I won the lottery? Yeah, that's it, it was all given to me. How did you get here, on your back?
I have no use for the opinion of someone that calls another "9-piece".
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
I won the lottery? Yeah, that's it, it was all given to me. How did you get here, on your back?
I have no use for the opinion of someone that calls another "9-piece".
Of course they will but what does that have to do with my point?
BBoy: "Yeah Nosumapclax, ignore that bright light the 9th shown on the requirement that USAP represent east AND WEST fairly and that it's seniority proposal didn't do that...."
It's wryly amusing to observe that only the "WEST" is worthy of capitals where "fairly" is concerned. I take it there's no need then, to ever even consider any course of action that might, in any way, shape or form, represent the minor and utterly insignificant "east" concerns fairly ?
Just for fun; please cite the verbage within the 9th's ruling wherein it was directly stated that " it's seniority proposal didn't do that...".......?
It's wryly amusing to observe that only the "WEST" is worthy of capitals where "fairly" is concerned. I take it there's no need then, to ever even consider any course of action that might, in any way, shape or form, represent the minor and utterly insignificant "east" concerns fairly ?
Just for fun; please cite the verbage within the 9th's ruling wherein it was directly stated that " it's seniority proposal didn't do that...".......?
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
You are so good at preventing errors and explaining the truth. Maybe you could explain how E=MCC affects the proposed merger. ??
Oh yeah, wide rage of reasonableness.
Requiring legal definition is an admission that a term or process is unfair by nature. Flawed. Imperfect.
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
You prefer an individualized, subjective definition of fair that is different from person to person? How does the term "fair" have any meaning if there is no objective standard of measure as to what constitutes "fair". Is fair/unfair a feeling or a fact? if its a fact then once all the emotional overtones are removed anyone can determine what is or is not fair based on a pre-determined set of criteria. If it is a feeling, then it has little basis for inclusion in contract law or in the regular course of business transactions.
Callaway: "If all proposals are unfair then there could never be a fair proposal, thus attempts to avoid one unfair proposal in favor of another unfair proposal would not be a legitimate union objective." Ummm....Huh!!?? ...I mean...WTF?
"If all proposals are unfair.."...Ok...we'll so stipulate, purely for the sake of indulging whatever bizarre excuse for an "argument" you're seeking to advance here. Explain to all the logic, (given that all proposals are unfair), through which the advancement of any one over another can, of it's self, either constitute "a legitimate union objective" or fail any testing via reasonable scrutiny to be such?
No?..Ok then. Let's try the following:
All proposals are unfair is the accepted premise here:
1) One proposal requires the homes and personal property of the majority membership to be burned to the ground, and said ground subsequently salted.
2) One proposal requires that all be instead spared such abuse and forfeiture, but offers no other gains.
The most casual observer "might" note that case 2 would provide a more palatable outcome than case 1. Through any process of logic; would not then, the advancement of 2 become a legitimate objective?
Callaway: "What’s the legal definition of fair.....?" Kindly enlighten us all therein. This ought to be good fun.
"If all proposals are unfair.."...Ok...we'll so stipulate, purely for the sake of indulging whatever bizarre excuse for an "argument" you're seeking to advance here. Explain to all the logic, (given that all proposals are unfair), through which the advancement of any one over another can, of it's self, either constitute "a legitimate union objective" or fail any testing via reasonable scrutiny to be such?
No?..Ok then. Let's try the following:
All proposals are unfair is the accepted premise here:
1) One proposal requires the homes and personal property of the majority membership to be burned to the ground, and said ground subsequently salted.
2) One proposal requires that all be instead spared such abuse and forfeiture, but offers no other gains.
The most casual observer "might" note that case 2 would provide a more palatable outcome than case 1. Through any process of logic; would not then, the advancement of 2 become a legitimate objective?
Callaway: "What’s the legal definition of fair.....?" Kindly enlighten us all therein. This ought to be good fun.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
"a union fails its dfr if it acts in a fashion that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith"
Sound like anybody you know?
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
I have no idea where you are going with any of this. I didn't make the assertion at all proposals are unfair - that was the claim made by one Graceson which I found to an absurd over-generalization which apparently you do as well.Callaway: "If all proposals are unfair then there could never be a fair proposal, thus attempts to avoid one unfair proposal in favor of another unfair proposal would not be a legitimate union objective." Ummm....Huh!!?? ...I mean...WTF?
"If all proposals are unfair.."...Ok...we'll so stipulate, purely for the sake of indulging whatever bizarre excuse for an "argument" you're seeking to advance here. Explain to all the logic, (given that all proposals are unfair), through which the advancement of any one over another can, of it's self, either constitute "a legitimate union objective" or fail any testing, via reasonable scrutiny, to be such?
No?..Ok then. Let's try the following:
All proposals are unfair is the accepted premise here:
1) One proposal requires the homes and personal property of the majority membership to be burned to the ground, and said ground subsequently salted.
2) One proposal requires that all be instead spared such abuse and forfeiture.
The most casual observer "might" note that case 2 would provide a more palatable outcome than case 1. Through any process of logic; would not then, the advancement of 2 become a legitimate objective?
Callaway: "What’s the legal definition of fair.....?" Kindly enlighten us all therein
There are lots of definitions of fair, but the ones that seem to fit the context here are:
1. Just or appropriate according to the circumstances
2. In accordance with the rules or standards
In the case of a CBA's statutory requirement to fulfill it's duty to fair representation, the standard has been defined as, to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct".
So if a proposal or an outcome is done in accordance with the rules, is appropriate to circumstances, serves a legitimate purpose for all members without discrimination, and is not done in an arbitrary manner, it is inherently "fair". And since we are ultimately discussing the Nicolau Award we can objectively affirm that it, 1) followed the rules, 2) was appropriate to the circumstances, 3) served a legitimate purpose without discrimination, and 4) was well reasoned and articulated as such rather than being arbitrary.
Meeting the definition of "fair" doesn't mean it was the only way of doing it. There could have been countless "fair" outcomes produced by the process and awarded by the arbitrator, but just because some don't like the results of the award doesn't mean the product of the arbitration was unfair.
Callaway: "What’s the legal definition of fair.....?" East: "Kindly enlighten us all therein"....and the tap dancing began. Callaway: "There are lots of definitions of fair,...."...."There could have been countless "fair" outcomes produced"..."Meeting the definition of "fair" doesn't mean it was the only way of doing it."
"Meeting the definition of "fair" didn't become any issue here, as you couldn't even begin to produce a "legal definition" of such, which was, admittedly a "trick question"
Sigh!... I think we're done here....
"Meeting the definition of "fair" didn't become any issue here, as you couldn't even begin to produce a "legal definition" of such, which was, admittedly a "trick question"
Sigh!... I think we're done here....
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
There is very little chance that APA would try to screw the West the way lUSAPA did.
What's the downside for the West?
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
It's not a trick question. If a contract or federal statute uses the term "fair", then fair has a definition in that context which is a different definition that someone having fair skin, having fair skies ahead, or receiving a fair trail before a jury of one's peers. Clearly the definition of fair is contextual to the matter to which one is referring. So if someone claims "all proposals are unfair" then one must ascertain which usage of the term "fair" the poster was meaning. I simply tried to help by eliminating all of the improper usages of the term fair by asking for a specific legal definition as it relates to proposals (contract law or perhaps under the RLA). So, even within a legal context, there are still many definitions and I still don;t know which one the original poster was referencing (
fair representation, fair trade, fair trial, fair wages, ect.). In order to test said hypothesis of "all proposals are unfair" we need to know how fair is defined before such a claim can be confirmed or refuted. Meaningful communication requires an agreement on the definitions and range of meanings of a word but I guess your not interested in that since "you think we're done here".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
