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

[Phoenix]

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..

Some are still arguing about the clarity of whether or not Bush was elected president. Beware, to join their club they have a strict evaluation process, but the reward of spending time hand in hand with others who dance to tunes of denial is worth it I suppose.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Some are still arguing about the clarity of whether or not Bush was elected president. Beware, to join their club they have a strict evaluation process, but the reward of spending time hand in hand with others who dance to tunes of denial is worth it I suppose.

Well let's see, the various states (including Florida) certified their elections and 271 members of the Electoral College vote for George W. Bush. Then on January 20, 2001 he was sworn in as the President of the United States by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and lived in the White House and conducted official business as President until January 20, 2009. There seems to be a mountain of evidence that he was in fact the 43rd President of the United States. What evidence do you have the 9th Circuit ruling gave USAPA a pass to use DOH going forward? Didn't the company just file a suit asking for the district court to make a declaratory ruling on seniority in light of USAPA's DOH proposals which are a violation of the TA? Surely you have some concrete evidence to support this assertion.

 

[Phoenix]

BTW, the courts have certainly not made it clear that this is an internal union matter of seniority.

...What evidence do you have the 9th Circuit ruling gave USAPA a pass to use DOH going forward? ...

Which point are you trying to make? The 9th only voted in a 2-1 margin that it is an internal union process. You seem to think that is uncertain.

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

No they didnt, they ruled the case wasnt ripe yet, I love how these pilot lawyers say things that the judges did not put in the decision.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

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.

I prefer the "POLYGRAPH " the truth is the better story! MM!

 

[Phoenix]

No they didnt, they ruled the case wasnt ripe yet, I love how these pilot lawyers say things that the judges did not put in the decision.

And what pray tell was their rationale that they identified in order to come to a conclusion regarding ripeness? You may want to look at para. 9 on p. 8009.

..."in light of the well-established federal policy of avoiding unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of unions and according considerable deference to the interpretation and application of a union’s rules and regulations”..

....The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA....

....there is no disputing that this case would be the first time we allowed a DFR suit to proceed in a collective bargaining/contract negotiating context before the CBA at issue was ratified. Such a departure from the norm would invite parties to bring suit long before internal disputes have had a chance to work themselves out....

There are four more times the 9th published Opinion cites "internal" as having bearing on the conclusion, which they themselves said, "For the foregoing reasons,.." which included "internal" seven times, but Callaway thinks it is left uncertain, after all it was a 2-1 margin.

..internal affairs..
..internal rules and processes..
..internal disputes..
..internal dispute..
..internal arbitration..
..internal policies..
..internal conflict..

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

Where does it say that they overturned the verdict because it was an internal union matter, instead of ruling that it was overturned because of ripeness?

 

[Phoenix]

Where does it say that they overturned the verdict because it was an internal union matter, instead of ruling that it was overturned because of ripeness?

The 9th didn't overturn the verdict. They dismissed the whole action.

Page 8014.

"CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe..."

To assert that "internal" was not a prominent point among those reasons is sophistry at its finest, but please feel free to cite your own reasons for which they logically concluded the question of ripeness (you could even refer to the published opinion if you like).

 

[Freebird]

I prefer the "POLYGRAPH " the truth is the better story! MM!

Good one !!!! (whatever it is youre talking about). Keep it up. You're making the East look really intelligent.

Mongo like candy !!!

Mongo

 

[Freebird]

The 9th didn't overturn the verdict. They dismissed the whole action.

Page 8014.

"CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe..."

To assert that "internal" was not a prominent point among those reasons is sophistry at its finest, but please feel free to cite your own reasons for which they logically concluded the question of ripeness (you could even refer to the published opinion if you like).

Not ripe, YET.

Just a matter of time Chandler.

 

[A320 Driver]

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 to wards 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.

Interesting. Now, just being an East pilot makes me morally bankrupt.

Driver <_<

 

[CallawayGolf]

The 9th didn't overturn the verdict. They dismissed the whole action.

Page 8014.

"CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe..."

To assert that "internal" was not a prominent point among those reasons is sophistry at its finest, but please feel free to cite your own reasons for which they logically concluded the question of ripeness (you could even refer to the published opinion if you like).

Of course the prominent point of the majority opinion’s ruling was that the question of seniority is currently an internal union matter. To say otherwise would be to affirm that the matter was ripe and required judicial intervention. All of these citations reflect their opinion that until a CBA is ratified, the question of seniority will remain an internal matter. They certainly did not say that this matter will always and forever be an internal matter and that it would never be subject to a DFR. You seem to be reading into their ruling what you want it to say rather than accepting that by definition a claim that isn't ripe can't be adjudicated by the courts because it hasn't gone beyond an internal dispute by their definition.

IMO if Tashima and Graber had given this particular matter its proper attention they would have understood that all internal union processes had been exhausted and that the dispute could no longer qualify as an internal matter. In fact, since the company was also a party to the TA and had accepted the arbitrated award which means that the issue at hand was no longer a purely internal matter and judicial resolution is/was the only hope for resolution. Wake understood this; Bybee understood this; Tashima and Graber were only concerned about ruling against a labor union in an election year.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Interesting. Now, just being an East pilot makes me morally bankrupt.

Driver <_<

Are you actively denouncing the conduct and course of action USAPA is taking by trying to breach the Nicolau award and the Transition Agreement? If not, you may have just answered your own question. If you are seeking to have the NIC implemented and for USAPA to negotiate the rest of the CBA in good faith then you likely would not have identified yourself with the East pilot group that I was referencing. It’s quite a simple concept that honoring ones agreements is foundational to the definition or morality and integrity.

 

[Phoenix]

Are you actively denouncing the conduct and course of action USAPA is taking by trying to breach the Nicolau award and the Transition Agreement? If not, you may have just answered your own question. If you are seeking to have the NIC implemented and for USAPA to negotiate the rest of the CBA in good faith then you likely would not have identified yourself with the East pilot group that I was referencing. It’s quite a simple concept that honoring ones agreements is foundational to the definition or morality and integrity.

It is sophmoric to continue on with this silly notion that the West is somehow more moral than the East. You are simply in denial of the fact that the East kept its commitments and tossed out the leeching parasite that didn't. You should be thankful that the internal union dispute can now continue with legitimacy and responsibility (a responsibility that will be subject to court jurisdiction when it is complete, something that the parasite didn't have the mettle for and forced everyone under duress to hold harmless.

Oh, and congratulations on your epiphany that the courts have made it clear that it is an internal union dispute. Carry on with disputing.. its endorsed by the court, by a 2-1 margin.

 

[CallawayGolf]

It is sophmoric to continue on with this silly notion that the West is somehow more moral than the East. You are simply in denial of the fact that the East kept its commitments and tossed out the leeching parasite that didn't. You should be thankful that the internal union dispute can now continue with legitimacy and responsibility (a responsibility that will be subject to court jurisdiction when it is complete, something that the parasite didn't have the mettle for and forced everyone under duress to hold harmless.

Oh, and congratulations on your epiphany that the courts have made it clear that it is an internal union dispute. Carry on with disputing.. its endorsed by the court, by a 2-1 margin.

Perhaps not honoring one's agreements is sophomoric behavior. Pointing out that those who conduct themselves in such a manner lacks in basic human morality is certainly not sophomoric.

My epiphany - I think not. You're either willing ignorant of what the implications of the lack of ripeness ruling are and are not, or you are unable to comprehend that lacking ripeness today doesn't mean lacking ripeness on this issue forever. Therefore what the court concluded was currently an internal matter will soon become a matter fully ripe for adjudication unless USAPA pursues a different course of action. You can jump on the word internal all you like, but it only serves to show you haven’t grasped what the majority opinion was actually saying.