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

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

ALL of that is ALPA's fault. If they had a REAL merger policy, not passing off their "dirty laundry" to an outside arbtrator, we would have had a contract a LONG time ago.

The wage thing, you can just blame THAT on ALPA too. Not only that, but it started the "race to the bottom" for all the other airlines, too.

Talk about laughable and pathetic, the west guys voted ALPA onto their property AFTER they watched all of this happen here and at other airlines. Bunch of rubes!

Good point what is really funny when they point out LOA93, ALPA, ALPA, ALPA, no more blame their GONE! MM! The laughable part is us dumping USAPA if we lost the 9th(looked way ahead at that one) talk about OFF THE MARK, they need a new intel office! 2mil later.

 

[BoeingBoy]

He [Parker-Jim] goes on to say that the company will have to accept a list that meets the companies preconcieved criteria - I know all of you already know what criteria we are all talking about.

USAPA presented it's list to the company about a year ago - why hasn't Parker accepted it if he really has to? He certainly had plenty of opportunity before the injunction was issued. If the company lawyers have told him he "has to" accept it as long as it meets the criteria, he's protected from being tangled up in the legal battle.

Here's my thoughts on ALPA's DFR situation: If they had established a soild, fair merger policy, something like DOH or LOS with some minor modifications depending on the situation, they wouldn't be in the situation they're in right now. It's all the fault of the "me, me,me" crowd.

The 7th Court of Appeals, is the closest case to the current situation that I've found, said this about ALPA merger policy:

"The system that ALPA has created for determining seniority in a merged work force is not biased in favor of one group of workers or prejudiced against another. It was as likely to yield an award in favor of Air Wisconsin's pilots as in favor of Mississippi Valley's. It is fair, and nothing more is required to comply with the duty of fair representation, since "so long as the union does not intentionally harm a member or class of members, it will be deemed to have represented its members fairly." Olsen v. United Parcel Service, 892 F.2d 1290, 1294 (7th Cir.1990). That the system ALPA has created places a good deal of power in the hand of arbitrators is not a sign of "unfairness" in the limited sense relevant to evaluating claims of breach of the duty of fair representation, especially since the alternative would be to encourage continuing and acrimonious disputes among workers by opening seniority to continual revision. It is not in the interest of organized labor to incite workers to fight among themselves over job rights. Nor is it in the workers' own interest, behind the veil of ignorance, that is, before they know whether they have been the winner or loser of the arbitration. Here as elsewhere finality serves important social purposes and we certainly cannot pronounce ALPA unfair for giving the arbitrators' determination of seniority as much finality as it has done."

The DFR suit was filed by a group of pilots from the side that thought that the arbitrator's decision was unfair, after first attempting but failing to de-certify ALPA. The District Court ruled against them so they appealed to the 7th, which upheld the District Court's ruling.

As I have said before, ALPA's merger policy has been tested in court and found not only reasonable but written the way it is for valid reasons.. Those who say ALPA should have "a solid, fair merger policy" really only want a policy that specifies the outcome they they desire - a policy that specifies that all mergers will use relative position species an outcome but is dismissed as unfair. In their "it's all about me" narrow-minded view, anything that doesn't give them what they want is deemed "unfair". Unfortunately for them, they're swimming upstream against the strong current of legal precedence.

Jim

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

USAPA presented it's list to the company about a year ago - why hasn't Parker accepted it if he really has to?



The 7th Court of Appeals, is the closest case to the current situation that I've found, said this about ALPA merger policy:

"The system that ALPA has created for determining seniority in a merged work force is not biased in favor of one group of workers or prejudiced against another. It was as likely to yield an award in favor of Air Wisconsin's pilots as in favor of Mississippi Valley's. It is fair, and nothing more is required to comply with the duty of fair representation, since "so long as the union does not intentionally harm a member or class of members, it will be deemed to have represented its members fairly." Olsen v. United Parcel Service, 892 F.2d 1290, 1294 (7th Cir.1990). That the system ALPA has created places a good deal of power in the hand of arbitrators is not a sign of "unfairness" in the limited sense relevant to evaluating claims of breach of the duty of fair representation, especially since the alternative would be to encourage continuing and acrimonious disputes among workers by opening seniority to continual revision. It is not in the interest of organized labor to incite workers to fight among themselves over job rights. Nor is it in the workers' own interest, behind the veil of ignorance, that is, before they know whether they have been the winner or loser of the arbitration. Here as elsewhere finality serves important social purposes and we certainly cannot pronounce ALPA unfair for giving the arbitrators' determination of seniority as much finality as it has done."

The DFR suit was filed by a group of pilots from the side that thought that the arbitrator's decision was unfair, after first attempting but failing to de-certify ALPA. The District Court ruled against them so they appealed to the 7th, which upheld the District Court's ruling.

As I have said before, ALPA's merger policy has been tested in court and found not only reasonable but written the way it is for valid reasons.. Those who say ALPA should have "a solid, fair merger policy" really only want a policy that specifies the outcome they they desire - a policy that specifies that all mergers will use relative position species an outcome but is dismissed as unfair. In their "it's all about me" narrow-minded view, anything that doesn't give them what they want is deemed "unfair". Unfortunately for them, they're swimming upstream against the strong current of legal precedence.

Jim

IS it true your nephew is an AWA pilot, when I flew with you X years ago , well it all makes sense now! MM! RATIONAL AS RATIONAL DOES! AND yor affiliation was what before what non accepting of your NON ALPA NAT'"L SENIORITY POLICY! HEY BITTER IS AS BITTER DOES!

 

[BoeingBoy]

IS it true your nephew is an AWA pilot MM!

Maybe one day you'll learn not to believe the BS that is passed out as fact - let me correct that since you've learned to attack the individual instead of the issue at the feet of the East posters. Like 99.99% of the rest of the BS this is also false. By all means, though, keeping swinging and missing - it means striking out comes that much quicker.

when I flew with you X years ago

So much for you being a "westie" as you at least strongly implied if not said. Attacking the individual and pretending to be something you're not....

Jim

 

[767jetz]

A lotta big IFs in that statement.

Hey, I'm not trying to debate who saved whom. You were the one who implied that AWA saw value in USAir, but USAir saw no value in AWA. All I said was that it was mutually beneficial. Is that so hard to agree to, are do you just argue for the sake of arguing? 🙄

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Maybe one day you'll learn not to believe the BS that is passed out as fact - let me correct that since you've learned to attack the individual instead of the issue at the feet of the East posters. Like 99.99% of the rest of the BS this is also false. By all means, though, keeping swinging and missing - it means striking out comes that much quicker.

So much for you being a "westie" as you at least strongly implied if not said. Attacking the individual and pretending to be something you're not....

Jim

OH my contrariane friend , lead away so it is true your nephew is an AWA pilot my friend was correct! MM! A PIEDMONT CAPTAIN , who you flew with years ago , as his father before! SKIN in the game hostility towards protected hiring in the 80's makes sense!

 

[oldiebutgoody]

USAPA presented it's list to the company about a year ago - why hasn't Parker accepted it if he really has to? He certainly had plenty of opportunity before the injunction was issued. If the company lawyers have told him he "has to" accept it as long as it meets the criteria, he's protected from being tangled up in the legal battle.



The 7th Court of Appeals, is the closest case to the current situation that I've found, said this about ALPA merger policy:

"The system that ALPA has created for determining seniority in a merged work force is not biased in favor of one group of workers or prejudiced against another. It was as likely to yield an award in favor of Air Wisconsin's pilots as in favor of Mississippi Valley's. It is fair, and nothing more is required to comply with the duty of fair representation, since "so long as the union does not intentionally harm a member or class of members, it will be deemed to have represented its members fairly." Olsen v. United Parcel Service, 892 F.2d 1290, 1294 (7th Cir.1990). That the system ALPA has created places a good deal of power in the hand of arbitrators is not a sign of "unfairness" in the limited sense relevant to evaluating claims of breach of the duty of fair representation, especially since the alternative would be to encourage continuing and acrimonious disputes among workers by opening seniority to continual revision. It is not in the interest of organized labor to incite workers to fight among themselves over job rights. Nor is it in the workers' own interest, behind the veil of ignorance, that is, before they know whether they have been the winner or loser of the arbitration. Here as elsewhere finality serves important social purposes and we certainly cannot pronounce ALPA unfair for giving the arbitrators' determination of seniority as much finality as it has done."

The DFR suit was filed by a group of pilots from the side that thought that the arbitrator's decision was unfair, after first attempting but failing to de-certify ALPA. The District Court ruled against them so they appealed to the 7th, which upheld the District Court's ruling.

As I have said before, ALPA's merger policy has been tested in court and found not only reasonable but written the way it is for valid reasons.. Those who say ALPA should have "a solid, fair merger policy" really only want a policy that specifies the outcome they they desire - a policy that specifies that all mergers will use relative position species an outcome but is dismissed as unfair. In their "it's all about me" narrow-minded view, anything that doesn't give them what they want is deemed "unfair". Unfortunately for them, they're swimming upstream against the strong current of legal precedence.

Jim

That case doesn't apply to this AT ALL. The Air Wiisconsin pilots that filed it were unable to remove ALPA, ALPA then put them into receivership and implemented the contract. NIC was never in a contract, the Ninth agrees that it NEVER would be, and ALPA is NOT the CBA any more.

Appeals Courts usually agree with the lower courts. Not an uncommon result, except when the lower court is clearly in error, like in the Addison case.

The fact that ALPA changes their merger policy for every merger should show everyone just how fair they are.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

That case doesn't apply to this AT ALL. The Air Wiisconsin pilots that filed it were unable to remove ALPA, ALPA then put them into receivership and implemented the contract. NIC was never in a contract, the Ninth agrees that it NEVER would be, and ALPA is NOT the CBA any more.

Appeals Courts usually agree with the lower courts. Not an uncommon result, except when the lower court is clearly in error, like in the Addison case.

The fact that ALPA changes their merger policy for every merger should show everyone just how fair they are.

What amazes me is ALPA was JIM's demise, no NAT'l seniority list another airline hires him rapid advancement and he was fortunate enough to get rehired but is BITTER, man it must be true his nephew is an AWA pilot!

 

[BoeingBoy]

That case doesn't apply to this AT ALL.

No other case that I've found does, yet other cases are cited by the lawyers and judges. Am I to assume that you believe those cited cases don't apply AT ALL too?

Rind one that's closer to the underlying facts in this case where the union(s) are covered by the RLA. As I said, that case is the closest I've found to the underlying facts in the current case, not that it was exactly like the current case.

Let me correct that - I have found one relatively like the current case but with some differences also. It involved racial discrimination when two railroads merged. It was well before Martin Luther King and Civil rights movement but the ruling was that the larger group was attempting to use the union to discriminate against the smaller group. SCOTUS provided the final ruling on that one, saying that the union couldn't use majority ratification nor could the majority use it's control of the union to avoid DFR responsibilities.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

lead away so it is true

"Lead away" is not answering the question. You may have noticed that I answered your question. You can believe whatever you like, pretend to be whoever you want - it matters not to me.

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

No other case that I've found does, yet other cases are cited by the lawyers and judges. Am I to assume that you believe those cited cases don't apply AT ALL too?

Rind one that's closer to the underlying facts in this case where the union(s) are covered by the RLA. As I said, that case is the closest I've found to the underlying facts in the current case, not that it was exactly like the current case.

Let me correct that - I have found one relatively like the current case but with some differences also. It involved racial discrimination when two railroads merged. It was well before Martin Luther King and Civil rights movement but the ruling was that the larger group was attempting to use the union to discriminate against the smaller group. SCOTUS provided the final ruling on that one, saying that the union couldn't use majority ratification nor could the majority use it's control of the union to avoid DFR responsibilities.

Jim

NONE of that is happening here. In the Air Whisky case, the Appeals court did cite the "reasonableness" doctrine for negotiations by the CBA, which is what USAPA will bge doing. USAPA does not have to, and does not recognize either an east or west group, only a pilot group.

The racial case you cite is NOWHERE NEAR applicable, in fact, it's an insult to imply that ANYONE would negotiate in that manner this day-in-age. LOS/DOH principles have been used since the inception of unionism. Nobody is trying to "staple" anyone here. In fact, the C & Rs presented will protect everyone on both sides, as much as possible.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The racial case you cite is NOWHERE NEAR applicable, in fact, it's sort of an insult to imply that ANYONE would negotiate in that manner this day-in-age.

I wasn't implyng that any part of the current situation was racially motivated. That's why I again said that it didn't exactly fit the underlying facts in the current case and made sure to point out that racial motivations were a part of that case. But it did involve the majority believing that they could do whatever they wanted to the minority merely because they had the votes. How many times has that been mentioned over the last two years, or even in the last week? As I've said before, merely having the majority approve of a course of action does not automatically insulate the union against a DFR violation, and neither does what the majority considers fair.

I await with great interest USAPA's new C&R's.

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I wasn't implyng that any part of the current situation was racially motivated. That's why I again said that it didn't exactly fit the underlying facts in the current case and made sure to point out that racial motivations were a part of that case. But it did involve the majority believing that they could do whatever they wanted to the minority merely because they had the votes. How many times has that been mentioned over the last two years, or even in the last week? As I've said before, merely having the majority approve of a course of action does not automatically insulate the union against a DFR violation, and neither does what the majority considers fair.

I await with great interest USAPA's new C&R's.

Jim

A big error in your thinking is that anyone on the east wants to somehow damage or hurt people on the west. Not so. All the east guys want is what they had before the merger, our jobs and east attrition. Nobody wants to "staple" anybody. Windfalls never should have been part of the formula, for either side.

If the case you cite is the one I was recently looking at, it was the racial issues that drove the decision. In fact, it cited the reluctance of the court to take away many of the union's rights which are included in the RLA. The case I was reading was from the 1930s, IIRC.

Let's hope the rumors of recalls on both sides is true.

I await the C&Rs as well.

 

[BoeingBoy]

A big error in your thinking is that anyone on the east wants to somehow damage or hurt people on the west. Not so.

No, I don't think the east is intentionally doing anything just to "hurt" the west, although a few posters have made remarks that suggest that they'd like to. But a few posters aren't "the east".

The East just wants what it thinks is fair, although an arbitrator and the west disagree with you on the fairness part. So you're attempting to force your version of fair on the west. Lost in all the discussion is that anything that starts with DOH will almost certainly hurt the west, even if that isn't the intent. It's no different from the claims that "I don't want your job" made by east posters - while it may be completely true that the poster doesn't want a west pilot's job, even you can recognize that some east reserve A32-/737/E190 f/o would jump on the first opportunity to take a captain job out west. That's why it'll be interesting to see any new C&R's - the last ones were a joke and I predicted it would take 2 years for the majority of west captain slots to be held by east pilots.

Jim

 

[traderjake]

A big error in your thinking is that anyone on the east wants to somehow damage or hurt people on the west. Not so. All the east guys want is what they had before the merger, our jobs and east attrition. Nobody wants to "staple" anybody. Windfalls never should have been part of the formula, for either side.

Not true.

If we have to furlough 1000 pilots with your DOH seniority list all of them would be West pilots.

That is a windfall for the bottom East pilot who was first in line to be furloughed before the merger.