US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/29- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Black Swan]

Swan,

You are missing a very important point.

The company does not have to accept usapa's list at the bargaining table. No more than they would have to accept a usapa demand for $400/hour narrowbody pay rate. They can say, "no, this is a deal breaker for us." They have very legitimate reasons for denying a usapa DOH list. The only recourse usapa would have is to ask the mediator to rule an impass and seek self help.

That is the hole in Seham's plan. It is not just up to the union to dictate seniority. Our seniority was integrated via a mutually agreed upon, contractually mandated method. usapa can try and break those contracts and defend itself against a ripe DFR suit, but they cannot force the company to break its contracts.

I am going to say I think you are incorrect, but am not 100% sure about the list. I take the position you are confusing a collective bargaining point versus a representation point of internal union affairs. I believe it is our right to submit our list, but the money issue is a collective bargaining point to be made during contract negotiations. I will get back to you as I am not going to say I am 100% sure. I believe they would have very good reason to reject a $400/hr rate as being unreasonable under the CB process, but would have a difficult time with the seniority list as DOH being unreasonable in light of past practice. But I cannot say with certainty. I will try and get an answer from someone who would know. In the meantime, have a good day.

 

[nic4us]

Clear, there are rules Parker has to follow, if he doesn't he will then be in violation of collective bargaining agreement, administered/enforced by the Nat'l Mediation Board. He cannot demand anything, nor negotiate with any other agent other than USAPA. There are no negotiations period between the company and the bargaining agent regarding anything concerning the list that is handed to them.

swan,

You are 100% correct.

The company has to negotiate with usapa, as they are the agent.

Remember, "seniority is negotiable, just like a crew meal."

Hand whatever list you want, then get ready for the negotiating to begin.

 

[nic4us]

there is no Federal law mandating how unions integrate.

This should have been worked out by ALPA decades ago.

Swan,

I am not trying to turn this into pick on Swan day, but there is a federal law mandating how unions will integrate seniority in airline mergers. It is called the McCaskill-Bond amendment. It guratees the right, one way or another, to a process using arbitration if necessary.

Also, ALPA did work this out decades ago, has a policy that conforms to the new law, and was used in our integration.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Black Swan

I agree with what you say, but I would add this. If we submit the same DOH list with the same C&R's, then somethig adverse will happen long before another DFR lawsuit from the west. - and that will be a loss of west support in the event of a vote regarding a job action as well as the job action itself. I envision, using rough numbers, USAPA supporters minus the west, minus ALPA supporters equals about a 55 to 60% vote in favor of any job action. Obviously we will not have the same success as Spirit.

And this translates into less leverage and therefore a T/A which is significantly less attractive then it would be if the west was in support.

OTOH, if we tweak the DOH list slightly more in favor of LOS, tweak the C&R's slightly - then we accomplish two things. We make the T/A DFR proof and we get the west behind us in the event we need to exert pressure in our quest for an industry standard contract.

I know moving off DOH is a touchy subject for many of our furloughees and ex furloughees. Perhaps a weighted ratio would work in which furlough time counts, but slightly less than actual time in service. Maybe this can be added into the C&R's so we need not alter the C&BL's. Maybe we should poll our furloughees about this. Would they give up some furlough time for a better contract?

I'm just thinking out loud here.

 

[traderjake]

Hi PI, the deal here is this- there is no Federal law mandating how unions integrate. This is what all the discussion about INTERNAL UNION AFFAIRS is about. You saw it with the 9th. As long as nobody's civil rights are violated, unions are free to negotiate and determine their own agreements. The Federal Gov't and Courts really are prohibited and do not want to get involved in this.

“a union may not juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than
to advance one group of employees over another,”

Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524 (7th Cir. 1992)

Keep spreading the lie that USAPA can negotiate any kind of list they want.

 

[N924PS]

I am going to say I think you are incorrect, but am not 100% sure about the list. I take the position you are confusing a collective bargaining point versus a representation point of internal union affairs. I believe it is our right to submit our list, but the money issue is a collective bargaining point to be made during contract negotiations. I will get back to you as I am not going to say I am 100% sure. I believe they would have very good reason to reject a $400/hr rate as being unreasonable under the CB process, but would have a difficult time with the seniority list as DOH being unreasonable in light of past practice. But I cannot say with certainty. I will try and get an answer from someone who would know. In the meantime, have a good day.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the insanity started, the USAPA talking heads have said seniority is like crew meals-fully negotiable. A collective bargaining point or not?

Or whichever one suits the argument de jour?

 

[nic4us]

I take the position you are confusing a collective bargaining point versus a representation point of internal union affairs.

I am only confused because it has been Seham's contention from the start, that seniority is like "a crew meal."

 

[luvthe9]

I'm writing this for the "Swan" , He had to go on a trip and gave some iformation that might not be accurate. The company can negotiate any list presented to them. If the company demands concessions to modify the submitted list this could delay a contract for a long time. The "Swan" apologizes for the misinformation.

 

[Captain Underpants]

The company does not have to accept usapa's list at the bargaining table. No more than they would have to accept a usapa demand for $400/hour narrowbody pay rate. They can say, "no, this is a deal breaker for us." They have very legitimate reasons for denying a usapa DOH list. The only recourse usapa would have is to ask the mediator to rule an impass and seek self help.

The company is required by Federal law to bargain in "good faith" with USAPA. Since the 9th circuit has ruled in a published opinion that "any contract containing the Nicolau award would undoubtably be voted down" the company could not insist on a Nicolau contract knowing that it could never pass a vote. The company can't now legally use Nic as leverage to prevent a contract. The proposed seniority list has to be something different than Nic to be voted in and DOH with reasonable and fair C&R's would certainly be ratifiable.

Any seniority list is zero sum and zero cost to the company so long as it does not trigger extra training costs, displacements etc. Pilot cost to the company would be the same with either Nic or DOH. Should the company try to use Nic as leverage to prevent or delay a contract knowing it is not ratifiable as ruled by the 9th circuit then USAPA could easily sue the company in Federal court for negotiating in "bad faith".

underpants

 

[luvn737s]

Or the pilots could replace USAPA with a union that could form itself with C&BL's crafted with bipartisan input without the documented history of disenfranchising one side. At this point, this would be the quickest, least expensive way to a joint contract with improvements for both sides.

USAPA will never support all US pilots.

 

[nic4us]

The company is required by Federal law to bargain in "good faith" with USAPA. Since the 9th circuit has ruled in a published opinion that "any contract containing the Nicolau award would undoubtably be voted down" the company could not insist on a Nicolau contract knowing that it could never pass a vote. The company can't now legally use Nic as leverage to prevent a contract. The proposed seniority list has to be something different than Nic to be voted in and DOH with reasonable and fair C&R's would certainly be ratifiable.

Any seniority list is zero sum and zero cost to the company so long as it does not trigger extra training costs, displacements etc. Pilot cost to the company would be the same with either Nic or DOH. Should the company try to use Nic as leverage to prevent or delay a contract knowing it is not ratifiable as ruled by the 9th circuit then USAPA could easily sue the company in Federal court for negotiating in "bad faith".

underpants

The 9th did not rule on future hypotheticals. The 9th ruled the case was not ripe, no further jurisdiction regarding merit. But you are correct that they opined on the difficulty that could be encountered to pass a contract including the Nic. They also commented on usapa's dilema if they propose an "unquestionably ripe" solution to that dilema.

Any seniority list other than the Nic is not zero sum for the company. For sure, the usapa DOH proposal, will at minimum force the company to defend itself against litigation, with the very plausible expectation that a loss in that litigation would trigger very sizable damages.

Also, usapa would have to get past the mediator first, to sue and win a "bad faith" arguement.

 

[Pi brat]

The 9th did not rule on future hypotheticals. The 9th ruled the case was not ripe, no further jurisdiction regarding merit. But you are correct that they opined on the difficulty that could be encountered to pass a contract including the Nic. They also commented on usapa's dilema if they propose an "unquestionably ripe" solution to that dilema.

Any seniority list other than the Nic is not zero sum for the company. For sure, the usapa DOH proposal, will at minimum force the company to defend itself against litigation, with the very plausible expectation that a loss in that litigation would trigger very sizable damages.

Also, usapa would have to get past the mediator first, to sue and win a "bad faith" arguement.

The Nic is not zero sum for the company. It would cost much more for the company to get a contract, that would pass, with the Nic than with DOH, and that might be the answer to what would drive Doug.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Or the pilots could replace USAPA with a union that could form itself with C&BL's crafted with bipartisan input without the documented history of disenfranchising one side. At this point, this would be the quickest, least expensive way to a joint contract with improvements for both sides.

USAPA will never support all US pilots.

USAPA does not need to support all pilots, just the majority - while not discriminating purposely against the minority. If USAPA can get a T/A out for a vote which garners a majority of yes votes from the east - as well as the west - separately, then they have a much better chance of fighting off any future legal challenges.

And if the west rank and file views USAPA's bargaining position as reasonable and worthy of support, then so much the better in the event of a cooling off period scenario.

The NIC dead enders will never be satisfied. But if the majority of west MIGS view a USAPA crafted T/A as acceptable, then I believe that would be game, set and match - with both sides winning in the long run.

 

[RSVP767]

The 9th did not rule on future hypotheticals. The 9th ruled the case was not ripe, no further jurisdiction regarding merit. But you are correct that they opined on the difficulty that could be encountered to pass a contract including the Nic. They also commented on usapa's dilema if they propose an "unquestionably ripe" solution to that dilema.

Any seniority list other than the Nic is not zero sum for the company. For sure, the usapa DOH proposal, will at minimum force the company to defend itself against litigation, with the very plausible expectation that a loss in that litigation would trigger very sizable damages.

Also, usapa would have to get past the mediator first, to sue and win a "bad faith" arguement.

Nic4,

Your posts continually infer that an "unquestionably ripe" lawsuit equates to guilt. You love to tie the two together. However, you need to stop equating "unquestionably ripe" with "unquestionably guilty" or you may find youeself "unquestionably disappointed".

Yes, once a contract is ratified you may have a lawsuit that is ripe. No guarantee you will prevail or even be heard.

Ripeness does not guarantee guilt! Good luck!

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Nic4,

Your posts continually infer that an "unquestionably ripe" lawsuit equates to guilt. You love to tie the two together. However, you need to stop equating "unquestionably ripe" with "unquestionably guilty" or you may find youeself "unquestionably disappointed".

Yes, once a contract is ratified you may have a lawsuit that is ripe. No guarantee you will prevail or even be heard.

Ripeness does not guarantee guilt! Good luck!

For those who claim USAPA as spinning, they sure seem to master it pretty well. I guess its the only way to milk money out of the rubes to pay off legal bills.