US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Bear96]

The Federal court through DFR law still can not enforce the Nic award because they do not have the authority now or in the future to change the pilot contract terms retroactively or force the USAPA migs to vote for and thus confirm the Nic award. The court can not eliminate voting rights. If courts had this power judges could control elections and contract terms.

Could you expand on these "voting rights." You seem to be implying that there is a requirement under federal labor law that members vote on and ratify CBAs or other agreements reached by union leaders on their behalf.

Pretend it is the 1960s and we have a union with very racist members. If the majority white members refuse to ratify a CBA that would do anything other than put all African Americans at the bottom of the senioirty list, are you saying the courts would tolerate that outcome because the members will never ratify anything else?

(PS - to you and others who have been responding to me - thanks for keeping this line of discussion civil.)

 

[LSS]

Pretend it is the 1960s and we have a union with very racist members. If the majority white members refuse to ratify a CBA that would do anything other than put all African Americans at the bottom of the senioirty list, are you saying the courts would tolerate that outcome because the members

Bear, I know you are aware of the Federal laws prohibiting "racial discrimination"... However, there is nothing on the books that I am aware of involving "internal union disputes", which is what the NIC is. I think your analogy falls far off the mark.

 

[Bear96]

Bear, I know you are aware of the Federal laws prohibiting "racial discrimination"... However, there is nothing on the books that I am aware of involving "internal union disputes", which is what the NIC is. I think your analogy falls far off the mark.

The DFR concept had its genesis in union racial discrimination.

A jury found USAPA liable for violating its DFR towards the West pilots.

I do not think the analogy is far off the mark at all.

 

[Metroyet]

Because you now have it on the record by the 9th that a NIC ontract will not pass.
Something Wake said was mere speculation. OK maybe it will pass in 5 years when
most of us are gone but maybe not even then.
NICDOA
NPJB

Oh for Christ Sake. You think the 9th has a crystal ball? That statement was made in Dicta which is irrelevant. They said "not ripe". That's all. Nobody knows if a nic. inclusive contract will pass. I suspect it will but there isn't a single entity on Earth that can say, with legally binding conclusiveness, that they know how a vote would shake out one way or another.

Barring an actual VOTE, there is nothing....absolutely nothing on record indicating what would happen in a vote. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Zone5]

The PSA/PI/USAir seniority list integration in 1988 and 1989 complied with ALPA merger policy at the time. The USAirways/America West SLI, including binding arbitration. complied with ALPA merger policy in 2007.

You are correct, the commute is getting really old. But since the only way I will get a raise is to bid the A330. If Kasher sides with the company that is where you will see this old man finish his career, if world events don't cause USAirways to disappear into the sunset.

And yes, I would vote for an industry standard contract inclusive of the Nicolau Award. Just as I would vote against DOH with the current conditions and restrictions.

Moot point, since I will be long retired before you "youngsters" have anything to vote on. I truly hope the remainder of your career turns out for the best, but it will be shameful if you achieve it through a DOH cramdown throwing the West pilots under your favorite bus.

So, DOH with C&R's was a good thing as long as ALPA said so? Not to mention that it benefited you at the time of course. Now that it just so happens to not be any skin off your nose, the ALPA sponsored slotting/relative position merger policy is OK also.

It's that "old school" ALPA mentality that got them voted off the property. All of a sudden merger policy which complies with union policy under USAPA (the legally constituted CBA now) is not worthy of your support. Interesting, so it's not current union policy that's important to you, it's past ALPA union policy that counts. Of course current ALPA policy doesn't count either, because it calls for a three arbitrator panel (in the event of arbitration) and specifically, consideration of longevity.

I suspect that you would vote for any contract that would be an improvement to your personal circumstances. Why change now?

Youngster? I hardly resemble that characterization. You must have me confused with the former West pilot whom the NIC says should be senior to me, he will be here 22 years after I retire at age 65.

seajay

 

[Zone5]

Oh for Christ Sake. You think the 9th has a crystal ball? That statement was made in Dicta which is irrelevant. They said "not ripe". That's all. Nobody knows if a nic. inclusive contract will pass. I suspect it will but there isn't a single entity on Earth that can say, with legally binding conclusiveness, that they know how a vote would shake out one way or another.

Barring an actual VOTE, there is nothing....absolutely nothing on record indicating what would happen in a vote. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I suspect that a NIC inclusive industry standard contract could indeed pass, but you would have to get there from here. Not with my support, but my opinion at that point would once again be irrelevant, just as it always was when ALPA was here.

The West along with the old ALPA "I've got mine and always have crowd" (senior widebody and narrowbody captains) along with the new hires, could very well swing the vote for the money. This bunch should be pulling for LOA-93 to go against the company, because then "Dougie" would have to get off of some serious dollars and that is the only way he is going to even get close to agreeing to an "industry standard" contract.

seajay

 

[Captain Underpants]

Could you expand on these "voting rights." You seem to be implying that there is a requirement under federal labor law that members vote on and ratify CBAs or other agreements reached by union leaders on their behalf.

Pretend it is the 1960s and we have a union with very racist members. If the majority white members refuse to ratify a CBA that would do anything other than put all African Americans at the bottom of the senioirty list, are you saying the courts would tolerate that outcome because the members will never ratify anything else?

(PS - to you and others who have been responding to me - thanks for keeping this line of discussion civil.)

Bear,

Good question and you are correct. That would be a clear DFR violation because it is "discriminatory" and this type of union action is not allowed under Federal law and would trigger a summary judgement. The workers would however retain their voting rights to reject any new contract they don't like regardless of the reasons. The West pilots allege a DFR violation based on "bad faith" by USAPA not discrimination based on race, sex, religion which is illegal.

I know what your next argument will be but but I have to catch a 3:00 flight so won't be able to respond. All these arguments have already been made in court and the answers so far are contained in the transcipts if you are still interested.

underpants

 

[Metroyet]

It's that "old school" ALPA mentality that got them voted off the property.

seajay

I beg to differ. Two things got ALPA thrown off the property. Firstly, The East's inability to rebuild their careers on backs the West while gaining furlough protection as well. Secondly, Lee $e$ham came to town promising to sell you a magic snake oil. Apparently you guys bought it.

The First was never going to happen in any circumstance, and the Second is a simple scumbag, Ambulance chasing liar. It's really that simple.

Nobody believes this "ALPA is to blame" horseschitt other than AFOC members.

 

[Bear96]

The workers would however retain their voting rights to reject any new contract they don't like regardless of the reasons.

Again you seem to be saying that there is some "right" under federal labor law for employees to vote on and ratify a CBA before a CBA is valid, which meants that such a vote and ratification is legally required.

There is no such requirement.

 

[N924PS]

So, DOH with C&R's was a good thing as long as ALPA said so? Not to mention that it benefited you at the time of course. Now that it just so happens to not be any skin off your nose, the ALPA sponsored slotting/relative position merger policy is OK also.

It's that "old school" ALPA mentality that got them voted off the property. All of a sudden merger policy which complies with union policy under USAPA (the legally constituted CBA now) is not worthy of your support. Interesting, so it's not current union policy that's important to you, it's past ALPA union policy that counts. Of course current ALPA policy doesn't count either, because it calls for a three arbitrator panel (in the event of arbitration) and specifically, consideration of longevity.

I suspect that you would vote for any contract that would be an improvement to your personal circumstances. Why change now?

Youngster? I hardly resemble that characterization. You must have me confused with the former West pilot whom the NIC says should be senior to me, he will be here 22 years after I retire at age 65.

seajay

Current union policy was written after the Nicolau Award was written. Specifically to circumvent the results of a binding arbitartion.

Even if there had been a three arbitator panel that considered longevity, you wouldn't have accepted anything less than DOH and charged your Merger Committee accordingly.

What was your relative position on the pre-merger list? What was your senior West pilot's relative position? Within a few percent I would guess.

 

[Zone5]

Current union policy was written after the Nicolau Award was written. Specifically to circumvent the results of a binding arbitartion.

Even if there had been a three arbitator panel that considered longevity, you wouldn't have accepted anything less than DOH and charged your Merger Committee accordingly.

What was your relative position on the pre-merger list? What was your senior West pilot's relative position? Within a few percent I would guess.

Doesn't matter when or why the current CBA merger policy was written. It is what it is and USAPA is the CBA today. That policy could just as easily be changed to the NIC, if that's what the majority wants to vote for. As I said before, it might very well could be changed if the company threw enough money at the pilots. No doubt you and many others would go for the bucks. Like I said, you need to be pulling for LOA-93 to go against the company.

Hard to say how a three judge panel considering longevity would have ruled. I suspect it would not be the NIC and may well have been a ratify-able proposal to the majority. Personally, I would be willing to go that route today.

Relative position, pre-merger/post-merger doesn't matter, it's all about who gets the benefit of the value of the attrition brought to the deal by the East, over the next few years. I know you couldn't care less, as you don't have a dog in that hunt. In the mean time, try to bear-up on the 767, a position you are in by virtue of the DOH merger with PSA.

seajay

 

[CactusPilot1]

The DFR concept had its genesis in union racial discrimination.

A jury found USAPA liable for violating its DFR towards the West pilots.

I do not think the analogy is far off the mark at all.

Bear, no doubt you have the big picture. You might have noticed my unanswered question. I imply why it is OK for Usapians to stop paying dues to ALPA, the very people who try to get pilots terminated for withholding dues payments to USAPA.

Then they claim our dispute is an internal issue. Code for majority, mob rule.

Traditional mores and ethics don't apply to them and they make up rules as they go along.

 

[767jetz]

Relative position, pre-merger/post-merger doesn't matter, it's all about who gets the benefit of the value of the attrition brought to the deal by the East, over the next few years.

How do you rectify the fact that Nic gives you 2/3 of the upgrades based on what you brought to the merger. Sounds like you want more than what you brought, since Nic accounted for it already. Just curious.

 

[Metroyet]

Doesn't matter when or why the current CBA merger policy was written. It is what it is and USAPA is the CBA today. That policy could just as easily be changed to the NIC, if that's what the majority wants to vote for.

Oh, I didn't realize it was that simple! The fact that USAPA has been in a fruitless legal fight for it's life literally since inception should indicate to you that perhaps your understanding of the situation is a little Fked up.

3 years later, dead in the water, LOA93 in perpetuity, and still NOBODY has agreed with $e$ham's view of the situation.

Add to that the fact that the wheels are falling off the organization as the delusional dictator Cleary has proved himself to be a worthless, pointless waste of time and money.

 

[CactusPilot1]

Oh, I didn't realize it was that simple! The fact that USAPA has been in a fruitless legal fight for it's life literally since inception should indicate to you that perhaps your understanding of the situation is a little Fked up.

3 years later, dead in the water, LOA93 in perpetuity, and still NOBODY has agreed with $e$ham's view of the situation.

Add to that the fact that the wheels are falling off the organization as the delusional dictator Cleary has proved himself to be a worthless, pointless waste of time and money.

I could not believe how many times Judge Wake invited Seham to a sidebar. So many times, I thought it was happy hour. The transcripts of those conversations are very telling.

Seham is an ammateur, just ask the NW mechanics.

And Judge Wake.