put forth" a "best contract possible with a date-of-hire section 22" any more than I can have "monkeys fly out of my butt" (oh, wait, I DO have monkeys fly out of my butt!!....how about "pigs fly out...., oh, never mind, they do that too!!) any more then the OTHER party, called the COMPANY, also agrees to the same CBA!!!

The other party, the COMPANY, has to negotiate at the table with USAPA. Only USAPA has the DFR...not the Company OR AOL. You may wish to take the time to edumicate yourself.

 

[RSVP767]

I will pick at this a little.

If you are going to quote the opinion, please quote Tashima and not yourself, Underpants or luvthe9.

The author of the opinion called the Nic, "the product of internal rules and process".

Not proposal, not suggestion, but "product". A word with an entirely different meaning.

Also, "internal rules and process", entirely diffrent from what you are implying by using the word union in your misquote..

Product.....as in end result? Yes the NIC was the product (end result) of ALPA's internal process. And that end result (product) was a seniority integration proposal......ALPA's seniority integration proposal.

See also post #618 this thread.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[nic4us]

PG 8002

The two merging airlines and ALPA entered into a Transition
Agreement (“TA”), which incorporated by reference
ALPA’s Merger Policy. Under the TA, the carriers agreed not
to object to ALPA’s seniority integration proposal, provided
it did not result in certain additional costs. The seniority integration
proposal could be implemented only as part of a single
CBA. The single CBA would require approval by the East
Master Executive Council, the West Master Executive Council,
and a majority of each of the East and West pilot groups,
effectively giving each side a veto. Until the single CBA was
negotiated, with few exceptions, the TA placed a “fence”
between East and West operations, such that each would continue
to operate under its respective CBA.

Yes, your quote from the background portion of the ruling indeed uses the word proposal, but no mention of "internal rules and process", or as you misquote "internal union procedure."

To find that you would have to read further in the opinion, where the exact quote as I posted, "the product of internal rules and process", is used in the majority's decision.

The bottom line, and the point I am trying to make is, just as in usapa's arguements before the lower court, you are taking quotes out of the context in which they are written and trying to imply a support of your tortured arguements. Only this time you are also misquoting, then removing the misquote from context, and putting words and meanings into the opinion that simply are not there.

As an aside, your above quote from the background, highlights a lack of understanding the court has for what has actually transpired. Read the first sentence. It says the two airlines and ALPA entered into a TA. Reading that one would think the tripartate contract was between, USAirways, America West, and ALPA. When in reality, the TA is between, the airline parties (AAA,AWA, the merged LCC) the east pilots, and the West pilots.

Again, lets wait and see what the company says. They lived it, they signed it, lets see if they are as unethical as the east pilot group and willing to break their end of the contract.

 

[767jetz]

Yes the NIC was the product (end result) of ALPA's internal process. And that end result (product) was a seniority integration proposal......ALPA's seniority integration proposal.

See also post #618 this thread.

Why is this so hard to understand?

No. No. No. The end result was a binding seniority list that becomes effective wit a joint contract. Not a proposal. Delaying the contract until circumstances changed did not change the list. If you guys had a joint contract prior to binding arbitration it all this would have been over years ago.

 

[767jetz]

Unity is non-existent simply because "YOU" can not get past a "MAJORITY VOTE".

But wait. YOUR majority vote determined the make up of YOUR MEC, who then agreed not to negotiate or be reasonable, and agreed to force binding arbitration, and then agreed to abide by the results.

So the original statement of you not being able to get past binding arbitration is more accurate. That's where your collective actions bit you in the a$$, and that is where your responsibility for this whole mess, (including the lack of unity) starts.

 

[nic4us]

Product.....as in end result? Yes the NIC was the product (end result) of ALPA's internal process. And that end result (product) was a seniority integration proposal......ALPA's seniority integration proposal.

See also post #618 this thread.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Contract......as in binding agreement between multiple parties.

Arbitration.......binding form of dispute resolution.

See also the 90+ year history of arbitrations in this country.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[ROACLT]

No. No. No. The end result was a binding seniority list that becomes effective wit a joint contract. Not a proposal. Delaying the contract until circumstances changed did not change the list. If you guys had a joint contract prior to binding arbitration it all this would have been over years ago.

The list you refer to was only relevant to ALPA and as the 9th clearly observed and noted that ALPA's overall prerogative was to achieve a ratified agreement, even if it required subsequent modified proposals to be acceptable. A proposal any way you look at it but keep seeing what you want.

Haha, you just caught on to ALPA's latest legal maneuver. By getting the parties to vote beforehand and structuring it so it is a joined vote where a "majority" prevails, they have had added another layer of legal insulation while trying to maintain its apolitical weak status as a labor organization by outsourcing basic unionist concepts, sadly considering it is a national union. ALPA, by the nature of it being an overly legal institution which may have something to do with it being sued so much, attempts to throw as much of its responsibility on to the backs of its members, so if something unpopular happens, or an issue comes up that is deemed to political or controversial to actually proactively handle, they can use the trump card, "you are the union argument."

From someone in another industry it is clearly obvious why you guys have suffered so badly and likely will continue to over the long run, even if you manage a short term gain with leverage created by a merger.

 

[ROACLT]

Contract......as in binding agreement between multiple parties.

Arbitration.......binding form of dispute resolution.

See also the 90+ year history of arbitrations in this country.

Why is this so hard to understand?

An arbitration binding only as it concerns internal affairs of ALPA. Even then, not so, as ALPA's was free to pursue its overall objective of producing a "proposal" that could be ratified into a single agreement. It's all there in the 9th's opinion.

 

[nic4us]

So the original statement of you not being able to get past binding arbitration is more accurate. That's where your collective actions bit you in the a$$, and that is where your responsibility for this whole mess, (including the lack of unity) starts.

It is also why the remedy will include instructions devoid of any "majority rules" loopholes that these worms could wiggle through.