US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/13- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[LSS]

You just dont get it, do you?

And I see you ignored all the facts.

If usapa didnt negotiate the CBA and not a party to it, why is it still in effect?

What you and your ilk continue to completely ignore is the NIC WAS AN INTERNAL UNION BARGAINING POSITION... Any union may alter its bargaining position and strategy, allowing them to modify what was previously proposed based upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the company's position on various other sections of the contract. THE NIC IS BINDING ON NO ONE UNTIL IS IT PART OF A RATIFIED CBA! GET IT YET????

However, it is reasonable to believe, the company would not accept a list that is a definite "windfall" for either side... well... uh...maybe they would...

 

[nycbusdriver]

Love to. Unfortunately it's hard to do at a hotel in LAX.

...and it's free

 

[FL430]

By AWE, you mean all of USAir? Uh, no. I know it was a confusing comparison but it wasn't meant as "literal". I think the point was "could something unethical be rammed through because the majority wants it to be". If there is anything else we can interpret for you, just let us know.

Yea, you can interpret the meaning of the word acceptance ( as in DOH acceptance ). DP says you will become very familiar with it at some point but it wont be anytime soon.


Yes, it was fair, but I don't understand the comparison that you are trying to draw. Unless perhaps it was the idea of:

Running on the concept of "Change" but not really saying what that meant.
Calling any critics "racist" or in the case of USAPA, "ALPA LOVERS".
Running on a platform of "openness" and then hiding the inner workings of what is going on.
Not carrying through on promises made during the campaign and blaming the previous administration.
Basically, becoming everything you railed against.​

Again, maybe you can clarify what you meant.

Simple, that the majority rules - nothing more, nothing less. Do you really think that a contract with NIC will be voted in? Maybe you should have read Clear's posting again that I responded to.

 

[700UW]

What you and your ilk continue to completely ignore is the NIC WAS AN INTERNAL UNION BARGAINING POSITION... Any union may alter its bargaining position and strategy, allowing them to modify what was previously proposed based upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the company's position on various other sections of the contract. THE NIC IS BINDING ON NO ONE UNTIL IS IT PART OF A RATIFIED CBA! GET IT YET????

However, it is reasonable to believe, the company would not accept a list that is a definite "windfall" for either side... well... uh...maybe they would...

I guess you cant read the TA which includes the process of how seniority will be integrated which the company is part of and it is an LOA which is part of your CBA.

 

[nycbusdriver]

You STILL don't get it. It was not binding on ALPA and is not binding on USAPA. It is binding on the pilot groups who entered into the arbitration.

It was binding on the two MECs to accept it. It's a contract like any other. However, like any other contract, if either or both of the two parties cease to exist, so does the contract. On April 18, 2008, the AWA MEC and the AAA MEC disappeared from the face of the earth. IT WAS BINDING ON THOSE TWO PARTIES as representatives of their respective pilot groups. Had ALPA survived on the property, the two MECs would have had to accept the Nic as part of a new CBA (per the TA.)

The entities that were bound by the Nic arbitration are non-existent as separate entities.

 

[luvn737s]

You just dont get it, do you?

And I see you ignored all the facts.

If usapa didnt negotiate the CBA and not a party to it, why is it still in effect?

Good question. Why should USAPA be bound to represent pilots over provisions in their contract when those provisions run counter to USAPA's C&BL's? I'm sorry, but those who worship at the temple of Baptiste and Wilder fail to keep in mind that attorneys argue positions and even they don't declare them to be the definitive "truth". Nic itself has never been on trial, and no jury has produced a verdict on it as such. Tangentially they have included a validation of the Nic as it relates to USAPA's DFR, but it could be to any provision in any contract, side letter or bargaining position.

Had the west gone along with ALPA's arm twisting at Wye River, then they would be giving tacit approval to the idea that binding arbitration isn't really binding. Thankfully they didn't, so USAPA can't point to the west and claim situational ethics.

That's the reason you want to sew up an integration as quickly as possible and let the successor union get on with it's business (or get voted off). Had the east pilots genuinely wanted to rid themselves of ALPA independent of the Niolau award, they should have done so before the seniority integration process began, eliminating all pretense that their motivation was anything other than a desire to capitalize on their overwhelming majority. They didn't and their bad timing put them in the position they are in. Their stubbornness and Cleary's vindictiveness has kept them (and us) there.

So now we are facing the very real need to replace USAPA with a new union and begin the process anew. Would this leave the new union open to a DFR? Perhaps, but the bipartisan nature of such a union from the outset, and their baggage-free ability to craft a ratifyable integration methodology and contract, make it a calculated risk worth taking. USAPA has cultivated a toxic relationship between the pilots and a small number of those who have proven their ability to work together will be the ones to lead this group into a unified future. Make no mistake, the animosity will take a long time to go away, but under USAPA, it is endemic. Under a successor it has a chance.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If usapa didnt negotiate the CBA and not a party to it, why is it still in effect?

Because the RLA specifically addresses the fact that the contract remains in effect.

It does not specifically say that the internal processes of the previous bargaining agent remain in effect.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I guess you cant read the TA which includes the process of how seniority will be integrated which the company is part of and it is an LOA which is part of your CBA.

And USAPA is free to renegotiate with the company the terms of the TA at any time, too. It probably will be at some point before a new contract comes up for a vote. Right now, it's okay for the TA to just sit there waiting for its turn in the spotlight. One thing at a time.

 

[flyinawa]

By AWE, you mean all of USAir? Uh, no. I know it was a confusing comparison but it wasn't meant as "literal". I think the point was "could something unethical be rammed through because the majority wants it to be". If there is anything else we can interpret for you, just let us know.

Yea, you can interpret the meaning of the word acceptance ( as in DOH acceptance ). DP says you will become very familiar with it at some point but it wont be anytime soon.​

I suppose I interpret acceptance when it's used in such a phrase as, "You may not like it but that's just the way it is so you'd better accept it". Let's use it along with the term "Binding arbitration", a concept many refuse to accept while insisting that it's not unreasonable that DOH can be forced on others. I don't know where you came across a reference to DP (I'm assuming you are referring to our CEO) but he hasn't made any remarks about the seniority list lately. He's eagerly anticipating a substandard contract that will passed in an effort to get DOH. Let's be painfully honest, he wouldn't care if we organized the list from tallest to shortest, he just wants to get the lowest paying contract from the pilots that he can attain.


Yes, it was fair, but I don't understand the comparison that you are trying to draw. Unless perhaps it was the idea of:

Running on the concept of "Change" but not really saying what that meant.
Calling any critics "racist" or in the case of USAPA, "ALPA LOVERS".
Running on a platform of "openness" and then hiding the inner workings of what is going on.
Not carrying through on promises made during the campaign and blaming the previous administration.
Basically, becoming everything you railed against.


Again, maybe you can clarify what you meant.

Simple, that the majority rules - nothing more, nothing less. Do you really think that a contract with NIC will be voted in? Maybe you should have read Clear's posting again that I responded to.​

Do I think the East would support a contract if they had the choice? Honestly, no. But I'm still mystified by the fact East pilots have allowed USAPA to convince them that binding arbitration doesn't apply and the East actually has a choice. If you got divorced and, in the course of binding arbitration, lost the house and custody of your kids, do you think getting a new lawyer means you get a do over? It simply doesn't work that way. Changing bargaining agents is much the same.

Another thing. The East has to get over the idea that the Wake trial had ANYTHING to do with the NIC. Wake didn't care how the list came together because his job was not to decide what integration philosophy should be considered. The trial was about DFR. More specifically, was USAPA primarily created as a means to bypass the agreed upon seniority list and, as such, did USAPA unfairly represent the West pilots. The jury agreed with the West pilots. The 9th Circuit disagreed with the timing of the DFR, not the implementation of the NIC. The SCOTUS may or may not agree. If they agree with the 9th, then a repeat DFR lawsuit is inevitable the moment USAPA slides a DOH list across the table.

The East may have had their frustrations with ALPA, but USAPA was created to remove any power from the West. Had USAPA been created with the intention providing a better level of representative service to the entire pilot group, and then once chosen as the bargaining agent, DOH been introduced, it would have been a slam dunk for the East.(*!) However, it wasn't that way and we're where we are today as a result of it. In one hell of a legal mess.

(*!) Clarification: Throwing out the DFR under the principle of "majority rules" would possibly have been achievable. The Nic is the list.

 

[Phoenix]

I guess you cant read the TA which includes the process of how seniority will be integrated which the company is part of and it is an LOA which is part of your CBA.

When the 9th dismissed the injunction obstructing USAPA's free negotiations with the company, they forgot to mention that the TA is the one exception of what may be negotiated. Perhaps you should call them and let them know, or maybe call the company and tell them to effectively, unilaterally persist with the Nic injunction.

 

[700UW]

The company is under no obligation to negotiate a new TA with you, only a unified CBA, did you miss the day in school when the RLA was taught?

How many contracts and negotiating committees have you been on?

 

[Phoenix]

The company is under no obligation to negotiate a new TA with you, only a unified CBA, did you miss the day in school when the RLA was taught?

How many contracts and negotiating committees have you been on?

Call the company to inform them they should maintain the enforcement of Wake's injunction. Ever since the 9th ruled, the company has been tied in fits trying to figure out how they can still side with Wake. They are dying to hear from you. They may have a cash reward for you. Tomorrow morning use your speed dial to call them.

 

[700UW]

Show me where in the RLA that the company has to renegotiate the TA.

I guess I missed that part when I went to school for it and when I was on two different negotiating committees.

Once again the only obligation is to negotiate a unified CBA which is not Section 6 negotiations.

I think you really need to educate yourself on the RLA.

And try to ignore the truth and attack me, real professional.

 

[luvn737s]

It was binding on the two MECs to accept it. It's a contract like any other. However, like any other contract, if either or both of the two parties cease to exist, so does the contract. On April 18, 2008, the AWA MEC and the AAA MEC disappeared from the face of the earth. IT WAS BINDING ON THOSE TWO PARTIES as representatives of their respective pilot groups. Had ALPA survived on the property, the two MECs would have had to accept the Nic as part of a new CBA (per the TA.)

The entities that were bound by the Nic arbitration are non-existent as separate entities.

ALPA and it's agents (the MEC's and LEC's) represent "The Pilots in the Service of..." most of whom are still "in the service of..."

So who went away? Not any of the folks to whom the contracts apply. And since the contracts (and all things associated with such contracts) become inherited obligations of the new agent, USAPA has to stand by them.

The shell game is tougher when the shells aren't so transparent.

 

[Phoenix]

Show me where in the RLA that the company has to renegotiate the TA.

I guess I missed that part when I went to school for it and when I was on two different negotiating committees.

Once again the only obligation is to negotiate a unified CBA which is not Section 6 negotiations.

I think you really need to educate yourself on the RLA.

And try to ignore the truth and attack me, real professional.

When you get past being a victim call the company to tell them to stand by Wake's injunction.