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

[jetjok1]

USA320pilot comments: 767jetz, I believe the tide has shifted on the East where most Captains and many First Officers now believe the information they were provided by Steve Bradford, Lee Seham, and USAPA's founding fathers was invalid. The majority of East and West pilots want to move forward, accept the Nicolau Award, and negotiate a reasonable joint contract. And, I believe there are enough votes to elect a new union through an NMB ordered Representation Election, with most likely seeking a return to ALPA forthcoming, if USAPA loses the LOA 93 Pay Freeze Arbitration, with the Opinion & Award due in August or September.


Regardless of anyones stance on the issues--the above comment is totally without merit.

Well, then, Let's put it to a vote. Put your money where your mouth is!

 

[PullUp]

Further, given that anybody can sue anybody, USAir can hardly expect a ruling that will protect them from lawsuits.

Well, that is exactly what USAirways is asking the judge for. And reading through the filing, it seems they've made a very good case for it.
If the get the declaratory ruling, that would shield them from federal lawsuits concerning this matter. Anyone could still sue, but it isn't illegal to throw your money away in this country.
It would also settle the matter in the company's eyes - in effect tying their hands concerning seniority.
Too bad the legal system moves soooo sloooow-lyyyyy.............

 

[PullUp]

This is yet another reason why a replacement union must be elected and installed ASAP. Without the baggage of USAPA a bipartisan union could easily craft an integration methodology and present a ratifyable contract to the pilots in far less time and with far less expense than waiting on the legal challenges ahead.

Of course you can always throw $10,000 into a Yugo, but you'd probably only do that if it wasn't your money.


REPLACE USAPA NOW

Yawn.

 

[cleardirect]

One must keep in mind that anybody can sue anybody for anything anytime. I don't think the judge will accept this request for a "declaration" because she does not have a crystal ball. I'm sure she knows about the 9th ruling or if not, she will be reminded of it.

Further, given that anybody can sue anybody, USAir can hardly expect a ruling that will protect them from lawsuits.

Without the company filing we all were in a stalemate. We were never going to get a contract.

The filing told the court and usapa we were never getting a contract under the current conditions and they need to change the game. What Parker is looking for is cover from the court.

Even if the court denies all of this. He has exposed the companies position on this issue. Even a light reading will tell you that the company is going to use Nicolau if they have to bargain for section 22. They told the court that usapa use of DOH is violating the RLA and they will not be part of it.

DOH=DOA. With or without a court order.

This was written by very smart lawyers that understand labor law much better than Seham. They told the court and will testify that it was the east PILOTS and west PILOTS that are a party to the contracts. Not Sehams theory it was ALPA and does not count. The company told the court they have accepted the Nicolau but not accepted usapa's DOH list. Not once did they call the Nicolau a "proposal"

If this gets to trial that is what they are going to tell the judge. That is what Addington is going to tell the judge. Seham can look silly and try and tell the court something else. Good luck with that.

Wonder why there are three alternatives? The first one is asking the court to tell the company to use what everyone agreed to. No more law suits and finish a contract. The second is give the company a free pass on an unknown product before it is complete. The third is take away someones right to sue (Addington) by releasing the company and still clog up the courts with another law suit down the road over final and binding arbitration. Given these choices the court has one logical direction.

 

[cleardirect]

Quick question!

If the court grants the company request and tells everyone it must be Nicolau in the contract. The LOA 93 snap back grievance is lost by usapa so no pay raises.

What chance does usapa have of surviving another year or at least the current leadership?

 

[Freighterguynow]

Interestingly, USAPA now faces an opponent in court that can easily outspend them. Maybe when the assessments go out they can give the East pilots a pin made of unobtanium.

Interestingly, AOL now faces 2 opponents in court that can easily outspend them. You are now defendants not plaintiffs - a big difference just ask Marty.

This is a Leonidas Update for Monday, July 26, 2010 ....
Remember that it is your donations that make this legal defense possible. At a minimum, this filing means more
litigation expenses.

If your lawyers ever fail to show in court from now on out you LOSE.

over and out

 

[cleardirect]

Interestingly, AOL now faces 2 opponents in court that can easily outspend them. You are now defendants not plaintiffs - a big difference just ask Marty.

This is a Leonidas Update for Monday, July 26, 2010 ....
Remember that it is your donations that make this legal defense possible. At a minimum, this filing means more
litigation expenses.

If your lawyers ever fail to show in court from now on out you LOSE.

over and out

Actually it is a 2-1 case. The west agrees with this suit. So it will be the company paying the bill. the west simply saying we agree. But take option 1.

It will be usapa that opposes the company and will have the bigger expense.

Besides if the company gets this award to use Nicolau there is no need for DFR II because usapa can not do the harm they have promished. It is a win win.

 

[Black Swan]

Problem is, since the company already accepted NIC and takes a big legal risk with a DOH contract, it will cost you dearly in pay and benefits at the negotiating table, making the possibility of an unacceptable contract and a strike MUCH higher.

NIC with a few tweaks like I mentioned in a previous post, will be a much easier path to much bigger contract improvements (IMO,) meaning a strike is less likely.

Problem is this, you being a UAL pilot, really put a lot of half baked ideas out here. Obviously from their CYA letter, they did NOT accept the Nic, nor a DOH. They are buying time, so as to not appear to be choosing sides. You have given more misinformation, again.

 

[Black Swan]

Come to think of it, considering the significance of this development it's been awfully quiet from the peanut gallery. All I hear is crickets. Looks like Luvthe9 is the only one squawking, and all he has to say is that we're the one's spinning. (Hello, pot. Meet Kettle.) I wonder where oldie, nycbusdriver, Phoenix, frieghterguy, Black Swan, and the rest are?


Hey Phoenix, I bet you didn't see this one coming.

Didn't see this coming? Gee, this is simply the company trying to duck the obvious issue that they have to deal with USAPA. They know it, and they don't want to pick sides. So they are going to pass the buck, and have the court tell them what they already know but don't want to admit. USAPA is the bargaining agent, seniority is negotiable. They will have to negotiate with USAPA.This is all to try and ward off the massive meltdown by the west if they just came out and accepted the DOH list. They are going to be educated in what they already know, and then throw up their hands and say they have no choice but to deal with USAPA. And we have a UAL pilot trying to make it something it isn't, as usual.

 

[Black Swan]

It appears the company feels the 9th's ruling does not end the dispute. This is getting good and I am glad that USAPA has a bit more the plate to deal with.

USAPA should have been wrestling with the company instead of pursuing the Cactus 18. Now they have been forced into the ring. I have my popcorn in hand waiting for the rumble to begin.

No, they know if they flat out take the DOH list from USAPA without at least pandering to the west expectations of life, they will get a hissy fit. All posturing, and you can't see it for what it is. Wait for the reply, this is again, going to be funny.

 

[Black Swan]

Place your bets boys! I say the court comes out, says it is USAPA they have to deal with, and the Nic is not the seniority list they have to use. Because they cannot dictate INTERNAL union affairs. Loved the part where the company said the dispute between the West pilots and USAPA. There are no West pilots anymore. Only USAPA pilots. The 9th already said what the company knows. The company is ONLY doing this so they can say they HAD to. This is going to be hilarious! Can't wait for the next spin job you guys put on it. Or do you fall back to the DFR goal line stand immediately????

 

[Black Swan]

Quick question!

If the court grants the company request and tells everyone it must be Nicolau in the contract. The LOA 93 snap back grievance is lost by usapa so no pay raises.

What chance does usapa have of surviving another year or at least the current leadership?

Quick answer! Wrong. Quick question for you! Do you guys do a job action when the court tells you the Nic is not the list they have to use????

 

[Black Swan]

Or, does Leonidas come up with another level of badge backer? I suggest the Lindsay Lohan Level, that is where this is headed.

 

[PullUp]

Without the company filing we all were in a stalemate. We were never going to get a contract.

The filing told the court and usapa we were never getting a contract under the current conditions and they need to change the game. What Parker is looking for is cover from the court.

-100% agreed.

Even if the court denies all of this. He has exposed the companies position on this issue. Even a light reading will tell you that the company is going to use Nicolau if they have to bargain for section 22. They told the court that usapa use of DOH is violating the RLA and they will not be part of it.

-Nope. Doesn't say they'll use NIC, just asks if they 'must' use NIC to avoid liability in litigation. Also, they are ASKING the court if DOH would violate RLA. They don't want to be in 'any part of it' that exposes them to liability.

DOH=DOA. With or without a court order.

-Actually, no NIC without a court order, too.

This was written by very smart lawyers that understand labor law much better than Seham. They told the court and will testify that it was the east PILOTS and west PILOTS that are a party to the contracts. Not Sehams theory it was ALPA and does not count. The company told the court they have accepted the Nicolau but not accepted usapa's DOH list. Not once did they call the Nicolau a "proposal"

-Agreed that the company has the best lawyers money can buy. The rest is claptrap.

Wonder why there are three alternatives? The first one is asking the court to tell the company to use what everyone agreed to. No more law suits and finish a contract. The second is give the company a free pass on an unknown product before it is complete. The third is take away someones right to sue (Addington) by releasing the company and still clog up the courts with another law suit down the road over final and binding arbitration. Given these choices the court has one logical direction.

-The most logical is to throw this out...but if they accept it, IMO the company would be happy with any one of the three alternatives.

Guys, the other thing is the time delay. Before this was filed, the Co. had an excuse to drag their feet and pay the pilots bottom of the barrel wages. Since the 9th ruling, no excuses.
Given the profitability of the last quarter, this filing (as elucidated in previous posts) brings with it significant delays in contract negotiations. As long as there is litigation, they have an excuse to delay.
Contrary to what the company writes in its letter to the pilots, they obviously do not want a resolution to the conflict, and do not want to complete a new contract, and do not want to face the section 6 timeline of mediation, cooling off, self-help. They do not want the additional costs of a new contract, and are happy with the status quo. Parker remarked not long ago that fleet and crew integration would only net the company $10 million/year. He's facing significantly more outlay than that with a new agreement with the pilots. Why not drag status quo out longer? Unfortunately for the pilots, this telegraphs that the company already is confident about the outcome of the LOA93 arbitration, which begs new questions in and of itself.
Although the company says they are neutral in the seniority issue and just want to see it resolved, they are certainly now using this issue for their own advantage and as such are no longer neutral.
Every day of delay now is due to the company's position with regard to section 22 and how the legal bargaining unit USAPA, negotiates its contents. The company wants to take away the right of USAPA to bargain in good faith for this section, which the 9th effectively had restored.
Remember, the company is your employer, not your friend. You are a cost item on a spreadsheet - that has been made blindingly obvious for a long time now.
Have a great day.

 

[Captain Underpants]

One must keep in mind that anybody can sue anybody for anything anytime. I don't think the judge will accept this request for a "declaration" because she does not have a crystal ball. I'm sure she knows about the 9th ruling or if not, she will be reminded of it.

Further, given that anybody can sue anybody, USAir can hardly expect a ruling that will protect them from lawsuits.

I just read the company filing and this is an easy one. The company is asking for one of three declarations clarifying the company's legal rights and obligations. The first two have already been decided by the 9th circuit in a published judgment that is binding on the district court.

Since as stated in the 9th ruling USAPA is not required to negotiate for the Nic award in a joint contract then obviously the company with no DFR obligation could not be required to either. Requiring the company to only negotiate for the Nic would have the same effect as requiring USAPA to negotiate for the Nic which would directly defy the 9th's published ruling.

The 9th also ruled that USAPA's DFR liability cannot be determined until a joint contract is ratified. The District court could not make a determination of USAPA's DFR liability now without directly defying the 9th's published ruling.

The third declaration sought by the company actually does have some merit. The company does have a legal right to conduct its business free from the threat of lawsuits so long as a proven controversy exists and there is an established threat of a future lawsuit. The company is asking for immunity from liability or possible economic damage caused by being effectively forced to take one of two possible opposing bargaining positions.

The third declaration is also an easy one. The company cannot be sued for breach of contract since that is under the jurisdiction of the system board and not the Federal court. The company also has no DFR obligation to the pilots. The threat is a lawsuit against the company by West pilots for colluding or assisting USAPA in completing an allegedly illegal DFR violation. Since the company cannot be required to negotiate for the Nic award and USAPA's DFR liability cannot now be determined as stated above the company is effectively asking the court for the same permission to abandon the Nic award during negotiations as the 9th has already granted USAPA. The company is also asking for release from DFR liability and the right as allowed by law to conduct its business free from the threat of a future lawsuit.

The third declaration request by the company seems to be reasonable thus USAPA and the 9th circuit would probably have no objection should the court decide to grant the company's request for a declaratory judgment.

underpants