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

[Piedmont1984]

Problem is that there's no one with the authority to represent the west in an "attempt to meet in the middle." I assume that USAPA made sure that that was the case to eliminate the west's "veto" power on a combined contract, leaving USAPA free (they thought) to propose a DOH list with the east pilots being the majority needed to ratify it. Unfortunately it seems that USAPA (at least Cleary) and most of the east posters here still think USAPA is free to do whatever it wants, so I see nothing other than another DFR siuit on the horizon (if USAPA gets the company to go along with DOH and it does in fact get ratified).

Jim

Actually, USAPA does not need to negotiate with a west authority. They simply need to craft a T/A which includes Section 22 language which will have the support of the majority of west MIGS.

The proof of fairness will be in the pudding. And if a majority of west - and east - MIGS ratify a contract, rather than an east majority only, then I think the chances of another expensive, time consuming DFR will be remote.

 

[767jetz]

There is NO way the Nic is going forward with the USAPA proposal. balh blah blah...

Actually I proposed the question to nic4us. But thanks for taking a stab at it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You are correct, there is no one entity that has the authority to negotiate for the west, but that didn't stop them from coming up with a group to sue. There is always a way to talk if the groups are interested. Plus, they showed no interest in negotiating before USAPA was voted in, just as the east showed no interest before the Nic came out. It seems to me that our pilots group has become just like our country-it's my way or the highway. There is no room for middle ground and if you try to find it you are weak or spineless. When one side wins the other whines and gripes and does everything it can to undermine the wining side.

I agree with all that. USAPA could, in theory, put a temporary west PBR in place composed of west pilots and ceasing to exist when a combined contract was ratified. Then if the majority of both sides wanted a negotiated settlement there would be a way to achieve it. But as you basically said, the two sides seem only interested in their preferred solution to seniority. As long as that doesn't change, nothing else will until one side can finally claim victory - possibly more than a few years from now.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

The proof of fairness will be in the pudding.

Not quite. If what's been posted here is reasonably accurate, approximately 500 west MIGS would constitute a majority. If the top 250 (they'd be retired before the lawsuits ended anyway) and bottom 250 (they're going to be junior anyway) voted for a contract, the 700 or so west non-MIGS could file another DFR suit. Plus you've got SCOTUS rulings to contend with - just because a majority agrees with something doesn't let the bargaining representative off the DFR hook. The same three tests for compliance with the DFR would still have to be met.

Jim

 

[Piedmont1984]

I believe the west now has approximately 1000 MIGS, which constitutes a majority of all west pilots. If the majority of west MIGS vote in favor of a T/A, then that represents a fundamental shift.

Any small minority group who feels they have been hurt can file a DFR. I am more concerned with the prospect of success in the event a DFR is filed again.

 

[nic4us]

What if (and I know this is a big "what if"), but what if USAPA changes it's C&BL, and then includes Nic in section 22, but adds some adjustments for LOS, and true attrition, (the one that comes from their retiring captains and maybe 330 f/o's) and then some small short fences to ease the transition?

I realize changing the C&BL would probably require recalling the MEC or maybe even a new representative election. But I'll bet there are moderate voices on the east that would like to change the stalemate and save everyone time and money and get on with life. I know the west doesn't have to change a thing, and probably IMO has a good legal argument to win in the end after more wasted years and money. I'm just wondering if the west is now so entrenched in their position due to events that have taken place, that even a slight modification, seen as a type of plea bargain to end the stalemate, is even possible.

Actually, if usapa were smart (I am not holding my breath) they would leave their C&BLs alone, put out a contract with the Nic in section 22, then tinker with section 24, filling of vacancies, perhaps with LOS as you suggest.

The biggest issue the West has is we simply do not trust these people. They get their illegal DOH pipedream, the next thing on the majorities agenda, do away with conditions and restrictions.

So, I would say the answere to your question is, there is a middle ground that could be reached that does not have"the damages plaintiffs fear", but that middle ground will absolutely include the Nic.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Premature Adjudication. A classic statement, and how true. The Desert Judge Wake, and Desert Judge 2 Bybee. Both union haters. Don't put your stock in them. Their judicial objectivity is clouded by their hatred for labor. Proven to step on the rights of citizens in their quest to squash labor.

IMO the judicial political bias fell squarely on Tashima & Graber - liberal democrat appointees. Wake and Bybee were interested in the rule of law and found that USAPA's self-declared intentions were to ignore binding arbitration and to use the will of the majority to disadvantage the west pilots. Wake's ruling and Bybee's opinion were both cogent and demonstrated interest and knowledge in the unbiased facts of the case. I believe they also determined that an endless stalemate was intended to advantage the majority and in turn was also a failure of the union’s DRF to negotiate in good faith for a new CBA.

Tashima & Graber weren’t interested in the rule of law and I presume they decided to rule in favor of the (or any) labor union before they ever knew who/what USAPA or the Addington plaintiffs were. Premature judicial ruling before December 8th if you ask me. A corrupt and biased court is no greater than the sum of its politically motivated and liberal appointment parts. I'm just disappointed that I didn't perceive their 100% pro-union prejudice long before the ruling came out. Justice was in no way served by these two biased sell outs.

 

[767jetz]

The biggest issue the West has is we simply do not trust these people.

That part I definitely get.

 

[nic4us]

Nic4, where do you dream this stuff up?

Why aren't you getting it? The Ninth got it. They recognized the impasse. They gave both sides a "wide range of reasonableness" pathway to resolution, which may not include the NIC.

DFR away, until you run out of money, again. Just keep in mind what the Ninth said about the NIC,

"Additionally, USAPA's final proposal may yet be one that does not work the
disadvantages Plaintiffs fear,"

I dream it up in my own little protected world where a mans word is his bond, and if he puts it in writing he gets sued for breach. Where do you dream up your rationalizations that allow you to renege on your word?

I am getting it. I understand every misconstrued arguement usapa has put forth since it launched the USS WHINNER.

The impasse the 9th recognizes is of your making. The pathway to resolution the 9th suggest(because they first affirm they have no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case they found not ripe), still requires usapa to act in a manner consistent with its duty of fair representation. usapa's DOH with C&Rs has already been found liable for a breach of that DFR once. Shall we pass it in a contract and get a second verdict?

I love how your only real hope of winning this thing relies on our running out of money. I will keep in mind what the 9th said about the Nic, and if a usapa proposal works "the damages plaintiffs fear" I will make certain we do not run out of money.

 

[luvthe9]

That part I definitely get.

We knew you would see it that way. Feeling is mutually shared.

 

[nic4us]

Justice was in no way served by these two biased sell outs.

As I recall, Seham filed a motion to dismiss with the 9th before the trial started. His reason, ripeness. The appellate denied the motion and let the trial proceed.

The only fundemental difference between before the trial and after is the verdict.

The 9th has done us all a great disservice, and your observations are pretty accurate.

 

[luvthe9]

As I recall, Seham filed a motion to dismiss with the 9th before the trial started. His reason, ripeness. The appellate denied the motion and let the trial proceed.

The only fundemental difference between before the trial and after is the verdict.

The 9th has done us all a great disservice, and your observations are pretty accurate.

The 9th has done all of us a GREAT service. Wake took your group as far as he could. When his work had to stand in the daylight of judicial scrutiny, it withered in the desert heat.

 

[Phoenix]

luv,

For someone who seems so convinced you're right you sure do spend a lot of time trying to convince people you're right. Why not just sit back and be vindicated in the end? Doubts, maybe? ....

So then you don't mind that some of us doubt that you are happily retired and enjoying your new life?

 

[nic4us]

The 9th has done all of us a GREAT service. Wake took your group as far as he could. When his work had to stand in the daylight of judicial scrutiny, it withered in the desert heat.

If you call flip flopping on the ripeness issue, then doing nothing more than kicking the usapa is guilty of DFR can down the when "unquestionably ripe" road in a non-unanimous decision, then simply reiterating a bunch of RLA case law of which we are all already aware and of which usapa has violated, a GREAT service. Well, lets just say it is going to cost us all another few million in Great service. The little lawyer is very pleased I am sure.

Have not heard from hp-fa in a while, but I have a question for anyone that knows.

How are judges assigned their case load?

 

[Phoenix]

... All cleared by the 9th. Internal union affairs. . ..

Exactly. Previously it was the case that ALPA set up a seniority integration scheme to absolve them from actually having responsibility of merging their members (except their scheme didn't eliminate the NMB). But now USAPA will actually have to figure out the integration of their members all by themselves (unable to pin blame on some outsourced arbitrator), and will be unquestionably responsible for their actions, once the result is finished.

.... There is no requirement for the Nic no matter what they say or imply. ..

Yes, the 9th was abundantly clear on that. It never happened within USAPA's internal union process. USAPA will only be responsible for the outcome of their internal process (something the mighty ALPA couldn't even stomach.)