US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

Funny the non-contract employees, the ramp and csa had concessions rammed down their throat without agreeing, when ALPA as usual were the first one to agree to concessions.

And we agreed to concessions, just using a different formula than the other organized groups.

During negotiations, we didnt refuse concessions.

Dont let the facts get in your way.

OK, if the facts are not in the way, give us the percentage so we know what the "formula" means. I never said you did not refuse concessions. The scale of the "concessions" (if yours could even be called concessions) are the subject of discussion. Give us your percentage of W-2 without bulls@#

 

[Black Swan]

OK black swan, What did the 9th rule on and please be very specific?

Otter

Otter, you have it as well as I do. How can I go here? Just read it. You feel differently. Lets'agree to wait for the Silver deal, then talk OK We only have a few days for some new stuff. The 9th is here and gone, and we obviously see it differently.

 

[OTTER574]

Otter, If this is what you honestly feel you need to do, then do it.As I said, no hard feelings.

Black Swan...This is what we honestly need to do to prevent a group of malcontents back east from stealing our jobs.

BTW, You sound somewhat similar with someone that was on the witness stand in federal court in dfr1 as a defendant.

Will you be in Judge Silver's courtroom on the 9th?

Otter

 

[OTTER574]

Otter, you have it as well as I do. How can I go here? Just read it. You feel differently. Lets'agree to wait for the Silver deal, then talk OK We only have a few days for some new stuff. The 9th is here and gone, and we obviously see it differently.

Non answer again black swan...do you want me to post the link or is UNQUESTIONABLE RIPE DFR enough for you?

Otter

 

[john john]

And we agreed to concessions, just using a different formula than the other organized groups.

During negotiations, we didnt refuse concessions.

Dont let the facts get in your way.

http://www.goiam.org/index.php/headquarters/departments/hpwo-partnerships/hpwo-information/6237-high-performance-work-organization-partnerships
here you go guys and gals the IAM offering for givebacks

“We like to think that, as a union, we are smart enough to recognize the need for change, and to make change work for us,” stated IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger in describing the IAM’s proactive response to globalization—the High Performance Work Organization (HPWO) Partnerships process.
The global market place affects the way companies, nations, and entire blocks of nations engage in international trade. These pressures also affect the way we work. That is why the IAM has developed an alternative process to traditional labor-management practices to help save and create jobs and grow workplaces where IAM members are employed.
****************
****************

http://www.goiam.org/index.php/headquarters/departments/hpwo-partnerships/hpwo-information/6133-the-duty-of-fair-representation-and-hpwo-partnerships

When the union, in partnership with management, jointly designs and implements new work systems, union leaders need to be sure that the union is fairly representing the members of the bargaining unit. This long-standing union obligation is known as the
*********************
*********************


duty of fair representation.
The duty of fair representation is not only mandated by good trade union principles, it is also the law. As the exclusive representative, the union has the legal duty to fairly represent all bargaining unit members. This legal duty is enforceable in court as well as by the appropriate government agency (i.e., National Labor Relations Board, Canada Labour Relations Board, state or provincial agencies). Therefore, as in all other aspects of union responsibility, when union leaders initiate HPWO partnerships, they must fulfill their legal duty of fair representation.
Duty of Fair Representation Standards
The union''s duty of fair representation is violated when union leaders act in an "arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner." The heart of the duty is the requirement that the union act in the employees' interest, and that such action does not negatively impact the members of the bargaining unit. Honest mistakes generally are not a violation of the duty, and the courts have made clear that union leaders are allowed a "wide range of reasonableness" in their actions.
Perhaps the easiest way to flesh out the "arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith" standard is to provide some examples of conduct explaining the duty of fair representation:
Union leaders are not required to take every grievance to arbitration, even if the grievant/grievor wants to arbitrate the issue, but the union steward or representative dealing with the problem, issue, or difference that arises should:
perform a thorough investigation;
follow contractual time limits;
keep an employee informed as to the status of his or her grievance; • decide whether to pursue the grievance based on a judgment of the merits of the grievance rather than on personal bias;
advise the grievant/grievor of the decision and the reasons therefore.
Although it is not strictly required by the duty of fair representation, it makes sense to keep a written record to prove that these things have been done properly.
Violations of the duty of representation may result from the following actions:
Treating employees differently because of their gender, race, religion, political considerations, or sexual preference.
Acting in a completely arbitrary manner; for example, pulling a grievance for no reason whatsoever.
Acting in bad faith, lying to a grievant/grievor, or going out of the way not to help someone out of any personal feelings or reasons.
Discriminating on the basis of membership status.
In particular issues like seniority, job placement, availability of training, and appointment to union positions, there are often winners and losers. In contract negotiations, some proposals may help some employees more than others. Making tough choices, for example, the situation where whatever the union decides, one group of employees will benefit more than others does not violate the duty so long as the union is using its best judgment and not acting specifically to hurt one group of employees. Simply put, as long as union leaders are protecting the interests of the bargaining unit as a whole, no violation of the duty of fair representation will occur.

 

[nevergiveup]

Non answer again black swan...do you want me to post the link or is UNQUESTIONABLE RIPE DFR enough for you?

Otter

Perhaps the west should sue ALPA. It's an ALPA agreement that is preventing the west from taking advantage of the NIC. ALPA took their money for years then turned tail, ran away, and changed the locks on the doors.

 

[700UW]

The HPWO saved Harley-Davidson, John Deere and other companies, we had at US for a bit and it did make improvements.

Gee why is US Airways CWA not fight for the west to make them members instead of cowering to the company to prevent a vote between the IBT and CWA.

US threatened them to make it a vote unless they just take the west and transition them to the east bankruptcy contract, the cw and ibt caved just to keep the dues money flowing.

Now for the Real Truth:

To remain competitive in the global marketplace an organization must use every available resource-especially the insights and experience of front-line workers. In most organizations, however, the primary focus is a low-wage, offshore strategy. Generally this strategy is used by corporations still clinging to top-down, command-and-control work systems. These organizations promote worker "empowerment" to achieve improvements in productivity, but fail to address real workplace change. This strategy may substantially increase the "bottom line" in the short run, but may have little effect on increased market share and growth of the business in the long run. From the worker''s point of view this strategy generally means job loss.

In response to this strategy, IAM members, their leaders and management, in a variety of work sites across the U.S. and Canada, are creating innovative work systems that target and achieve the mutually beneficial goals of expanding business growth while saving and creating jobs. These new systems are called High Performance Work Organization Partnerships.

IAM High Performance Work Organization Partnerships are proactive alternatives to quality circles and all the other "participatory" programs that management attempted to force upon IAM members in the past. Together, IAM members and their employers are successfully changing the workplace culture. Through joint consensus decisions around the vital functions of the workplace, the partners commit to grow the business, more accurately measure and reduce costs, and improve the work processes in order to save and create jobs.

HPWO's require a long term commitment, by both partners, to continuous education and communication. This degree of workplace change requires that employees, wall-to-wall, are supported both from the union and management. The result is a distinct advantage over all other so-called "participatory" programs.

Nothing about givebacks are job loss now is there?

John John, or shall it be spinmaster who cant accept the fact his cwa caved to US Airways just for the sake of collecting dues.

 

[john john]

US threatened them to make it a vote unless they just take the west and transition them to the east bankruptcy contract,
Now for the Real Truth:

DL/NW
UA/CO
Need I say more

 

[Barrister]

http://www.goiam.org/index.php/headquarters/departments/hpwo-partnerships/hpwo-information/6237-high-performance-work-organization-partnerships
here you go guys and gals the IAM offering for givebacks

“We like to think that, as a union, we are smart enough to recognize the need for change, and to make change work for us,” stated IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger in describing the IAM’s proactive response to globalization—the High Performance Work Organization (HPWO) Partnerships process.
The global market place affects the way companies, nations, and entire blocks of nations engage in international trade. These pressures also affect the way we work. That is why the IAM has developed an alternative process to traditional labor-management practices to help save and create jobs and grow workplaces where IAM members are employed.
****************
****************

http://www.goiam.org/index.php/headquarters/departments/hpwo-partnerships/hpwo-information/6133-the-duty-of-fair-representation-and-hpwo-partnerships

When the union, in partnership with management, jointly designs and implements new work systems, union leaders need to be sure that the union is fairly representing the members of the bargaining unit. This long-standing union obligation is known as the
*********************
*********************


duty of fair representation.
The duty of fair representation is not only mandated by good trade union principles, it is also the law. As the exclusive representative, the union has the legal duty to fairly represent all bargaining unit members. This legal duty is enforceable in court as well as by the appropriate government agency (i.e., National Labor Relations Board, Canada Labour Relations Board, state or provincial agencies). Therefore, as in all other aspects of union responsibility, when union leaders initiate HPWO partnerships, they must fulfill their legal duty of fair representation.
Duty of Fair Representation Standards
The union''s duty of fair representation is violated when union leaders act in an "arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner." The heart of the duty is the requirement that the union act in the employees' interest, and that such action does not negatively impact the members of the bargaining unit. Honest mistakes generally are not a violation of the duty, and the courts have made clear that union leaders are allowed a "wide range of reasonableness" in their actions.
Perhaps the easiest way to flesh out the "arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith" standard is to provide some examples of conduct explaining the duty of fair representation:
Union leaders are not required to take every grievance to arbitration, even if the grievant/grievor wants to arbitrate the issue, but the union steward or representative dealing with the problem, issue, or difference that arises should:
perform a thorough investigation;
follow contractual time limits;
keep an employee informed as to the status of his or her grievance; • decide whether to pursue the grievance based on a judgment of the merits of the grievance rather than on personal bias;
advise the grievant/grievor of the decision and the reasons therefore.
Although it is not strictly required by the duty of fair representation, it makes sense to keep a written record to prove that these things have been done properly.
Violations of the duty of representation may result from the following actions:
Treating employees differently because of their gender, race, religion, political considerations, or sexual preference.
Acting in a completely arbitrary manner; for example, pulling a grievance for no reason whatsoever.
Acting in bad faith, lying to a grievant/grievor, or going out of the way not to help someone out of any personal feelings or reasons.
Discriminating on the basis of membership status.
In particular issues like seniority, job placement, availability of training, and appointment to union positions, there are often winners and losers. In contract negotiations, some proposals may help some employees more than others. Making tough choices, for example, the situation where whatever the union decides, one group of employees will benefit more than others does not violate the duty so long as the union is using its best judgment and not acting specifically to hurt one group of employees. Simply put, as long as union leaders are protecting the interests of the bargaining unit as a whole, no violation of the duty of fair representation will occur.

Sounds like sound legal reasoning to me. Sign me up!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Pi brat]

Management is chomping at the bit to sell out the West pilots. Hopefully all Westies understand that completely by now.

Won't answer my question, will you?

 

[aquagreen73s]

Perhaps the west should sue ALPA. It's an ALPA agreement that is preventing the west from taking advantage of the NIC. ALPA took their money for years then turned tail, ran away, and changed the locks on the doors.

USAPA is ALPA's successor. USAPA is the entity acting in a discriminatory manner towards the West. The substance of the West legal theory was tested once before a jury of nine who returned a unanimous verdict against USAPA in two hours.

Expect the same in DFR II - if we ever get there.


Enjoy LOA93.

 

[Pi brat]

pi brat, funny you bring up addington again..such as why it never existed per your boys of usapa stated.

IT IS ORDERED oral argument on the Motions to Dismiss [35], [36], and [50] is set for February 9, 2011 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver. Counsel must appear in person.


Docs 55 and 61 are West Pilots’ and US Airways’ oppositions to USAPA MTD, respectively.

Doc 66 is USAPA’s reply in their Motion to Dismiss West Pilots’ cross-claim.

Doc 68 is USAPA’s reply in their Motion to Dismiss Airways’ declaratory action.

Otter

Funny that you ramble and quote but never answered the original question. You said the company sued USAPA when in fact, they sued USAPA and Addington, right? How's your head today, judging by your posts it must have been quite a one man party!

 

[Barrister]

OK black swan, What did the 9th rule on and please be very specific?

Otter

Dude this ain't rocket science.

The court held that the case is not ripe for adjudication. Their reasoning is as follows

1. You have not been harmed because there is no CBA.
2. Once there is a CBA if you feel you have been harmed you may then file your lawsuit. No SOL problems.
3. You may have an unquestionably ripe lawsuit once you have a CBA.
4. Your fears may not be realized because you don't know what the final product may be and it may not be the NIC.
5. Once you have a CBA the test is then: Did the union proposal fit in a wide range of reasonableness.

Not only that but they seemed to take notice that USAPA was formed for the purpose of blocking NIC
and quite franly they didn't seem to care and that USAPA was as free to abandon NIC as ALPA was. In
a real trial on the merits you think it will come out that ALPA tried to broker a compromise and that as soon as Prater
saw the list he knew there would be trouble. If I were you, I would be worried........oh wait.......YOU ARE WORRIED..
....DON'T BLAME YOU. And just for the record......I totally blame the senile one for this fiasco......not even 1% on the West.
If you sold your house to pay your attorneys I would not blame you one bit. Tragedy all around.......NIC threw us under
the bus and made you think it was OK.

By the way think of this. If a court is telling you that you have an unquestionably ripe DFR once a CBA is signed and tell you in same opinion that it may not be the harm you think.....and that USAPA was as free to abandon......do you read that to mean it HAS TO BE THE NIC OR SOMETHING BETTER. If you mortgage you house based on that reasonaing then it's on you. Go sleep in a tent!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Barrister]

Black Swan, here we go again and it's getting late. Crew news is not case law. What parker, kirby or any other lcc official states off the record is just that...BS

Under Oath statements count black swan..the rest of your blather above is just that....BS.

Otter

THAT IS ONE OF THE DUMBEST THINGS EVER WRITTEN ON THESE BOARDS. ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ON VIDEO AND THE PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT IS A COPR REP.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Pi brat]

THAT IS ONE OF THE DUMBEST THINGS EVER WRITTEN ON THESE BOARDS. ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ON VIDEO.

NICDOA
NPJB

Well Barrister, consider the source.