US Pilots Labor Discussion

[icehead]

"binding" arbitration is used everyday in civil cases and is most surely binding on the parties, it is federal law. The difference here is that this has never happened before and so the courts don't want to touch it. The 9th says they won't get into the "thorny" issue, because in fact the east has made it so, on one hand the union and company can amend a contract whenever they want, as they should. Of course never in the history of labor has a union been created to hurt a minority, btw the 7th circuit (air wisconsin case)said if that were to happen it would be illegal, all the 9th said is it hasn't happen yet so they won't answer the question.

Air Wisconsin tried and failed to replace ALPA and they agreed to a joint contract which included the award. There are selectable sentences which might fuel your view, but in total I would not say with any certainty that the 7th Circuit pertains - bits and pieces maybe. Many Unions have been de-certified and replaced because of majority discontent. One of the NMB's missions is to conduct and provide oversight in representative elections. You can take from the 7th ruling what you will but one thing I perceived was the Judge sounded perturbed because Air Wisconsin had failed more than once in representative elections, not to mention the majority ratified an agreement which included the contested award.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/909/909.F2d.213.89-3350.html

 

[luvthe9]

The stink of USCABA will follow all of you die hards to the grave...a Pauper's Grave that is!

This is a pretty stupid statement meatro. Once an east pilot hits the 757, they immediately pull ahead of every west pilot. Every one of them, and you are on the 320 pay.That is the best it ever gets, with no pension. Not to mention for 20 or more years, we outearned all of you. Nothing to compare. Conveniently left that out didn't you.

 

[fodase]

Fodase, are you really serious? You are telling me, "it is federal law..." your next statement "The difference here is that this has never happened before and so the courts don't want to touch it.

Yes arbitration to settle disputes is recognized by federal law, it happens every day in divorce proceedings, contractual disagreements et., it was enacted by congress to alleviate the caseload in the courts

" Honestly, is that why the courts won't touch it, or is it maybe because this is not "federal law" and if it is, please tell us what "federal" statute it violates.I would say they were way ahead of you in understanding this has nothing to do with law, and everything to do with internal union issues. That is the reason they did nothing, because they know they CAN'T do a thing.

We never got to ask and the question has never been answered if it is binding. Judge wake didn't say if it was binding or not as well , but he did say it was a dfr, so did the dissenting judge on the 9th. the majority opinion simply said they couldn't answer the question until there was a seniority list in place. Again, no one has told whether or not it is binding and just because you claim this is an "internal" union matter doesn't make it so,, in fact this case ranges from dfr to a breach of contract by a successor or do you forget the ta had 3 parties that agreed to live by the award?

This is exactly what I was saying to Luvn. He was there, and should know better, and inform you, and there is you, who unknowingly? perpetuates the myth of what it is. The 9th certainly got into it, and Wake got spanked severely. The case was "erased" as in abomination or abortion of law. If you keep going this way, Leonidas is Luvn you, because they don't get it either. Bottom line is this- your sue happy Leonidas would absolutely be on the Federal Gov't hard if there was a Federal Statute that was being ignored, go ahead and ask them why they chose to let this one slide yet foolishly fell all over themselves to spend millions on an unripe case. Ask Aquagreen 737 about that one, he is the one that took your money and spent it all on that disaster. A little birdie told me he was consumed with other matters, something about admin leave for identity theft of something.

You are out of your clown mind if you believe any of this diarrhea you just wrote. Don't forget, the merits of the dfr were never looked at by the 9th, yet judge wake, the dissenting judge on the 9th and now judge silver all agree and are on record as saying that the west has been harmed. The other two 9th circuit judges say that we can't measure harm until a contract is ratified, hence the warning "bargain in good faith or suffer an indisputably ripe dfr". What do you think that warning means?

 

[Black Swan]

Yes arbitration to settle disputes is recognized by federal law, it happens every day in divorce proceedings, contractual disagreements et., it was enacted by congress to alleviate the caseload in the courts



We never got to ask and the question has never been answered if it is binding. Judge wake didn't say if it was binding or not as well , but he did say it was a dfr, so did the dissenting judge on the 9th. the majority opinion simply said they couldn't answer the question until there was a seniority list in place. Again, no one has told whether or not it is binding and just because you claim this is an "internal" union matter doesn't make it so,, in fact this case ranges from dfr to a breach of contract by a successor or do you forget the ta had 3 parties that agreed to live by the award?


You are out of your clown mind if you believe any of this diarrhea you just wrote. Don't forget, the merits of the dfr were never looked at by the 9th, yet judge wake, the dissenting judge on the 9th and now judge silver all agree and are on record as saying that the west has been harmed. The other two 9th circuit judges say that we can't measure harm until a contract is ratified, hence the warning "bargain in good faith or suffer an indisputably ripe dfr". What do you think that warning means?

What does the dissenting opinion count for anything? And especially Wake. The one who totally blew the entire deal for you. Ask Bobby Baldock how he got daddy to call Wake in to try and help and posted it all over the web. What a colossal screw up! That one will come back to haunt you in your DFR 1 2 3 4 or whatever you are scheming. The classic was that idiot Wake going for the damages, and thinking about imposing Nicolau! And your counsel actually didn't try and stop him before the NMB parachuted in! Wake was the biggest loose screw in the judicial mess of Arizona! Fodase- And I am going to try to refrain from calling you names as you are infamous for. Covers for any semblance of intelligent vernacular in my opinion. Are you seriously going to put any weight on the dissenting opinion in the rule of law? So what if he dissented,tell us how the COURT eventually went down in rule .Not the dissenting opinion! Who cares about the dfr? Has nothing to do with the law or binding arbitration.The dfr is just another Leonidas pipe dream, acknowledged by the 9th. So before you call anyone a clown or talk about diarrhea, look in the mirror. If there was Federal Law, and it was ignored, your Leonidas group would be on it like the sue happy termites they are. There was none, and you can't cite it for all the drivel and clownspeak you are famous for. Nothing. You circled all around the issue, and can't make one unclownlike argument.

 

[Black Swan]

Yes arbitration to settle disputes is recognized by federal law, it happens every day in divorce proceedings, contractual disagreements et., it was enacted by congress to alleviate the caseload in the courts



We never got to ask and the question has never been answered if it is binding. Judge wake didn't say if it was binding or not as well , but he did say it was a dfr, so did the dissenting judge on the 9th. the majority opinion simply said they couldn't answer the question until there was a seniority list in place. Again, no one has told whether or not it is binding and just because you claim this is an "internal" union matter doesn't make it so,, in fact this case ranges from dfr to a breach of contract by a successor or do you forget the ta had 3 parties that agreed to live by the award?


You are out of your clown mind if you believe any of this diarrhea you just wrote. Don't forget, the merits of the dfr were never looked at by the 9th, yet judge wake, the dissenting judge on the 9th and now judge silver all agree and are on record as saying that the west has been harmed. The other two 9th circuit judges say that we can't measure harm until a contract is ratified, hence the warning "bargain in good faith or suffer an indisputably ripe dfr". What do you think that warning means?

What does the dissenting opinion count for anything? And especially Wake. The one who totally blew the entire deal for you. Ask Bobby Baldock how he got daddy to call Wake in to try and help. What a colossal screw up! That one will come back to haunt you in your DFR 1 2 3 4 or whatever you are scheming. The classic was that idiot Wake going for the damages, and thinking about imposing Nicolau! And your counsel actually didn't try and stop him before the NMB parachuted in! Wake was the biggest loose screw in the judicial mess of Arizona! Fodase- And I am going to try to refrain from calling you names as you are infamous for. Covers for any semblance of intelligent vernacular in my opinion. Are you seriously going to put any weight on the dissenting opinion in the rule of law? So what if he dissented,tell us how the COURT eventually went down in rule .Not the dissenting opinion! Who cares about the dfr? Has nothing to do with the law or binding arbitration.The dfr is just another Leonidas pipe dream, acknowledged by the 9th. So before you call anyone a clown or talk about diarrhea, look in the mirror. If there was Federal Law, and it was ignored, your Leonidas group would be on it like the sue happy termites they are. There was none, and you can't cite it for all the drivel and clownspeak you are famous for. Nothing. You circled all around the issue, and can't make one unclownlike argument.

 

[Metroyet]

This is a pretty stupid statement meatro. Once an east pilot hits the 757, they immediately pull ahead of every west pilot. Every one of them, and you are on the 320 pay.That is the best it ever gets, with no pension. Not to mention for 20 or more years, we outearned all of you. Nothing to compare. Conveniently left that out didn't you.

Yeah but when you factor in the 8 separate rounds of furlough each eastie and their families need to suffer through before he can hold the 757, it's still a loss.

 

[fodase]

What does the dissenting opinion count for anything? And I am going to try to refrain from calling you names as you are infamous for. Covers for any semblance of intelligent vernacular in my opinion. Are you seriously going to put any weight on the dissenting opinion in the rule of law? So what if he dissented,tell us how the COURT eventually went down in rule .Not the dissenting opinion! Who cares about the dfr? Has nothing to do with the law or binding arbitration.The dfr is just another Leonidas pipe dream, acknowledged by the 9th. So before you call anyone a clown or talk about diarrhea, look in the mirror. If there was Federal Law, and it was ignored, your Leonidas group would be on it like the sue happy termites they are. There was none, and you can't cite it for all the drivel and clownspeak you are famous for. Nothing. You circled all around the issue, and can't make one unclownlike argument.

OK, explain to me what the 9th decided?
1- DOH is a dfr?
2- DOH is not a dfr?
3- Whatever list the majority wants?
4- There were no merits to wakes judgement?
5- There were merits to wakes judgement?
6- usapa is bound to the nic.?
7- usapa is not bound to the nic?
8- case not ripe until final list is in place
Please, please point to me what the 9th ruled on, and please look up their ruling so I can read the ruling.

 

[fodase]

What does the dissenting opinion count for anything? And especially Wake. The one who totally blew the entire deal for you. Ask Bobby Baldock how he got daddy to call Wake in to try and help.

I am good friends with his family, and yes I know very well what the federal judges in phx think, not because of any calls but because how blatant a dfr you guys are trying to commit. To make those accusations exposez you for the mental retard you really are.

 

[Black Swan]

Yeah but when you factor in the 8 separate rounds of furlough each eastie and their families need to suffer through before he can hold the 757, it's still a loss.

Sure Metro, 8 rounds. Why don't you make up some more stuff. After it is all added up, I bet they still made more than a AWA pilot over time.

 

[Black Swan]

I am good friends with his family, and yes I know very well what the federal judges in phx think, not because of any calls but because how blatant a dfr you guys are trying to commit. To make those accusations exposez you for the mental retard you really are.

I am sure you all know how those PHX judges think. That is what keeps getting you in over your heads time again. Good thing the clerks in San Fran. are there to keep your frontier judges schooled in the real law. That is some reassuring fact. That is where the justice really gets laid down, and thank God for that. By the way, that is some really intelligent stuff you laid on at the end of the rant. Unbelievable.

 

[Metroyet]

I am good friends with his family, and yes I know very well what the federal judges in phx think. If Silver takes the case you are toast.

They're toast no matter what...just a matter of time.

 

[Black Swan]

Piedmont 1984. Still think you can work with this group?

 

[Black Swan]

They're toast no matter what...just a matter of time.

OK Metro, if you say so. Unfortunately, you and Fodase, can't seem to put together a coherent argument as to why. Which really surprises nobody. Between scabspeak and clownspeak, you don't put forth any facts.

 

[Metroyet]

OK Metro, if you say so. Unfortunately, you and Fodase, can't seem to put together a coherent argument as to why. Which really surprises nobody. Between scabspeak and clownspeak, you don't put forth any facts.

It's all been said a thousand times. Do you really need me to rehash it all for you? I dont think so. All the proof of uscabas failures is clearly spelled out for you in your w-2. BTW, since the inception of your fake union, you've actually lost more than 10% of what was THEN an already pathetic buying power. Every day you wake up is another incremental pay cut. Never mind the laughable work rules.

If you think that's a recipe for success, more power to you.

 

[fodase]

OK Metro, if you say so. Unfortunately, you and Fodase, can't seem to put together a coherent argument as to why. Which really surprises nobody. Between scabspeak and clownspeak, you don't put forth any facts.

Why dont you answer the questions then? Show us your brilliance by showing us what the 9th ruled on?