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

[Piedmont1984]

Callaway

Good post. I would only add that this is a seniority dispute and nothing more. The legality of our position is as yet to be decided. If USAPA submits a list which is other than the Nic, but meets the overall requirements of being fair and equitable, within a wide range of reasonableness, which then prevails in court if and when another DFR is filed, then my conscience will be as clean as a baby's.

We will never agree on which side has the moral high ground. And it is unproductive and even irrelevant for one side or the other to invoke the term. This is business - not the business of saving souls.

Render unto Caeser....

 

[CallawayGolf]

IMHO is the best thing you have written and should be applied to all you have written because in the end that is what it is, IYHO. Just like what I write is IMHO. How about the dues example? Are west pilots morally corrupt because they didn't pay their dues until forced to, and some still haven't. It's the rules, can we pick and choose or not? The vast majority of west pilots played it that way, so does it make the west pilots as a group corrupt? I don't think so, just trying a tactic to defend what they see is right.

The comparison of this to the American Revolution is over the top, as is calling it a war. The point is we all make judgment calls on what is right and what is wrong and what to do about it.

It funny to me that the west pilots see the east as an aberration, as if Allegheny, US Air, Piedmont, PSA, Empire, Eastern and Trump all managed to find morally corrupt people to hire. I feel very, very confident that if you took a sample of west pilots, went back in time and changed places with a number of east pilots, you would have the same outcome.

I use the IMO sparingly because this is a web board where most things presented are someone’s opinion. Unfortunately even matters of fact, law and morality, which shouldn’t be subject to opinion, are still viewed as a person’s opinion in our post-modern world of situational ethics and “what’s truth for you isn’t truth for me”. This is of course completely nonsensical IMO, but that’s the world we live in now.

The West not paying dues was a strategy that was always subject to futility or defeat in the end. Was it morally justified - no. Was it an understandable human response to an organization being formed for the sole purpose of bringing harm to the west pilot’s career – yes. When faced with the reality of what non-payment would cost them, most of the west pilots capitulated and have done what was required, begrudgingly though it may be. What has USAPA done with the knowledge that they have to honor the results of binding arbitration? Have they, even begrudgingly, moved toward acceptance and reconciliation on this issue?

Moral corruption can spread like wildfire. “The Lakers win let’s go celebrate by stealing TVs, flipping cars over and setting fire to the streets”. It takes a strong commitment to do what is morally correct when the crowd is urging everyone to engage in debauchery.

 

[Pi brat]

Unfortunately even matters of fact, law and morality, which shouldn’t be subject to opinion, are still viewed as a person’s opinion in our post-modern world of situational ethics and “what’s truth for you isn’t truth for me”. This is of course completely nonsensical IMO, but that’s the world we live in now.

Are you kidding me? Have you ever been outside of the US and witnessed how the rest of the world deals with issues like this? Even here in the good old USA, we have a few skeletons in our closet, don't we? Mr. "All men are created equal" Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Many good Christian preachers wore white on Sunday, but also during their KKK rallies. But they were easties, so let's look out west, shall we? Perhaps you live in PHX. I believe you have a Native American reservation(i love that term, like we set a special place aside) beside your town. If you live there, did the title search on your home go all the way back to make sure it wasn't their land? Or maybe you live in LAX. When you turn on your tap do you wonder about the folks that Mr. Mulholland diverted that water from? How about your Mexican neighbors who have a trickle from the rivers that were dammed by their American neighbors.

Everybody needs to be careful throwing the moral weight around. As I pointed out to Mr. moral compass himself, Trader Jake, I believe the handling of the C18 by USAPA was immoral. I asked what he did to fight it, but he refused to answer. My guess is that he did nothing, as he is probably not a member and gave up that right to fight. Is it moral to ignore an action that you could take steps to stop? A friend (east) of mine fought hard for the C18 and shared an email with me from one of the defendants. It thanked him for his efforts and said that some west pilots didn't support them because they thought it was their own fault. I thought that would be clear cut to a westie.

Many east pilots feel that the injustice of the Nic award is obvious to anyone who is really paying attention, so if the west was morally correct they would renounce it. I disagree. It is a disagreement between two groups and the majority of both groups are good moral people, they just have different life experiences and opinions.

Like a lot of people I can use certain Bible verses to support my side of an argument, but two of my favorites are:

Judge not lest you be judged.
Why do you speak of the speck in my eye when there is a log in your?

I've been as guilty of both as a lot of people around here.

 

[Pi brat]

The West not paying dues was a strategy that was always subject to futility or defeat in the end. Was it morally justified - no. Was it an understandable human response to an organization being formed for the sole purpose of bringing harm to the west pilot’s career – yes. When faced with the reality of what non-payment would cost them, most of the west pilots capitulated and have done what was required, begrudgingly though it may be. What has USAPA done with the knowledge that they have to honor the results of binding arbitration? Have they, even begrudgingly, moved toward acceptance and reconciliation on this issue?

I see absolutely no difference in the two and thank you for acknowledging that they are similar. The difference is that USAPA and it's supporters haven't gotten to that point yet. It is still working it's way through the courts, with all parties slowing things down in order to win. They may lose, and I believe that if they do, the majority will accept it. Just like the majority of west pilots are now paying their dues.

 

[Phoenix]

...
The "internal union dispute" was resolved by that binding arbitration. ...

That's about as effective as Monty Python's Black Knight declaration that "It's just a flesh wound."

 

[luvn737s]

It funny to me that the west pilots see the east as an aberration, as if Allegheny, US Air, Piedmont, PSA, Empire, Eastern and Trump all managed to find morally corrupt people to hire. I feel very, very confident that if you took a sample of west pilots, went back in time and changed places with a number of east pilots, you would have the same outcome.

I think the great Philosopher and Trubadour :blink: Sting said it best;
Men go crazy in congregations
They only get better one by one

The west feels there is an injustice to a larger group being able to co-opt a process that originally had two sides of roughly equal influence in the seniority outcome. They have not questioned the legitimacy of the process they entered into originally, only that of the one they have been made an unwilling partner in.

The legitimacy of being able to throw out ALPA after the arbitration and ignore the arbitration smacks of justifying a crime after the fact. If the East had really wanted to dump ALPA, they should have either done it before the integration process started (but they were overconfident in their ability to prevail) or after the integration was completed, and paid the price for that overconfidence.

To throw gasoline on the fire, USAPA pretends there is no west and makes no attempts (regardless of how feeble) to include west interests or even make a presence in the largest pilot domicile.

The east pilots know what they have tried to pull is wrong, or it would have come together already. Unfortunately they will have to live with the consequences of their choices for the rest of their careers.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Are you kidding me? Have you ever been outside of the US and witnessed how the rest of the world deals with issues like this? Even here in the good old USA, we have a few skeletons in our closet, don't we? Mr. "All men are created equal" Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Many good Christian preachers wore white on Sunday, but also during their KKK rallies. But they were easties, so let's look out west, shall we? Perhaps you live in PHX. I believe you have a Native American reservation(i love that term, like we set a special place aside) beside your town. If you live there, did the title search on your home go all the way back to make sure it wasn't their land? Or maybe you live in LAX. When you turn on your tap do you wonder about the folks that Mr. Mulholland diverted that water from? How about your Mexican neighbors who have a trickle from the rivers that were dammed by their American neighbors.

Everybody needs to be careful throwing the moral weight around. As I pointed out to Mr. moral compass himself, Trader Jake, I believe the handling of the C18 by USAPA was immoral. I asked what he did to fight it, but he refused to answer. My guess is that he did nothing, as he is probably not a member and gave up that right to fight. Is it moral to ignore an action that you could take steps to stop? A friend (east) of mine fought hard for the C18 and shared an email with me from one of the defendants. It thanked him for his efforts and said that some west pilots didn't support them because they thought it was their own fault. I thought that would be clear cut to a westie.

Many east pilots feel that the injustice of the Nic award is obvious to anyone who is really paying attention, so if the west was morally correct they would renounce it. I disagree. It is a disagreement between two groups and the majority of both groups are good moral people, they just have different life experiences and opinions.

Like a lot of people I can use certain Bible verses to support my side of an argument, but two of my favorites are:

Judge not lest you be judged.
Why do you speak of the speck in my eye when there is a log in your?

I've been as guilty of both as a lot of people around here.

Ah, the old bell curve argument to justify or divert attention away from one’s own moral failings. “Look how many examples I can find of poor moral conduct which I consider to be far worse than my own failings.” Thomas Jefferson had his role in American History, but he was a miserable theologian, a waffling statesman, and of low moral character regarding the treatment of other human beings. Why would you call anyone in the KKK “good”? It does not matter if they were a preacher or not, their conduct showed a dearth of morality. God can judge their works and place in His kingdom. All we can do is evaluate their poor moral choices based on moral standards that we didn’t invent. Title deeds can only be issued by a legitimate and recognized governmental authority. Are you suggesting that another government issued a title deed that supersedes the one I have issued by the county I live in? How the US, Canada and Mexico negotiate water treaties for precipitation that falls in a more northern country is really not a very meaningful topic on the subject of morality.

I fully agree with you on not casting stones as if any of us are morally perfect. I’m not and I never claimed to be. However, and as I indicated earlier, no culture, no religion, and no moral code that I am aware of encourages or defends breach of contract as being a proper moral choice. When a person or an organization makes a contract with another, it is their moral (and usually legal) obligation to see it fulfilled to the best of their ability. This is not really a debatable point.

Here’s a personal example from my own life. I signed a purchase contract on a new house just before the housing market began to fall apart. I put down $20k in earnest money and waited the eleven months for the house to be completed per the terms of the contract. During that eleven month timeframe, numerous new and pre-owned houses came on the market for far less than I had agreed to pay for my new home. The contract was clear – I could default on the contract and forfeit my $20k earnest money. The $20k was irrelevant because I could essentially buy an identical house for about $60k less than my contracted amount. Or for the same money I could have gotten a much larger house and felt like I was making shrewd business decision for doing so. I mildly considered those options but in the end I paid the agreed upon, contracted price for my new house knowing that I might never get my $60k loss back. Why did I do this? Because I signed a contract and agreed to pay a certain price for my home that was built from the ground up according to my word/signature. I didn’t consider walking away from the contract to be within the moral character and standards I hold myself to. The home builder went bankrupt about a year after my purchase because so many people walked away from their contracts and left them with too many empty houses to sell in a bad market. I'm so glad I wasn't one of those people.

 

[Phoenix]

Ah, the old bell curve argument to justify or divert attention away from one’s own moral failings.....

You can be encouraged that at least this moral tirade you are on won't cost you $2M. But don't be disappointed if you get no return beyond the money you have put into it. tah-tah.

 

[Ames]

Well Duh, thank you professor. Since it is so easy and clear to see what an agreement meant, or what the intent was, why the need for courts? Why do we need the grievance process for our contract?

Yeah! And why do we need FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Better go back and look at the non-trial in Phoenix. Your attorneys conceded that USAPA had not breached, its DFR responsibilities as it relates to arbitrary or discriminatory behavior. The whole case was predicated on USAPA's good faith responsibilities and even then the judge refused to instruct the jury as to the standard as defined by SCOTUS. It's no wonder the 9th Circuit dealt with the appeal the way they chose, citing the very definition and SCOTUS precedent where it was established.

If I were a betting man, I wouldn't trumpet anything that came out of that trial as it was clearly a results manufactured proceeding by an activist judge. You can bet your bottom dollar, those issues will be brought forth in the case before Judge Silver as well as your company's arguments to remove itself as a party to the Addington litigation as well as Wake releasing them as a co-defendant.

The first two requests your company makes in its suit have already been answered by the Ninth Circuit and they know that. Their last request to be indemnified presupposes so many sequential events that if Addington was deemed not ripe, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that a court will act on its request.

When the Ninth ruled, that sealed the deal. It doesn't matter where any case goes, when it makes it back there, they will rule consistent with their just published opinion. It doesn't matter what 3 judges are pulled, courts at the appellate level do not rule or publish against themselves. The finality of their decision was evidenced when no judge vote in the affirmative on the En Banc petition. Judges at that level understand their is to much litigation in this country as it is, and do not engage in the back and forth you see in congress. At least the Appellate courts have maintained that level of respect for each other and the legal process.

That was the post of the day! MM!

 

[CallawayGolf]

You can be encouraged that at least this moral tirade you are on won't cost you $2M. But don't be disappointed if you get no return beyond the money you have put into it. tah-tah.

Moral tirade? All I did was point out that people of moral character don't need a court to tell them to honor their agreements. In fact, even if a court tells someone that a breach of agreement is permissible by law that still doesn’t answer the question as to whether it is morally correct to breach the agreement. This is a concept that should be easily affirmed by any rational human being.

 

[luvthe9]

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.

Of course the 9th did not find Seham to be an idiot. ROACLT- you are up against a group that has a half understanding of the entire issue. And when they run out of "knowledge" then Seham is the devil. Calloway and the other lawyers, commendable to commit to study and discipline to get the degree, but not commendable when others lacking true knowledge of what is really at hand are convinced to join in a legal crusade that goes off half cocked and spends millions of others money. The founders of Lenidas have convinced hundreds of partial truths, and led them down a path of defeat. Unfortunately, unless there is some move of compromise, this thing is going to drive on for years.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Moral tirade? All I did was point out that people of moral character don't need a court to tell them to honor their agreements. In fact, even if a court tells someone that a breach of agreement is permissible by law that still doesn’t answer the question as to whether it is morally correct to breach the agreement. This is a concept that should be easily affirmed by any rational human being.

Wow, has someone taken over for Jimmy Lee Swaggart? MM!

 

[luvthe9]

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.

ROACLT- absolutely brilliant work. Until the west pilots grasp the entire concept of internal union affairs, they are going to continue to spin in circles. The issue will come home to roost shortly.

 

[Pi brat]

Ah, the old bell curve argument to justify or divert attention away from one’s own moral failings.

Yeah, that's it. Sounds like you did the right thing with your house.