US Pilots Labor Discussion 8/11- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[nic4us]

They made no such written agreement.

A new union based on some solid union principles is the best thing that happened to all US Airways pilots.

Actually, they did make a written agreement. I believe they have three written agreements binding them to the Nic.

Exactly what "union priciples" are you trying to justify. The wholesale theft of your fellow workers jobs, or the complete lack of representation of those same co-workers. Perhaps it is the maliscious attacks in the forms of RICO lawsuits, corrupt section 29 charges, section 19 filings.

There are very few x-boxers over here. The rest of us know scum when we see it. So usapa would be well advised to keep the "we are a principled goup of union scumbags trying desperately to reneg on agreements we do not want to honor" arguements restrained for their closed door meetings with their inept legal cousel.

 

[nic4us]

Yes. Yes. Not to worry yourself. "You have only a flesh wound."

Not worried...and "you can't have egg, bacon, spam and sausage, without the spam"!

usapa: "but I don't like spam".

"lovely spam,,,wonderful spam".

 

[CallawayGolf]

They made no such written agreement. A union that was acting as their collective bargaining agent had a policy that produced an outcome that they deemed an inadequate return on their dues and membership and replaced it.

A union is an entity that replaces free market supply/demand with an artificial entitlement system. Nothing about it is fair or consistent with meritocracy or competition, it simply it a tool used to achieve an end for a group of people. Many things that are done for the group, may seem unfair to the individual but a collectivist state has nothing to do with an individual. The very nature of a seniority system places someone in a perpetual place and state that is unaffected by work ethic, excellence, job performance, reliability, etc. You could argue that one should adhere to these but none of these or nothing has any affect on advance, promotion, vacation award, etc. It is why unions order their seniority based on longevity, as it eliminates all subjectivity and division over what the individual perceives as fair. In the case of the pilots at US Airways, all have varying degrees of flight time experience but at the end of the day, they are a single class of similarly skilled workers and arranging them any other way than based off longevity is anti union. By embracing unionism as a class of workers, they have given up their individual rights to leverage their talent, experience, free market right to individually negotiate their own pay and as such, the concept of taking a place in line at the turn style should be sacrosanct.

It amazes me the lack of understanding of trade unionism that exists amongst pilots. A union that had progressively morphed into a corporation, engaged as dues clearinghouse was tossed for a union that adheres to the most fundamental of union principles, seniority.

Of course, you can keep being individuals and argue "career expectation" or "fairness" or issues that are completely dependent on the perspective of the individual and continue down the same path to failing profession. ALPA has been doing it for 30+ years and you all are making 50% less than you use to with no retirement and spending a whole lot more time at home. This was the beginning of the end for ALPA.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954931,00.html

The Administration received assistance in its battle last week from the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 33,000 of the nation's 40,000 commercial pilots. ALPA President John J. O'Donnell had instructed a small group of pilots, including former controllers, at the outset of the strike to collect data on how the system was working. O'Donnell also called upon ALPA members to phone in any hazardous incidents and irregularities. "I can say without equivocation that the air-traffic control system in the country is safe," reported O'Donnell. Bill Reynard, chief of the Aviation Safety Reporting System, a NASA-managed monitoring agency, agrees. Says Reynard: "So far we haven't seen anything out of the ordinary that would cause us to pick up the telephone and call the FAA."


A new union based on some solid union principles is the best thing that happened to all US Airways pilots whether the X-box generation can see it or not.

Not having personally signed a written agreement is no excuse for breaking the agreement when you are represented by a duly authorized agent. If I give a representational agent a Power of Attorney to act on my behalf in a matter, such as my employment agreement, then I am equally bound by such an agreement whether I signed it or not. It really makes no difference legally, morally or otherwise.

If a labor/trade union had to have each member personally sign off on all agreements before they could be bound by the same, every union in the country would fail because none could amass a 100% vote of consent from their constituents which is what would be required. That’s why the term “Collective Bargaining Agent” is used. The agent is bargaining and making binding agreements on behalf of the members/collective. The CBA was granted that authority by the majority of the members and are recognized as having the sole and exclusive right to bind all members collectively and individually to any agreement they may make.

East pilots cannot claim a moral position based on not having signed the TA personally any more than I can legitimately refuse to pay my taxes because I didn’t vote for the taxes or even the representative who voted them in. I can either pay them honestly and with integrity or I can try to cheat paying them because I convince myself that I am justified in doing so because I don’t agree with them. Your explanation and justification simply don’t stand the test of objective scrutiny.

 

[ROACLT]

You are as lost about what is happening as Seham himself.

Have you read the company's response to usapa's motion to stay their suit? They filed it last night. It is a laugh a minute. They claim neutrality over and over, while pointing out over and over just how off base usapa's tactics have become. They all but call Seham a downright idiot.

Here is the simple facts of the matter. The 9th ruled on usapa vs. Addington. A lawsuit that did not involve the company. The 9th ruled not ripe, nothing else. The 9th left the DFR door totally wide open for the West pilots to sue usapa for an "unquestionably ripe DFR" once a contract is ratified. The company has a contract with the West pilots. In order to give usapa their DOH pipe dream, they would have to breach their contract with the West pilots. The company knows exactly what its intent was when they signed the TA, all the same players are still here, and they know that they are going to have to break their own intent to give usapa DOH. i.e.They know they are breaking their word to the West and they do not want to do it. Get it? The company knows they will lose a lawsuit with the West pilots if they use anything other than the Nic.

Does not matter what the 9th said in Addington vs. usapa. It is irrelevant in the future Addington vs. US Airways, and the company does not give a rats tail what Seham's thinks their position should be, or what Seham thinks the 9th ruled, or any other idiotic positions Seham argues. His client is the one causing all the problems in the first place, because they fell for his inept plan to steal from their new found co-workers, and they are not about to abet them to that end and expose the company to mind numbing dollar figures as damages.

The 9th Circuit didn't find Seham to be an idiot. In fact, if you look at their opinion and all of it that had nothing to do with the issue of Ripeness, and lo and behold, USAPA's legal arguments from the beginning are embedded there. If fact, most posters here opposing USAPA seemed to think the 9th Circuit was a slam dunk and kept referencing the question about placement of female workers, as to how he was going to be embarrassed by his ripeness argument. Didn't work out that way, did it?

Your company has numerous times stated, their only interest in seniority per the TA was the criteria set forth, so no financial burden in training cost would be borne by them, outside of that it was an entirely union matter. USAPA is the CBA, party to all agreements and the legal right to negotiate all agreements. If it was intent, and what US Airways agreed to with the "West" pilots, they would never have negotiated or allowed East pilots to vote on amending the West contract on the Age 60 bypass issue. Amazingly though, they did and found that USAPA is the legal collective bargaining agent for "all" pilots. There is no "word" to the West pilots to break just the legal rights of the parties under the RLA.

Under a union structure, there is nothing to steal, as nothing is truly earned or competed for, just a place in line with all your similarly skilled fellows. At the end of the day, the company has no DFR responsibilities to its pilots and there will be no damages to be had from the union, the company, or any other party. It doesn't matter what your company claims as part of its petition, it only matters what the law is and what case precedent has established. In your particular circumstances, the 9th Circuits ruling has already established what USAPA's legal rights and responsibilities are. You use the term as "unquestionably ripe" as if it has some meaning beyond stating the obvious. When their is a contract, a claim will be ripe. Wow, isn't that what USAPA arguesd all along? In no way, does that statement infer that such a claim will have merit or warrant a trial.

In a sad way, although USAPA many not initially think so, the best thing that could possibly happen is for the case to be transferred to Wake. He will bleed another million dollars of the Addington plaintiffs down a rabbit hole, just to be overturned by the 9th, if he breaks with legal judgment issued in their opinion.

 

[ROACLT]

Not having personally signed a written agreement is no excuse for breaking the agreement when you are represented by a duly authorized agent. If I give a representational agent a Power of Attorney to act on my behalf in a matter, such as my employment agreement, then I am equally bound by such an agreement whether I signed it or not. It really makes no difference legally, morally or otherwise.

If a labor/trade union had to have each member personally sign off on all agreements before they could be bound by the same, every union in the country would fail because none could amass a 100% vote of consent from their constituents which is what would be required. That’s why the term “Collective Bargaining Agent” is used. The agent is bargaining and making binding agreements on behalf of the members/collective. The CBA was granted that authority by the majority of the members and are recognized as having the sole and exclusive right to bind all members collectively and individually to any agreement they may make.

East pilots cannot claim a moral position based on not having signed the TA personally any more than I can legitimately refuse to pay my taxes because I didn’t vote for the taxes or even the representative who voted them in. I can either pay them honestly and with integrity or I can try to cheat paying them because I convince myself that I am justified in doing so because I don’t agree with them. Your explanation and justification simply don’t stand the test of objective scrutiny.

Yours is a specious argument.

1. Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument".
2. Misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive: "a specious appearance of novelty".

The members of the continental congress were sworn subjects of King George III but at some point, even though their allegiance to the crown, they broke with it and established a better way of doing things through force of arms.

The SCOTUS ruled that an individual was property based on current law and the color of ones skin but a war was fought and a constitution amended and the rights established were not inhibited by any prior law, writs of purchase, etc.

It's human nature to avoid conflict, and electing a new union against the wallet and might of the largest union took a series of events for action to be taken. If the right action is taken, and most East pilots would argue so, then rewriting a constitution to reflect trade unionist principles is nothing to be ashamed of. The fathers of American independence likely hand neither the respect of adulation of the loyal Brittish subjects here and the motherland but they did what they thought was right and fair, even though many felt otherwise and that no matter the cause, because of allegiance to the crown, such behavior was treasonous.

In this particular case, the courts have made it clear that seniority is an internal union matter. There are constraints but it is a wide latitude and well within a union's right to settle. You can use that tired argument all you want. If a duly authorized representative acted in a way contrary to you interest, whether you admit it or not, you or most any reasonable person would seek recourse through any legal means necessary. The majority at US Airways, sought to replace what they saw as a failed union with one that represented and respected trade unionist policies. So far, the courts have not restricted them from doing so.

 

[88 B.T.D.]

USAPA is the CBA, party to all agreements and the legal right to negotiate all agreements. If it was intent, and what US Airways agreed to with the "West" pilots, they would never have negotiated or allowed East pilots to vote on amending the West contract on the Age 60 bypass issue. Amazingly though, they did and found that USAPA is the legal collective bargaining agent for "all" pilots.

In the same vein USAPA as the CBA is free to make a new TA with the company. If the company wanted protection from future contract liability, they would do this. My opinion is they don't want to bargain. People keep saying Nic will pass with a decent contract. I think that could possibly be true in a few years, but we havent seen anything near one from them (Co) in the process so far.

 

[nic4us]

The 9th Circuit didn't find Seham to be an idiot. In fact, if you look at their opinion and all of it that had nothing to do with the issue of Ripeness, and lo and behold, USAPA's legal arguments from the beginning are embedded there. If fact, most posters here opposing USAPA seemed to think the 9th Circuit was a slam dunk and kept referencing the question about placement of female workers, as to how he was going to be embarrassed by his ripeness argument. Didn't work out that way, did it?

Your company has numerous times stated, their only interest in seniority per the TA was the criteria set forth, so no financial burden in training cost would be borne by them, outside of that it was an entirely union matter. USAPA is the CBA, party to all agreements and the legal right to negotiate all agreements. If it was intent, and what US Airways agreed to with the "West" pilots, they would never have negotiated or allowed East pilots to vote on amending the West contract on the Age 60 bypass issue. Amazingly though, they did and found that USAPA is the legal collective bargaining agent for "all" pilots. There is no "word" to the West pilots to break just the legal rights of the parties under the RLA.

Under a union structure, there is nothing to steal, as nothing is truly earned or competed for, just a place in line with all your similarly skilled fellows. At the end of the day, the company has no DFR responsibilities to its pilots and there will be no damages to be had from the union, the company, or any other party. It doesn't matter what your company claims as part of its petition, it only matters what the law is and what case precedent has established. In your particular circumstances, the 9th Circuits ruling has already established what USAPA's legal rights and responsibilities are. You use the term as "unquestionably ripe" as if it has some meaning beyond stating the obvious. When their is a contract, a claim will be ripe. Wow, isn't that what USAPA arguesd all along? In no way, does that statement infer that such a claim will have merit or warrant a trial.

In a sad way, although USAPA many not initially think so, the best thing that could possibly happen is for the case to be transferred to Wake. He will bleed another million dollars of the Addington plaintiffs down a rabbit hole, just to be overturned by the 9th, if he breaks with legal judgment issued in their opinion.

Whatever you say dockworker.

One thing I will point out. It is not "unquestionably ripe" that makes usapa "unquestionably guilty". It is the "unquestionably stupid" course of action they have chosen to take.

One more thing. In the end, your whole arguement once again falls back on the West not having the money to litigate. Very shallow.

What makes you think Wake would break from the 9ths judgement? It is abundantly clear that the 9th said usapa is free to hang themselves. Nowhere in the 9ths opinion, did they say the company has to hang with them. No matter what the x-box generation little lawyer trying to run daddy's lawfirm thinks. The rest of us who can actually read know that the 9th said "we do not address the thorny issue" and knew just what it meant.

 

[A320 Driver]

That's great. Send over our share of the new growth, flying and airplanes.

Sure, and when you find any, please let us know. I'll say it again. Minimum fleet count is NOT growth. Minimum block hours is NOT growth. Pilots on furlough DO NOT represent growth.

We are all stuck right where we are.

Driver <_<

 

[ROACLT]

Life is good on the docks, you ought to try a change in career. You might it find it liberating and informative as to what a real union is like.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Yours is a specious argument.

1. Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument".
2. Misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive: "a specious appearance of novelty".

The members of the continental congress were sworn subjects of King George III but at some point, even though their allegiance to the crown, they broke with it and established a better way of doing things through force of arms.

The SCOTUS ruled that an individual was property based on current law and the color of ones skin but a war was fought and a constitution amended and the rights established were not inhibited by any prior law, writs of purchase, etc.

It's human nature to avoid conflict, and electing a new union against the wallet and might of the largest union took a series of events for action to be taken. If the right action is taken, and most East pilots would argue so, then rewriting a constitution to reflect trade unionist principles is nothing to be ashamed of. The fathers of American independence likely hand neither the respect of adulation of the loyal Brittish subjects here and the motherland but they did what they thought was right and fair, even though many felt otherwise and that no matter the cause, because of allegiance to the crown, such behavior was treasonous.

In this particular case, the courts have made it clear that seniority is an internal union matter. There are constraints but it is a wide latitude and well within a union's right to settle. You can use that tired argument all you want. If a duly authorized representative acted in a way contrary to you interest, whether you admit it or not, you or most any reasonable person would seek recourse through any legal means necessary. The majority at US Airways, sought to replace what they saw as a failed union with one that represented and respected trade unionist policies. So far, the courts have not restricted them from doing so.

Hey thanks for the lesson in the meaning of specious as well as the history lesson on America. Actually, I think I have the term specious in several of my posts a while back so your copy and paste was really superfluous (being that you are an intellectual giant I won’t insult you by coping the definition of superfluous for you).

Your post on American history represents a classic off-topic diversion from the matter that was being discussed but at least you affirm that what the East pilots are doing is technically illegal and immoral. I now understand that they can internally rationalize their deviancy by saying they are just like Patrick Henry, George Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr. who also stood up for what they thought was wrong. I’m afraid the annals of history won’t be nearly so kind the East pilots’ lawlessness and narcissism as it has been to our true American patriots.

BTW, the courts have certainly not made it clear that this is an internal union matter of seniority. One court ruled that the matter was ripe and that USAPA had committed a violation of its federally mandated duty to fair representation. An appellate court ruled by a 2:1 margin that the case lacked ripeness without considering the question of whether or not USAPA can pursue a DOH seniority system. By all means, though, please show me where any court has ruled that DOH is the court sanctioned and DFR-proof seniority system for USAPA. It seems to me that the court worded their majority opinion so as to ensure that USAPA got the message to NOT pursue a straight DOH list which stand against your assertion that this is all about fixing the seniority issue and getting back to pure trade unionist policies so that everyone can just get in line based on their supposed longevity. By all means give pure DOH a try and see how far that gets you with the courts you are singing the praises of now.

 

[nic4us]

Life is good on the docks, you ought to try a change in career. You might it find it liberating and informative as to what a real union is like.

I have been a real union worker before (teamster, pipefitter). I have been a member of an association of pilots with ALPA. I refuse to join usapa because they are neither.

Exploring career change. One that will never again make my future dependent on ambulance chasing lawyers, and disgruntled malcontent co-workers.

 

[jetjok1]

Just because a person is enjoyable to work with or has a pleasant demeanor about them doesn't mean that their overall moral conduct is impeccable. I'm sure most of us would enjoy spending a day on the golf course with Tiger, but that experience would reveal little about the true character of the man and how he may or may not honor his commitments. Objectively, there is simply no moral justification for the actions of the majority of east pilots that support ignoring binding arbitration just because they don't like the outcome.

People of impeccable moral character don’t need a court or any other authority to tell them to honor their agreements; doing what was agreed to is the only action a person of integrity would consider doing. I find it interesting that you call the leadership of the airline "disgusting" (for doing what I don't know) but you have no such pejorative term for a person who seeks to bring substantial harm to the career of a west pilot whose only fault in this matter is asking his co-workers to honor their word/written agreement.

Personally, a person's overall moral conduct is not my concern. I don't have a control over it. what I do have control over is how he/she conducts themself in the cockpit and doing the task at hand. Your right, I would enjoy a day on the golf course with Tiger. Unfortunately, bad example on your part. He's a big public image. we all know about his character and we know how he's handled his commitments.

As for your buddy DP, I never trusted him since day 1 and for him to continue to run this airline the way he does, well, disgusting was being nice. We obviously differ in opinion about who's harming who. Just suffice it to say, i don't go around name-calling like some on this webboard. At the end of the day, we need to bring this thing together. IMHO, if we don't, we go away.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Personally, a person's overall moral conduct is not my concern. I don't have a control over it. what I do have control over is how he/she conducts themself in the cockpit and doing the task at hand. Your right, I would enjoy a day on the golf course with Tiger. Unfortunately, bad example on your part. He's a big public image. we all know about his character and we know how he's handled his commitments.

As for your buddy DP, I never trusted him since day 1 and for him to continue to run this airline the way he does, well, disgusting was being nice. We obviously differ in opinion about who's harming who. Just suffice it to say, i don't go around name-calling like some on this webboard. At the end of the day, we need to bring this thing together. IMHO, if we don't, we go away.

There are lots of examples of people who feel they are entitled to breach their agreements because they don't like to follow a course of integrity in comparison to just following their narcissistic desires. Tiger and the East pilots are just two of many that show what integrity, honor and commitment are not.

Like it or not, there is only one group that can make a move towards bringing this situation to an end, namely the east pilots. The west pilots cannot do anything and the management team you deride has been waiting for USAPA to come to the table and negotiate in good faith by accepting the NIC. Absent that, there is really nothing DP or the rest can do about this situation. The quickest and most legally sound method of moving forward is to accept the NIC and begin to close the rest of the gaps in the joint CBA. Of course USAPA isn’t about getting a new CBA as they are entirely focused on avoiding the NIC. Therefore please direct your frustration and displeasure about this mess to the USAPA leadership rather than on parities that have been sitting at the table in good faith all along. Only when the East temper tantrum cools down will the negotiation process move forward.

 

[Heretic]

You state this as if you or the west pilots had a choice as to whether to merge. None of you did. So that is irrelevant to Trader Jake's point.

Thank you for stating the obvious 767jetz. I added that little tidbit in to remind all of us that is exactly the point. I should have specifically cited the west poster's comment last night, it is now deleted. I apologize for making my sardonic point overly vague.

 

[nycbusdriver]

It is the "unquestionably stupid" course of action they have chosen to take.

I guess we all have an opinion on this. I think USAPA's course of action has been "unquestionably brilliant." They've kept the Nicolau abomination at bay for over three years, and managed to hire a legal team that convinced the 9th Circuit to spank a federal judge.

Besides that, they continually get your own personal knickers in a knot all the time, as can be attested to by your hilarious rants!

USAPA dues: Well worth the price of admission for a splendid show.