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

[FL430]

I guess you didnt comprehend that is using MM's logic, I know what the RLA is and means, have taken many classes on it."That using your logic"

Did you not see that in the post?

Guess you didnt take enough classes - what, did you negotiate your job away? What are you doing now?

 

[N924PS]

Actually it is a toss up between JS or an Aloransk, either way we know he has at least a Buddy in PHL! MM!

Aloransk hasn't been on the property for many years since retirement. In fact, he flew west for his final flight a few years back.

I know he would be flattered you remember him, since you must be former PSA as well.

JS has lots of buddies in PHL, MM, not just me.

 

[767jetz]

There is a big difference. He actually knows what he is talking about! All backed up by the 9th. You have resurrected the Nicolau so many times, you actually should start a new religion based on it. It just won't die. That is, unless you really read the decision. Then it becomes really clear, and direct.

Oh please. Yes, we all know that anyone that agrees with you "knows what he is talking about" and anyone that doesn't is a shill, outside, or has no skin in the game. Even the judges who don't agree with you are quacks and insane and shouldn't be practicing any kind of law.

No wonder you all find yourselves at the bottom of the industry, where you are destined to stay for a very long time, until you have an epiphany, or ride your union of the hardliners.

 

[767jetz]

These are merely outsider observations-I have NO dog in this fight and see NO clear right or wrong to this dispute, but I just have an observation or two and a question...

Art,

The problem is when they use their majority specifically for the intent of causing harm to the minority, or to get out of legally agreed to contracts. Both of which were found to be the case in the first DFR case. USAPA was founded specifically for the intent of avoiding an arbitrated award that they did not like. Their C&BL's are even structured to prevent any outcome except the one the east wants. That right there is a lack of their DFR. Unfortunately they never saw that the result of the arbitration was a direct consequence of their own actions during the negotiating and mediating phase. To this day they STILL blame everyone but themselves for the outcome.

Now both sides are "all in" and there will be no resolution except through the courts, or if another union is voted in with different a constitution and bylaws that allow the representation of the interest of everyone and both sides agree to move forward together. Until then the west still has their right to legally oppose a majority imposed outcome.

 

[Black Flag]

Art,

The problem is when they use their majority specifically for the intent of causing harm to the minority, or to get out of legally agreed to contracts. Both of which were found to be the case in the first DFR case. USAPA was founded specifically for the intent of avoiding an arbitrated award that they did not like. Their C&BL's are even structured to prevent any outcome except the one the east wants. That right there is a lack of their DFR. Unfortunately they never saw that the result of the arbitration was a direct consequence of their own actions during the negotiating and mediating phase. To this day they STILL blame everyone but themselves for the outcome.

Now both sides are "all in" and there will be no resolution except through the courts, or if another union is voted in with different a constitution and bylaws that allow the representation of the interest of everyone and both sides agree to move forward together. Until then the west still has their right to legally oppose a majority imposed outcome.

USAPA was founded specifically for the intent of avoiding an arbitrated award that they did not like.

You state this like it is a statement of fact. Isn't this just your opinion?

 

[oscarjazz]

So onto a question....I hear you saying that if an agreement without the NIC is voted in by the majority, then the DFR becomes ripe.....again I am not a lawyer or labor expert, but it occurs to me that if a union is the legitimate bargaining agent for ALL members, and if a MAJORITY of the members vote for an agreement, how is it possible that the group is denied fair representation?

If you extrapolate this line of thought to almost ANY other situation, let's say a UAW strike--management and the union come to a tentative agreement, and it passes by a majority vote of the rank and file, then the side opposed to a contract could sue for DFR???? I am sorry folks, I just don't see it.

USAPA filed to become the exclusive bargaining agent for all LCC pilots and they won. Unless and until a new election is held, LCC pilots have no other choice but to have USAPA represent them. That gives the union an affirmative duty to fairly represent the interests of all pilots.

Unions have been given wide latitude by courts to negotiate their contracts. Captains make more than First Officers, pilots with more years of service get more vacation, and so on. These benefits are unequal amongst the members, but all members have the same route to obtain these higher benefits through seniority, therefore they don't violate the DFR.

Seniority is a much tougher matter. Seniority does live in the contract but you rarely ever see seniority lists changed by the union. Necessarily, if I move up a number at least one pilot then moves down a number, it is a zero sum game. If a union starts getting into picking out a group of winners and losers in seniority rights they are on very shaky ground. In this case, it is quite clear that the majority wants to take away seniority rights from the minority, rights they obtained through a mutually agreed process (ALPA merger policy). Why do they want to do that? Because they have the votes. That is not a legitimate union objective and that is a violation of the duty of fair representation.

If majority rule were the norm in these issues, what would stop a continual shuffling of the seniority list as one group cobbles together a 51% majority and agree to put the other 49% at the bottom of the list? This could continue ad infintem without the checks of a duty of fair representation.

Think back on any ruling body, city council, Congress, whatever. They cannot take away rights from the minority just because they have the votes. That is what the Supreme Court is all about, protecting minority rights. In union matters, the duty of fair representation is the check and balance against the majority pushing around the minority.

USAPA could have filed to only represent the East pilots. In that case, they could do whatever was in their power to only represent the East pilots interests. When they filed to represent ALL the pilots, they forfeited the right to disregard the interests of the West pilots. Majority rules, but the majority has a definitive duty to fairly represent ALL the pilots, not just one group or another.

 

[luvthe9]

I have been a dues paying member and been aboard since the beginning. Because of my minority position, I am just along for the ride.

As I have told you many times, I am not JS. But he is a good friend and I have always respected him for his candor. You always know where he stands on an issue.

Well you "ha ha" or your good buddy is in a heap of trouble and now wants representation with his latest altercation with a flight attendent, would love to see him lose his job along with alot of other people!!!!!

 

[ROACLT]

USAPA filed to become the exclusive bargaining agent for all LCC pilots and they won. Unless and until a new election is held, LCC pilots have no other choice but to have USAPA represent them. That gives the union an affirmative duty to fairly represent the interests of all pilots.

Unions have been given wide latitude by courts to negotiate their contracts. Captains make more than First Officers, pilots with more years of service get more vacation, and so on. These benefits are unequal amongst the members, but all members have the same route to obtain these higher benefits through seniority, therefore they don't violate the DFR.

Seniority is a much tougher matter. Seniority does live in the contract but you rarely ever see seniority lists changed by the union. Necessarily, if I move up a number at least one pilot then moves down a number, it is a zero sum game. If a union starts getting into picking out a group of winners and losers in seniority rights they are on very shaky ground. In this case, it is quite clear that the majority wants to take away seniority rights from the minority, rights they obtained through a mutually agreed process (ALPA merger policy). Why do they want to do that? Because they have the votes. That is not a legitimate union objective and that is a violation of the duty of fair representation.

If majority rule were the norm in these issues, what would stop a continual shuffling of the seniority list as one group cobbles together a 51% majority and agree to put the other 49% at the bottom of the list? This could continue ad infintem without the checks of a duty of fair representation.

Think back on any ruling body, city council, Congress, whatever. They cannot take away rights from the minority just because they have the votes. That is what the Supreme Court is all about, protecting minority rights. In union matters, the duty of fair representation is the check and balance against the majority pushing around the minority.

USAPA could have filed to only represent the East pilots. In that case, they could do whatever was in their power to only represent the East pilots interests. When they filed to represent ALL the pilots, they forfeited the right to disregard the interests of the West pilots. Majority rules, but the majority has a definitive duty to fairly represent ALL the pilots, not just one group or another.

Two issues here. First, a collective bargaining agent was in the process of using its internal policies and processes to arrive at a "proposal" to be incorporated into a single contract bringing the two groups together. It had failed in its attempts to do so and was replaced by another agent who is using its policies and processes to do the same and will conclude at which point there is a single collective bargaining agreement incorporating its "proposal." From a practical legal point of view, for the intermediate period of time, there are two respective lists until that concludes. When it does, it could be challenged, as anyone can sue a union for a perceived injury pursuant to a union's DFR responsibilities. In this case, when and if that claim comes, Nicalou will not be the litmus by which anything is judged, a longevity based integration standing alone would be on trial. It will stand up, as it does with the Association of Flight Attendants and the plurality of unions across the country that use them. The 9th made it pretty clear they see this as an unfinished process and USAPA must meet the "good faith" DFR standard as it pursues this end. That has been beat up, so no need to rehash the definition.

From a legal perspective, you can attempt to reshuffle a seniority list, but the courts have held it can't be done simply to advance one group over another. However the courts have upheld many times that longevity based systems do not do that because seniority is a vested benefit over time. There have been cases, in industrial workers unions where a merger by ratio has been agreed to and later when a plant was shut down, and layoff ensued, the union retroactively changed from ration to DOH, and the courts sustained the unions position that employees with less tenure should be laid off first.

It sad but the courts understand unions better than pilots do. Certainly USAPA and Seham & Co. understand the courts better than Addington and attorneys.

 

[N924PS]

Well you "ha ha" or your good buddy is in a heap of trouble and now wants representation with his latest altercation with a flight attendent, would love to see him lose his job along with alot of other people!!!!!

So you presume he is the one in the wrong? He has only given 33 years of impeccable service to PSA/USAirways. Perhaps there is more to the story.

And your comment about him losing his job..................COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Well you "ha ha" or your good buddy is in a heap of trouble and now wants representation with his latest altercation with a flight attendent, would love to see him lose his job along with alot of other people!!!!!

LUVETHE, Now we both hope he gets representation, and I know in this economy no one wishes unemployment on anyone, especially all the stuff weve been thru, look at it this way 2.5 yrs will fly by in a heartbeat, and we sure won't miss him! Remember USAPA represents ALL USAIRWAYS PILOTS!MM!

 

[john john]

Think back on any ruling body, city council, Congress, whatever. They cannot take away rights from the minority just because they have the votes. That is what the Supreme Court is all about, protecting minority rights. In union matters, the duty of fair representation is the check and balance against the majority pushing around the minority.

Years back weren’t there a group of minority pilots that sue the company under the eeoc and settle out of court.
is this a eeoc case?

 

[Art at ISP]

Hi Art,

Welcome to the thread.

I agree with much of what you said, but I find a huge disconnect in your comments and I have quoted the two that seem a bit baffling.

Nothing that is now happening with the pilots is contributing to the demise of the airline. This "war of words" and seemingly endless litigation pretty are much invisible to 99.99% of the customers of USAirways. This battle among the pilots will not bring the airline down.

You did, on the other hand, hit the nail on the head regarding the possible demise of USAirways. It is management, pure, simple and 100%. As long as management decisions drive away customers, both high yield and leisure, the company will always be in jeopardy for its very existence. You understand that fully by voting with your wallet. It's really the only vote that ultimately counts.

Let me be very blunt. If the pilots kissed and made up tomorrow and marched into the future hand-in-hand, would you start flying USAirways again? (Didn't think so.)

nyc,

Thank you and thanks to some of the others for your kind words. I do miss my friends at US very much--apparent each time I stop into a CLT club and see my friends while flying Delta Continental or Jet Blue. The specific reasons for my leaving have nothing to do with this thread, but suffice to say the trust level with the people in Tempe is just not there.

Regarding your comment and questions, here is the correlation. Apparently having the separate pilot groups and the ongoing dispute is costing the company significantly in terms of operating efficiencies lost and maintaining basically two separate operations. To make up for these costs, yet maintain the illusion of being a low cost carrier, they pioneered the add on fees, and removed benefits and services offered to customers for free, which wound up driving significant revenue AWAY from US Airways.

As I said I am NOT an expert, and I have no real opinion one way or the other, but it SEEMS to me that had this issue been resolved, costs would be lower overall, and the airline would be in a better position to compete on a more level playing field and some of the anti-customer decisions and fees imposed might not have happened. Pure speculation, but again I am NOT trying to draw this thread off topic. Suffice to say that the company itself has made some bad decisions not DIRECTLY related to this issue which are driving a pretty good amount of higher yield business elsewhere.

At the end of the day I would HOPE that everyone involves would like to see this issue resolved to the satisfaction of a MAJORITY of the pilots, but I fear that may not even be possible at this point. I will say, however, that after reading some of the anger and vitriol here and observing an apparent lack of maturity in some posters, I'd think that members of the general public just might think twice about flying US. Again I just ask each of you to leave your emotions and bad feelings at the keyboard and please have clear heads when you fly.....

Thanks and good luck to you ALL.

 

[luvthe9]

He has only given 33 years of impeccable service to PSA/USAirways.

So did the pilot who was taking pictures up a 15 year olds skirt at the airport. MEANINGLESS!!!!!!!

 

[Phoenix]

Well you "ha ha" or your good buddy is in a heap of trouble and now wants representation with his latest altercation with a flight attendent, would love to see him lose his job along with alot of other people!!!!!

What's the flight attendant complaining about. J.S. made it plane where he stands, didn't he? I mean thats the important thing, isn't it?

Oh, never mind, can we join together and make it a class action? Or at least have a party when he is voted off the island..

 

[Richard]

REMINDER TO ALL:

Do NOT use initials or in ANY way try to identify other posters or individuals without their permission.

Please refer to the rules of the board at the top of every forum.

Thank you.