US Pilots Labor Discussion 9/9- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Black Swan]

B/W are intentionally ignoring the different breed of cat that a seniority integration is. Once the pilot group if integrated, then USAPA can carry on like other unions with their agendas and objectives free from the influence of a former bargaining agent (to some extent anyhow). But the integration is very different and it puts the bargaining agent in a unique position. USAPA has chosen to pick one side over the other (exactly what you DON'T want to do) and look where it has landed them and how much negotiating capital it has consumed.

You cling to Baptiste and Wilder because you think it tells you what you want to hear, but in reality, it simply chooses to ignore the differences between a seniority integration and any other union activity. USAPA is bound to the process that it's constituents began under ALPA and likewise it is bound to the outcome of that process.

You might say, that their leeway to govern as they see fit isn't quite RIPE.

Baptiste and Wilder- dead on with Wake. The West chose to spend two million plus for an unripe case, so keep forging ahead with that groundbreaking logic.Interesting how quickly the West mindset chooses to shrug off the ruling from the 9th, and then re write labor law. Now the Nic is back! Out come the cheerleaders, the ones who must have urged you on with the original suit where the cardiologist / attorney took your money and delivered nothing.I'll take Wilder over Mitch Vasin any day.Very amusing how Vasin tried to go head to head with him, and was literally shredded.Be careful with that money you keep shoveling into Leonidas with the urging of Koontz and Vasin. They are giving you very bad advice. Now the company has delayed the inevitable with their filing. You cannot put this INTERNAL UNION ISSUE off much longer. When it becomes very clear USAPA is free to go ahead as long as there is no damage you will see. And it all depends on what damage is. These days, if you have a job you are basically undamaged. Your view of damage is going to be very interesting when you have to stack it up against another pilot.

 

[Black Swan]

Perhaps some of the USAPA inner circle (tail chasers) can answer this hypothetical: Could west pilots failure to support USAPA (even in the events leading up to a job action) lead to them being thrown out of USAPA, being denied any vote and still being obligated to pay agency fee? Can Cleary interpret the C&BL's as he sees fit without any resistance from the BPR?

Anyone with experience in meglomaniacal dictatorships care to shed light on this?

If they are chasing their tails, what would your term Addington??? Two million for an unripe case, and extreme clarification from the 9th. That was a real judicious expenditure of money.

 

[Phoenix]

Redirect. Stay off topic. Divert attention. Here's a suggestion, stay on topic.

Did your group Freely enter Binding Arbitration? Yes

Is Usapa trying desperately to get out of it? Yes

Are their intentions Honorable? No

Is Usapas intentions illegal and wrong? Yes




Usapa = One trick pony. Buying tricks daily from Seham. Next Bidder?

What's wrong. I'm cheering you on, bro. Your strategy is spot on. The judges agreed with you about the naughty reprobates moniker. Its working.. its working. Press ahead!!

 

[nic4us]

Baptiste and Wilder- dead on with Wake. The West chose to spend two million plus for an unripe case, so keep forging ahead with that groundbreaking logic.Interesting how quickly the West mindset chooses to shrug off the ruling from the 9th, and then re write labor law. Now the Nic is back! Out come the cheerleaders, the ones who must have urged you on with the original suit where the cardiologist / attorney took your money and delivered nothing.I'll take Wilder over Mitch Vasin any day.Very amusing how Vasin tried to go head to head with him, and was literally shredded.Be careful with that money you keep shoveling into Leonidas with the urging of Koontz and Vasin. They are giving you very bad advice. Now the company has delayed the inevitable with their filing. You cannot put this INTERNAL UNION ISSUE off much longer. When it becomes very clear USAPA is free to go ahead as long as there is no damage you will see. And it all depends on what damage is. These days, if you have a job you are basically undamaged. Your view of damage is going to be very interesting when you have to stack it up against another pilot.

Swan,

I have read the B&W blog numerous times. It reads almost as bad as a Seham logic train of thought. As a matter of fact it slams Seham for not brining up the east ALPA MEC lawsuit. The funny thing is it quotes judge Wake's assessment of usapa ( "usapa has at various stages misstated law, facts, and procedural history, with frequent recousre to the contradiction or confusion.....produced by a medley of judicial phrases severed from their enviroment") but is just a guilty of doing the same thing. Wilder has a dog in the fight, he advised the east MEC prior to usapa's election, and told them usapa would be unable to change the Nic. Why did he change his mind? In short the guy is a schmuck, he agrees that Wake ruled correctly that usapa was bound as the successor union to ALPA, then turns and argues that usapa does not have to pay any attention to the agreements he just said they were bound to.

The West has not shrugged off the 9th's decision. We understand the points being made by Wilder, inaccurate as they may be. We do not take the advice of Vasin, we take the advice of Polsinelli Shugart. We are not going to re-litigate the same case, argue the same facts and hear Sully's embarassing testimony a second time. If this ever becomes "unquestionably ripe" (which I doubt it ever will because the company is not going to get itself sued for usapa's benefit), we point to Addington, say hey judge, we already litigated this, and we already have a verdict. Starting to understand the 9ths "pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR" quote yet? Maybe Wilder or the longshoreman can chime in on collateral estoppel.

 

[fatherabraham]

CallawayGolf, on 10 September 2010 - 09:24 AM, said:

"A person's own mind isn't a reliable source for determining moral justifications. "

CG,
I will grant you partial truth in that statement.
Tis why when it comes to morality/truth i concede to HIS WORD.
Are you some kind of diety, because "brother" you sure spout off a lot of morality.
FA

 

[Phoenix]

... We are not going to re-litigate the same case, argue the same facts and hear Sully's embarassing testimony a second time. If this ever becomes "unquestionably ripe" (which I doubt it ever will because the company is not going to get itself sued for usapa's benefit), we point to Addington, say hey judge, we already litigated this, and we already have a verdict. Starting to understand the 9ths "pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR" quote yet? Maybe Wilder or the longshoreman can chime in on collateral estoppel.

You should stick to doing walkarounds. Don't forget to carry a flashlight.

 

[nic4us]

You should stick to doing walkarounds. Don't forget to carry a flashlight.

I use the 60/40 rule to determine who gets to do the walkaround. I'll do them about 50% of the time if the temperature is between 40 and 60.

 

[nic4us]

Tis why when it comes to morality/truth i concede to HIS WORD.

FA

FA

This morning, on the anniversary of the attacks, I will ask that we all may find truth and solice in his word.

 

[Freebird]

You should stick to doing walkarounds. Don't forget to carry a flashlight.

Spoken as a true AFO. Going on what, 25 years in the right seat?


Usapa = "Here, smoke some of this"

 

[Freebird]

You speak with forked tongue sir.

Thats what happens when you are responding to two different posts. Its called comprehension. You along with the other AFO's and your legal counsel should subscribe. You see, it allows you to fully grasp what is being said to you. That way you can prepare a proper response.


Or continue to 'spin' the facts. You agreed to Binding Arbitration.


On the East, you choose to avoid. You avoid Binding Arbitration. You Avoid direct questions. You avoid the truth. Pibrat, cue up your East AFO "crickets" to give an example of an East response to the truth.

You celebrate the case not being Ripe....yet. Wake up ladies back East, the DFR has merit and will become ripe.



Let see possible East Responses:

You spent 2 million dollars

Freund, Baptiste, Wilder

Goat Video

DELETED BY MODERATOR

More Avoidance, Redirect, and minutia...


Usapa = We have NO CLUE how to get out of this mess we created....DOH/DOA

 

[Metroyet]

Let see possible East Responses:

You spent 2 million dollars

Freund, Baptiste, Wilder

Goat Video
DELETED BY MODERATOR

More Avoidance, Redirect, and minutia...


Usapa = We have NO CLUE how to get out of this mess we created....DOH/DOA

You forgot:

"It was only a proposal!!" (and)

"Internal Union Process!!!"

" The Gold Standard....Wide Range of Reasonableness!!"

 

[Piedmont1984]

Swan,

....... If this ever becomes "unquestionably ripe" (which I doubt it ever will because the company is not going to get itself sued for usapa's benefit), we point to Addington, say hey judge, we already litigated this, and we already have a verdict. Starting to understand the 9ths "pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR" quote yet? Maybe Wilder or the longshoreman can chime in on collateral estoppel.

Is that another way of saying "we are comfortable with our position"? Take some free advice from those with experience, don't count your chickens...

When DFRII happens it will be an entirely new trial, with a new jury and perhaps a different judge whose legal sensibilities may be considerably different form Judge Wake. It will be litigated in the shadow of the "discussion points" made by the 9th Circuit regarding USAPA's obligation to be fair while at the same time free to navigate outside the narrow constraints of the Nic.

I don't think it is going to be a replay of Addington.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Is that another way of saying "we are comfortable with our position"? Take some free advice from those with experience, don't count your chickens...

When DFRII happens it will be an entirely new trial, with a new jury and perhaps a different judge whose legal sensibilities may be considerably different form Judge Wake. It will be litigated in the shadow of the "discussion points" made by the 9th Circuit regarding USAPA's obligation to be fair while at the same time free to navigate outside the narrow constraints of the Nic.

I don't think it is going to be a replay of Addington.

DFR II is upon us in the form of the company's declaratory action. You're right that the second DFR won't be totally identical to the first, but that has more to do with the evolving circumstances which make the issue to be tried even clearer for the West. What the company wants to know is whether it is unfair for USAPA to come to the table and pass a list across that isn't the list that all agreed to abide by - East, West and the company. Anything different raises the suspicion of why the list is being changed, and the cold hard facts are: (1) the west no longer exists, ergo no change to agree to change the arbitrated list; (2) the company's liability turns on the union's duty to fairly represent the West; (3) whatever can be crafted by the East in lieu of the Nicolau is going to be better for the East and worse for the West. All the evidence related to the "why" usapa is doing this comes in for the dec action: Bradford memo, no West input, the fact that DOH is a significant benefit to the East and calamity for the West (and if it weren't, then why the C&Rs?) The substantive portion of the Nic award will be readmitted and in there Nic talks about why C&Rs don't work for either side. The East is alone in their belief that DOH is somehow as fair to the West as was the Nic. Nobody believes that. A jury took but two hours to return their opinion on the matter. A judge will surely see what USAPA and the East are trying to do, and that's circumvent a binding arbitration. Nobody...I mean NOBODY....supports what you guys are doing. There is no legal basis and beyond that, it is not a precedent any court would be inclined to endorse.

The only reason USAPA was entitled to a jury the first time around is because money damages were at issue. If USAPA is good at one thing, it's confusing the issue. You tried it in the first trial and couldn't get any of the nine juror to bite. Good luck trying to get a highly educated judge who understands the negative effects of what USAPA is trying to do upon the rest of labor and management to agree with you.

 

[notsofast]

Nobody...I mean NOBODY....supports what you guys are doing.

Read some other aviation web boards, despite the ALPA supporters there and on this board, your the isolationist. Tell 28j Jacobs to pack up and take his losses. Filing all these frivolous law suits will have him loose any credibility he had left.

Dismissed. Not ripe. 2 million dollars and all he had to say is "there was a memo" and a lot of "aaahs" at the 9th.

 

[Phoenix]

Spoken as a true AFO. Going on what, 25 years in the right seat?


Usapa = "Here, smoke some of this"

I'm flattered that you were jealous that I posted to someone else. :wub: No need to preen for my attention. I'll endeavor to devote more attention to you. Promise.