US Pilots Labor Thread 4/7 to 4/14- ALL US Pilots Labor Issues Here

[Tiger 1050]

Yes arbitration was agreed upon but the outcome did not follow windfall policy. You forgot that part.

wopr

Please kindly cut and paste from Section 45 where it states that the arbiter is bound by the tenets you mention. Also keep in mind ALPA reviewed the process and found no impropriety! Explain away sir...

 

[Tiger 1050]

The crux of the problem is that with any other method for integration than DOH you have the problems we have today. Just one example is the government today. It is so complex we can't recover. The constitution is like DOH. It is simple ,easy to understand, and is the foundation in which we must return. The pilots who voted for a fresh start understood that. We are standing up for what is right in this industry.

DOH is in our Constitution

wopr

Man! You guys could almost write a Lifetime movie with this crap! The Constitution of these United States was constructed under the auspices of a Judaeo-Christian belief system wherein we cannot find any doctrine that promotes tyranny by a majority. I do love the analogy of voting for a fresh start as though it were reminiscent of the revolution. Problem is you fail to realize that you are the tyrannical English.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yes arbitration was agreed upon but the outcome did not follow windfall policy. You forgot that part.

That part is the opinion of the East pilot group. An equally valid opinion is that making a junior F/O senior to a captain is a windfall for the F/O.

Three arbitrations have disagreed with your opinion as does the new federal law about seniority integrations - Congress would have required all airline seniority integrations be done by DOH if your opinion was shared.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the amount of West flying that has been replaced by the Cheaper Labor Force on the East.

Even assuming there's any truth to that; What happened to all the rousing cheers of "You can live on LOA 93 forever!"? Perhaps the west "fellow pilots' really were none too bright in not wanting to see pay parity established after all...just a thought.

 

[EastUS]

Untrue.. there are many reasons for getting rid of Alpa. We all have our reasons.

That's a very gentle understatement, to say the least!

 

[EastUS]

The vast majority of east pilots stayed during the lean years because they had nowhere better to go.

An amazing assumption. It couldn't have been because of the thought that it used to be a great place to work, and reasonable hope existed for an eventual return to better conditions?
Now then...why did the majority of AWA folks even ever pick that place to work at?

 

[EastUS]

EastUS: "My belief's that it's every bit as reasonable when applied to any larger group within the same trade craft....period. I would now, and have always in the past, felt exactly that same way even when it completely ill suited any issues of my own gain, and in fact, disadvantaged me personally."

Still saying so little with so many words. You still don't understand the concept of merging either. Your comments are sheer projection because it really is about you.

Perhaps there were just too many words for you to actually read?

tazz: "Your comments are sheer projection because it really is about you." There's little need for comment here

As for having no understanding of the "concept" of merging; well...I've actually experienced several, so you're possibly right = To me; It's not just a "concept" That's why I initially sought out conversation with west folks here, and tried to explain that the nic business was a guaranteed disaster, and would never be accepted, that it'd prove to be the catalyst for the sort of internecine conflict we see here....YEARS after that point in time. "Naturally"...all I got then was "Booyooshaka!!..Final and Binding!..It's OVER..Get used to it!!"...Years later...here we are. So much for "concepts"

 

[hp_fa]

We on the west have been suggesting the same for you in relation to Seeham. He appears to be the true xxxxhouse lawyer.

Tazz, I don't respond any more to the person you were referring to with your remark ever since he once asked me a question and I took time and effort to answer it and he never responded again to that issue. Instead that poster seems to periodically say things that are factually incorrect.

Let me set the record clear since it has been raised in this forum.

***********************************************

Rule 31. Regulation of the Practice of Law

(a) Supreme Court Jurisdiction Over the Practice of Law.

1. Jurisdiction. Any person or entity engaged in the practice of law or unauthorized practice of law in this state, as defined by these rules, is subject to this court's
jurisdiction.

2. Definitions.

A. "Practice of law" means providing legal advice or services to or for another by:

(1) preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal rights for a specific person or entity;

(2) preparing or expressing legal opinions;

(3) representing another in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process such as arbitration and mediation;

(4) preparing any document through any medium for filing in any court, administrative agency or tribunal for a specific person or entity; or

(5) negotiating legal rights or responsibilities for a specific person or entity.

B. "Unauthorized practice of law" includes but is not limited to:

(1) engaging in the practice of law by persons or entities not authorized to practice pursuant to paragraphs (b) or ( c ) or specially admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d); or

(2) using the designations "lawyer," "attorney at law," "counselor at law," "law," "law office," "J.D.," "Esq.," or other equivalent words by any person or entity who is not authorized to practice law in this state pursuant to paragraphs (b) or ( c ) or specially admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d), the use of which is reasonably likely to induce others to believe that the person or entity is authorized to engage in the practice of law in this state.

C. "Legal assistant/paralegal" means a person qualified by education and training who performs substantive legal work requiring a sufficient knowledge of and
expertise in legal concepts and procedures, who is supervised by an active member of the State Bar of Arizona, and for whom an active member of the state
bar is responsible, unless otherwise authorized by supreme court rule.

*************************************************

The breakdown of all of this is that for me to be practicing law I would:

1. Have a client, and;

2. Be expressing an opinion to that client based on that clients specific circumstances and then specifically providing a legal opinion based upon all circumstances of that client based upon the various laws as they exist, and/or;

3. Be representing that client in any form of legal forum that can adjudicate that persons rights or remedies.

Additionally, at any and all times that I was actually discussing law or legal principles with an actual client I was a Legal Assistant fully in compliance with subpart ( C ) above. Please also take note that I have consistently gone out of my way to clear up any and all misconceptions or false statements by others when they have occurred.

None of the above in any way, shape or form prohibits me from reading and responding to any of the comments or opinions stated in this or any other forum. I don't have a client. I don't know the full specifics of any person's or entities position as expressed in full confidence to an attorney and am therefore, by definition, well outside any prohibitions regarding the unauthorized practice of law. The comments that I make here are not actually relied upon by anyone, however nothing prohibits me from commenting on various legal principles and/or civil procedure.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That's a very gentle understatement, to say the least!

While one could certainly say that there were many reasons to get rid of ALPA, the facts are that prior to the Nic award no such effort had reached the level of even having an election. The concessions, loss of pension, whatever other grievances may exist, no attempt to get rid of ALPA was able to garner enough cards to get an election. Except for the Nic award, it's reasonable to believe that ALPA would still be the CBA.

Which means, of course, that it was the Nic award that got ALPA replaced. Claiming that Nic was "just the final straw" or "only one of many reasons" is somewhat disingenuous since such a major effect is due to Nic - going from not enough interest in changing unions to even get enough cards to call an election to an overwhelming majority of East pilots both submitting cards and voting to change unions.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

While one could certainly say that there were many reasons to get rid of ALPA,...

One certainly could. While the pension giveaway's my personal favorite; the cliques within the organization that routinely placed Alpa's interests above any concerns for line pilots counted for much. Your continued "support" for your "fellow east pilots" and constituents, as an ex Alpa guy even here, well..just suffice it to say that plentiful reasons existed for dismissing Alpa

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yet it was the Nic that caused it to happen...

Take your pension example. Following the pension give-away there was a lot of talk about MEC members that voted to take that action and IIRC two were recalled, but no talk that I ever heard about replacing ALPA. Or take LOA 93 - a large chunk of the pilot group blamed the PHL reps for the degree of concessions and there were at least two recall efforts, but I heard no talk about replacing ALPA. The move to replace ALPA only gathered steam after the NIC award came out.

As for my "subsequent 'support' for your 'fellow east pilots' and constituents" I can only say that for someone that gives so much lip service to principles you certainly want others to give up theirs.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Yet it was the Nic that caused it to happen...

Take your pension example. Following the pension give-away there was a lot of talk about MEC members that voted to take that action and IIRC two were recalled, but no talk that I ever heard about replacing ALPA.

1) That just finally served as a particular point in time when virtually all could be expected to be focused on the issue....and at the same time.

2) It's evident that those around you weren't the sorts that were entirely disgusted with Alpa, and had been for a very long time. That hardly serves to surprise....

Bottom Line = If Alpa was one tenth as well loved and respected before Nic as you would have us imagine..it'd still be here. If your position's one of presumed contempt for the peasantry, for not earlier arising in active revolution....well...that'd speak volumes of itself.

What is the "principal" that you have at stake here? Seriously; do you have a ready definition of your principals at issue here?
"Relativity Rocks" perhaps?

In any case; your "support" for Alpa, versus any at all for your prior coworkers, is truly impressive on all counts, and speaks loudly to the problems that existed within Alpa.

 

[BoeingBoy]

1) That just finally served as a particular point in time when virtually all could be expected to be focused on the issue....and at the same time.

As I said, absent the Nic "all could not be expected to be focused on the issue." In fact, less than half the pilot group was focused on the issue absent Nic, hence the failure to even get enough cards to call an election.

2) It's evident that those around you weren't the sorts that were entirely disgusted with Alpa, and had been for a very long time. That hardly serves to surprise....

And again, having something less than half the pilot group showing enough interest to toss ALPA out means that a lot more than "those around" me were not "entirely disgusted with ALPA"

Bottom Line = If Alpa was one tenth as well loved and respected before Nic as you would have us imagine..it'd still be here. If your position's one of presumed contempt for the peasantry, for not earlier arising in active revolution....well...that'd speak volumes of itself.

Just cant help yourself can you. Quote where I said that ALPA was "well loved and respected before Nic." You can't. Quote where I exhibited "presumed contempt for the peasantry, for not earlier arising in active revolution." You can't. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that you consider it a failing of "the peasentry" for not throwing ALPA out sooner.

What is the "principal" that you have at stake here? Seriously; do you have a ready definition of your principals at issue here?

Despite your infantile way of putting it, my "principal" (sic) concerning mergers is that the merging of seniority lists begins with seniority, which is measured relative to those on an individual's premerger list, AKA relative position. For one who claims to put such great importance in "principals" (sic) you certainly do a lot of insisting that others should disregard their "principals" (sic) when they conflict with those you claim to have. What's that "H" word you claimed to draw the line at - hy.. something and ending with pocrisy?

Jim

 

[EastUS]

On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that you consider it a failing of "the peasentry" for not throwing ALPA out sooner.



Despite your infantile way of putting it, my "principal" (sic) concerning mergers is that the merging of seniority lists begins with seniority, which is measured relative to those on an individual's premerger list, AKA relative position. For one who claims to put such great importance in "principals" (sic) you certainly do a lot of insisting that others should disregard their "principals" (sic) when they conflict with those you claim to have. What's that "H" word you claimed to draw the line at - hy.. something and ending with pocrisy?

1) I certainly do consider it a huge failure, as ridding the place of Alpa far earlier would have certainly been of inestimable benefit to all concerned...outside of the most devout Alpa "faithful" that is.

2) Thanks for that explanation of your position here. It doesn't elude me that given principals, like respecting years of work performed and loyalty to one's fellow's, are clearly not universal.

As for: "your infantile way of putting it"? = I've long ago admitted myself to having the flaws of sometimes misplaced arrogance, and being excessively pompous at times. I feel a sense of humor's of great benefit though and I don't really take myself all that overly seriously. WTF's your excuse? "Oh-He-who-is-to-never-suffer-that-which-offends"???

 

[nic4us]

Untrue.. there are many reasons for getting rid of Alpa. We all have our reasons. The nic lottery ticket is probably the final straw that broke the camels back.

Yes arbitration was agreed upon but the outcome did not follow windfall policy. You forgot that part.

wopr

Again with the lottery statements.....oh well....I will have to reinterate my prior post.

A combined seniority list, reached by arbitration, in which I lost seniority and you gained seniority is hardly a lottery win on my part. In fact, I believe your situation more closely resembles a lottery win, undoubtably so, if you were furloughed prior to the merger.

All provisions of ALPA merger policy were followed in this award. Including avoid a windfall to one group at the expense of the other.