US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/20- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Barrister]

The rest of the world could give a damn about this whole issue. It is coming to a head very soon,and it is through a DOH contract with fences. You can cry to a jury about how you were harmed, and pay for it. You will be getting a very nice raise, and protection for your PHX fortress. What more do you want? And the any judge? I hope you have another Wake lying around ready to do your bidding. That was a once in a lifetime opportunity. Too bad the rest of the legal world saw through that embarrassment of a legal process.

Lets not forget the:
this judge wrote the book,
this judge is really making good findings of fact
this judge is the best
this judge is the most respected
this judge knows his stuff
everyone respects this judge

and on and on and on crowd. He got slapped back to yesterday by the 9th, as predicted

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[luvthe9]

Have you read the USAPA C and Rs? All of the west attrition is preserved for west pilots along with preserved ratios if flying is reduced out west along with first right of return if that flying is reinstated

Where is the west pursuit of inequity if that is not enough?

And where is the "harm" of a west pilot being allowed to bid east, say PHL and have to take a 330 bid with his/her DOH that matches with an east pilot? Why should that West pilot be allowed to bid a 330 left seat with super seniority, when they were not even on the west property in the first place? There is going to be unbelievable difficult for the west to claim this is harm. How can the west even use the Nic going forward as a measuring point with regard to harm? It was never used, allowed to be abandoned by the 9th. Any West argument using past economic difficulty or the Nic is not applicable anymore. We have moved to a new point in time.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Have you read the USAPA C and Rs?

In USAPA's original DOH proposal - yes. There's big enough "interpretation" holes in them to fly an A380 through and who will do the interpreting - USAPA (i.e. east pilots). A seniority number is like water - it seeks the level it can hold. As I mentioned earlier, those C&R's would at best slow down the backward movement of the west pilots (barring extraordinary growth) but not stop it until the west pilots either reached the jobs their new DOH seniority could hold or they retired. Meanwhile, the east pilots would be moving up taking the jobs the west pilots had been able to hold. The balance of equities - USAPA ignores it at it's own risk.

If there's been a recent proposal with better C&R's, I haven't seen any mention of it.

 

[cactusboy53]

Just because we don't buy into some collectivist idea that a guy with 17 years gets slotted right down there with a new hire, and that doesn't sit well with a UAL pilot bothers me none.

So, did #4770 have 17 years of service or is that actual time since hired? If not uninterupted service, then how many years did said pilot actually serve at the former US Air? At the time of the merger, was #4770 going to be recalled in the immediate future? I was looking for the information, but I am guessing #4770 has perhaps 7-8 years of actual service.

I suppose you could have made an argument during the arbitration that length of service should be used in the equation, BUT that should have been during the merger talks, mediation and arbitration.

Luv, you may have noticed that I have been posting here less and less. It's simply because we (AWA pilots) have tried to logically argue and defend our position. It's my fault for using logic. We are in the process of letting the courts decide (ultimately). As such, the AWA pilot group has been left with no alternative but to defend our position. Collectively we (both groups) have spent over 6 million dollars in arbitration, mediation & litigation. Further, "we" have lost countless opportunities on contract improvements and time off (MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS). LCC & legal counsel are the true winners with respect to the money.

Lurkers: Your airline peers are getting MUCH better wages RIGHT NOW. We are in a court battle to the very end. The only way to change this immediately is to take control of the union, get involved, change the bylaws as necessary and move together toward a new contract. The alternative is the purgatory that we are stuck in. Ultimately the courts will decide in this situation. The AWA pilots may lose. The AWA pilots may win. Your choice: get involved & participate OR keep your head in the sand.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It [the Nic] was never used, allowed to be abandoned by the 9th.

Do you spend your idle time making this stuff up. Show us all there the 9th said they "abandoned" the Nic.

What they did say was "USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award." I don't see "abandoned" anywhere in there. What I do see is "disadvantages Plaintiffs fear" - that would be DOH. Putting limited C&R's in to lock the west pilots into PHX then taunting them about how PHX faces closure certainly doesn't do anything to "not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear."

Jim

 

[luvthe9]

Do you spend your idle time making this stuff up. Show us all there the 9th said they "abandoned" the Nic.

What they did say was "USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award." I don't see "abandoned" anywhere in there. What I do see is "disadvantages Plaintiffs fear" - that would be DOH. Putting limited C&R's in to lock the west pilots into PHX then taunting them about how PHX faces closure certainly doesn't do anything to "not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear."

Jim

The gist of the 9th is tha USAPA is not beholden to the Nic. USAPA can actually propose any integration of its' choosing. Not that it would be advisable, but it is entirely allowed. It just has to be careful as to not create a situation that could be proven harmful to the west. That is the only requirement. So the non use of the Nic is absolutely sanctioned by the 9th. The true test is after the agreement is approved, and the west has the burden to prove it has been disadvantaged or harmed. The notion that the Nic has to be carried forward is entirely false.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So the non use of the Nic is absolutely sanctioned by the 9th. The true test is after the agreement is approved, and the west has the burden to prove it has been disadvantaged or harmed. The notion that the Nic has to be carried forward is entirely false.

Right...that's why the 9th didn't consider the "thorny" issue of whether the Nic was binding on USAPA or not...

Propose any integration of it's choosing? That's what the "does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear" is all about. Less than Nic and USAPA just worked "the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear."

You are free to read into the ruling whatever fantasy you want, but what the 9th actually said is all that matters. The 9th didn't say USAPA was free to use whatever integration method it choose, they just recognized the possibility that there could be an integration method other than the Nic that wouldn't "work the disadvantages the Plaintiffs fear".

If USAPA and you see the 9th ruling as a green light for USAPA to integrate the lists any way it wants, USAPA and you are in for more disappointment.

Jim

 

[luvthe9]

The 9th absolutely upheld the notion of this being an internal union affair, and no harm is done in this process of arriving at a method of integration. Of course they did not green light any harm to the west. This is obvious. You are missing the point that USAPA internally, can come up with any process of their choosing. It has to pass the test at the end. They made it entirely clear that there are immeasurable methodologies that can be used. All up to USAPA. USAPA, responsible to make it fair and not harmful.

 

[767jetz]

Who said anything about relative position? You don't even work here, but we are expected to merge with your ideas.

My ideas? No. The West's ideas, yes. The agreement to abide by binding arbitration, yes. The ideas of the arbitrator and the neutrals you helped to select, yes.

 

[767jetz]

Just because we don't buy into some collectivist idea that a guy with 17 years gets slotted right down there with a new hire, and that doesn't sit well with a UAL pilot bothers me none.

Even though that 17 year guy on the east had the same position as a new guy on the west? What makes the junior east position of reserve f/o one number from furlough, any more valuable than the the junior west reserve f/o position one number from furlough? What makes a furloughed east pilot with NO position, more valuable than any west f/o with a job, let alone a captain? According to you it's his DOH. Most people don't see it that way.

 

[cleardirect]

The 9th absolutely upheld the notion of this being an internal union affair, and no harm is done in this process of arriving at a method of integration. Of course they did not green light any harm to the west. This is obvious. You are missing the point that USAPA internally, can come up with any process of their choosing. It has to pass the test at the end. They made it entirely clear that there are immeasurable methodologies that can be used. All up to USAPA. USAPA, responsible to make it fair and not harmful.

Listen to the oral arguments again. Judge Graber asked if a union was free to place all of the women junior to all of the men on a seniority list. What do you think her answer would be if that was ratified? DFR or internal union dispute?

Sure usapa can try any list they want. But it will not be the east deciding if it harms the west when usapa finally if ever does their job and gets a contract.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I never said the courts would take away your right to vote.

What I am saying is usapa has a DFR toward me in all contracts entered into on my behalf, not just the CBA. The TA is just such a contract, and usapa owes me a DFR in the administering of that contract.

The TA is NOT A CONTRACT...it is a means by which the company will agree to "open" and agree to "merge" if you will, two separate CBA's into ONE. PERIOD. It is a possible means to an end....an end that as of now has not come to an end because of a lawsuit. Having said that, USAPA's, ALPA's, IAM's, etc....ONLY DUTY is to represent ALL persons in the craft or class, all those that are NOT members in good standing the same as if they WERE members in good standing under the CBA. The ONLY "contract" you OR I have IS the CBA. There is NO other "contracts". They owe ALL of us a duty to bargain for a CBA that a majority WILL RATIFY. Period. If they DO ratify a CBA, then it is THEIR DUTY to administer it on behalf of ALL the pilots affected by the CBA.

Further, I am saying that if you vote in favor of and pass a CBA that is "discriminatory", (in our case this boils down to does not cantain the Nic), who or how many voted what simply does not matter.

If YOU remember, the DISCRIMINATORY prong of YOUR lawsuit was discarded, so discrimination was NOT part of the Plaintiff's arguments, even though Wake allowed that word into the jury instructions. "Bad faith" was THEE only argument your anti-labor union lawyers made. But that point is now MOOT!

The majority does not get to favor itself at the expense of the minority simply because you have a vote, no matter how large that majority.

But if and UNTIL you vote, you still get...NOTHING FROM NOTHING! At that, sir, is the real REASON the 9th rules the way they did....to prevent us from the purgatory hell of the M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y!!!! That, sir, is a FACT!! You can twist their words any way you want but the result is still the same.

 

[Piedmont1984]

At the risk of repeating myself, I think USAPA has an opportunity to get a ratifiable contract which is DFR proof. It may need a membership vote in order to amend the C&BLs - but this is not an insurmountable obstacle. I see it as a win/win situation.

The proposed Section 22 language can be modified to place more emphasis on LOS. LOS would not harm the east. Conditions and restrictions can be tweaked in order to provide better protections to the west. This would produce a tentative agreement which will be acceptable to LCC and would be ratified by a majority of MIGS both in the west and the east.

I see this as the fastest way to an industry standard contract and an end to the money both sides have spent fighting each other. A little generosity is not weakness.

 

[cleardirect]

If YOU remember, the DISCRIMINATORY prong of YOUR lawsuit was discarded, so discrimination was NOT part of the Plaintiff's arguments, even though Wake allowed that word into the jury instructions. "Bad faith" was THEE only argument your anti-labor union lawyers made. But that point is now MOOT!

As you point out that point is moot. That was the last trial. The next DFr trial will have discrimination because usapa (the east) want all of the seniority and 90% of the economics. We will have the discrimination prong.

But if and UNTIL you vote, you still get...NOTHING FROM NOTHING! At that, sir, is the real REASON the 9th rules the way they did....to prevent us from the purgatory hell of the M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y!!!! That, sir, is a FACT!! You can twist their words any way you want but the result is still the same.

The purgatory of the minority. Wow now isn't that quite a statement. I'm sure the civil rights movement thanks you for your support. If only those pesky minority would shut up and accept what the majority tells them everything would be alright. you might want to check out what the ninth had to say.

“[A] union breaches the duty of fair representation when its
conduct toward a member of the bargaining unit is arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Marquez v. Screen Actors
Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33, 44 (1998). “The duty . . . is the quid
pro quo for the union’s right to exclusive representation; it
protects employees in the minority from arbitrary discrimination
by the majority union.” Laborers & Hod Carriers, Local
No. 341 v. N.L.R.B., 564 F.2d 834, 839-40 (9th Cir. 1977).

a union has a duty to PROTECT the minority not overrun it with the majority.

 

[luvthe9]

Even though that 17 year guy on the east had the same position as a new guy on the west? What makes the junior east position of reserve f/o one number from furlough, any more valuable than the the junior west reserve f/o position one number from furlough? What makes a furloughed east pilot with NO position, more valuable than any west f/o with a job, let alone a captain? According to you it's his DOH. Most people don't see it that way.

Most East USAIRWAYS pilots have a different opinion concerning this, not one from UAL. Interesting how you seem so qualified telling us what to do. We have the opinion that a guy with 17 yrs in has a better position than a new hire. We don't so casually throw his career away like you do. OK? I guess that is what you have planned with your furloughed? Imagine this. A guy like Joe Monda working without interruption for a period say 1990 to 2007. And you equate that with a new hire, just flushing 17 yrs. down the toilet. Guess what, you are unbelievably cavalier with your assumptions, and we reject them totally.Must be a joy flying with you. I can only imagine,