US Pilots Labor Thread 5/13-19--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[Tiger 1050]

Simmer down Tiger.

Nobody is talking about modifying the Nic...did I say that? What I DID say, quite correctly, I suspect, is that you will probably never get to see it.

Read the transcripts if you need to, Wake said the same thing, and before you start talking about contempt, Wake addressed that too....there would be none.

You know, on these boards it's difficult to catch any inflection or emotion in ones writings so I'll let you know I am not upset. In fact I feel better now than when I was still working. Strange huh?

Anyhow The Judge may craft some sort of remedy that will play out as you wish. However he may see the continued harm USAPA and its constituents wish to inflict on the west. If that is the case, that you and the others here so eloquently make, then I am quite sure the Court will see to it that, whatever the remedy is, it will be fair and effective for the west. In any case I believe we'll know by Wednesday.

Tiger 1050

Edit: I just read that the remedy will not be decided until late June now...

 

[ChuckBewFarley]

Simmer down Tiger.

Nobody is talking about modifying the Nic...did I say that? What I DID say, quite correctly, I suspect, is that you will probably never get to see it.

Read the transcripts if you need to, Wake said the same thing, and before you start talking about contempt, Wake addressed that too....there would be none.

That goes for you too, clearedirect.

Ah- yes you are talking about modifying the Nicolau. Actually just making it go poof, it's gone- as Theuer said, just like a crew meal.

I think this has all been debated before- mediator, arbitrator and now judge and jury. I'm really enjoying all this. Rehash of a rehash of a rehash.

And the west needs to give in on all this. Please mention the Rice Committee, Denver and Wye River (OOOO, the ALPA boogeyman)

I have full faith in the C & R's. Lots of west input on those don't you know. I realize you know what's better for us than we do. Tell me again how being frozen in PHX so you can bid in on top of us is good and how all the growth goes east will improve my career.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

You know, on these boards it's difficult to catch any inflection or emotion in ones writings so I'll let you know I am not upset. In fact I feel better now than when I was still working. Strange huh?

Anyhow The Judge may craft some sort of remedy that will play out as you wish. However he may see the continued harm USAPA and its constituents wish to inflict on the west. If that is the case, that you and the others here so eloquently make, then I am quite sure the Court will see to it that, whatever the remedy is, it will be fair and effective for the west. In any case I believe we'll know by Wednesday.

Tiger 1050

Well, not to beat a dead horse, and I wish I could recall what page/day of the transcripts it's on; but Wake and the lawyers' were discussing remedies. He pontificated about the "only remedy he can think of..." should the plaintiffs' prevail. He sopke about the legalities of voting no to any CBA containing the Nic, and that it was not contemptable. He asked Harper if he wanted to consider any other remedy (under those circumstances) and Harper said no.

Seham suggested another option if the plaintiffs won.

I think the remedy is going to be the Nic goes into the next joint CBA, and that requires ratification by the East.

And for all the reasons cleardirect discounts, that's why you'll not see it, and that's exactly what Wake suggested as well. Read it yourself.

 

[hp_fa]

HP, you're doing it again...speaking with your "west colored glasses of partiality" as opposed to the impartiality you claimed to desire. You know full well the company declined the used of the NMB facilitator USAPA just requested, and you post this?

I am trying to be impartial when I have an actual question before me. Please note that I had said that what I posted clearly said it was a "hypothetical" situation and even in that hypothetical I correctly used what is now a fact, that USAPA has lost a DFR case. Frankly I would not be surprised if the hypothetical comes true at some point in the future.

Don't worry though, your comment or premise did not offend me. But I do try and answer questions objectively.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Well, not to beat a dead horse, and I wish I could recall what page/day of the transcripts it's on; but Wake and the lawyers' were discussing remedies. He pontificated about the "only remedy he can think of..." should the plaintiffs' prevail. He sopke about the legalities of voting no to any CBA containing the Nic, and that it was not contemptable. He asked Harper if he wanted to consider any other remedy (under those circumstances) and Harper said no.

Seham suggested another option if the plaintiffs won.

I think the remedy is going to be the Nic goes into the next joint CBA, and that requires ratification by the East.

And for all the reasons cleardirect discounts, that's why you'll not see it, and that's exactly what Wake suggested as well. Read it yourself.

Well I just read that we will not know what the remedy will be until late June...

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Tell me again how being frozen in PHX so you can bid in on top of us is good and how all the growth goes east will improve my career.

Until you commit to knowing what you're talking about, there's nothing I can add to this comment. That fact that you keep posting this tells me you know nothing about what the facts are.
Forget the C/R's....they went away (for now)...Nic gives you NOTHING...because the East can vote no until the cows come home.

I'm just telling you, Wake passed the buck on this, and he warned Harper beforehand.

 

[hp_fa]

Fruitless appeals? thats a matter of opinion. Maybe the membership out East will be polled...I think they should.

You just, perhaps accidently, touched on a practical issue that I have raised and that is the ability of USAPA to, when appropriate, poll or provide West with a means to vote on any issue(s) that Judge Wake includes in any injunction that he issues.

Does USAPA have a way to poll "East" members, or was that an error in how you referred to the "membership out East"?

As the sole bargaining representative USAPA has, as we all now know for certain, a duty to represent all the pilots. So, when speaking in terms of actual duties of USAPA we should probably not refer to "East" at the same time because that allows the perception, intended or unintended, that USAPA is synonimous with East.

I'm really not picking on you. It is a fine point that we all probably need to consider as we post.

 

[john john]

Amazing. Since the beginning of America West pilots employment, in 1983, they were the lowest paid pilots in the industry for 20 plus years.

The passenger service agent for America West were the lowest paid in the industry and work rules were arbitrary as well as there benefits. CWA leadership gave them a contract with big raises and work rules and of course DOH

 

[nic4us]

Use any narrowbody F/O....forget Skiles if his choice of F/O is bothersome) take any 23+ continuous service/never furloughed airbus F/O on the East...(there's only several hundred of them....) and re-read my example.

I do not understand something here. If Skiles or any other east F/O had 800 West pilots added in front of them on the Nic, that would mean there were some 1600 east F/Os ahead of them. The Nic is a slotted list. No group of 800 was placed immmediately in front of anybody as a block.

For example, the east F/O that was say 200 numbers out of captain seat became roughly 300 out, but the number of captain seats increased by 1000. That pilots expectation of time to upgrade has not been impacted at all when just considering the ratio of pilots to seats. But east posters keep making it sound like that same pilot at 200 would now be 1000 out and that is simply not true. On top of that AWA had about 1000 captain seats and 894 F/O seats at the time of merger. In order to have had 800 West F/Os placed in front of you, you were at the very bottom of the east list at time of merger. Sorry you feel it unfair that the pilots senior to you will remain senior to you, just as the pilots on your original list will remain senior to you.

 

[hp_fa]

Seham suggested another option if the plaintiffs won.

I think the remedy is going to be the Nic goes into the next joint CBA, and that requires ratification by the East.

And for all the reasons cleardirect discounts, that's why you'll not see it, and that's exactly what Wake suggested as well. Read it yourself.

Day Eight, Page 1742, Line 10.

Before you read this if folks want to go back to this thread that was open at that time you will notice that I made a specific point that I agreed with what Seham was saying and that there was validity in what he said.

THE COURT: To be direct, Mr. Harper, is there any other remedy that you would be asking the Court for if there's a judgment for the plaintiff?

MR. HARPER: Without prejudice, no. But that's why we're going back. We have people working on the materials today. So we need to go back and check with them and to kick it around a little bit.

THE COURT: Mr. Seham.

MR. SEHAM: As you have learned through this proceeding, the labor unions are political animals. So it's with a very high level of temerity I suggest an alternative
remedy. I don't want any of my back benchers on either side to suggest I would be happy with this alternative remedy.

THE COURT: This entire discussion is without prejudice to your position on the merits.

MR. SEHAM: Could still mean my lynching. But in any case, what we would suggest is in terms of remedy, if -- assuming we lose on terms of liability is, as more appropriate, would be a return to what we consider -- and I think the facts establish -- as a status quo ante, which is that both sides, East Pilots and West Pilots, have leverage over the other. Now, one might conclude that --

THE COURT: How would that be done?

MR. SEHAM: It's actually plead by the plaintiffs' complaint. And if, for example, it's the finding of the Court that USAPA in its formation and its proceeding in bad faith circumvented a process under which West Pilots have their own veto, that the appropriate remedy, both in terms of returning to the status quo ante, and not giving the plaintiffs something they were not entitled to even under ALPA Merger Policy, would be not to obviate ratification but rather command that there be
ratification by majority vote by both East USAPA members in good standing and West USAPA members in good standing. That would return the status quo ante, and also, I think this is a very strong consideration in terms of public policy, that it is that it would remove the Court from the obligation to engage in ongoing supervision. In other words, there wouldn't be a court hovering over the parties determining whether week to week there's going to be a contempt action and whether we're bargaining in good faith or deliberately dragging our heels to perpetuate certain obligations. But rather now the Court can delegate it to a political process which could engender a compromise because everyone wants higher wages.

THE COURT: And you all need to caucus and let me know if there's any other evidence you want to present on that, and if you do, we'll hear it tomorrow.

MR. SEHAM: This suggestion is in our papers.

THE COURT: I don't remember that.

MR. SEHAM: Most of our papers are basically saying, to quote counsel Stevens, neener-neener, we don't agree with the Court in any of its conclusions. But at the end, we actually do something constructive which is, Judge, if we're going to lose, this is a way that we, instead of giving them something they never had under ALPA, restore to them what they argue they had under ALPA. And also --

THE COURT: What brief is that in? I honestly don't remember it.

MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Your Honor, it's in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that we filed roughly two weeks ago.

MR. SEHAM: You can skip to the very end.

THE COURT: Fine. I had not thought about that. But let me just throw out two non-final and non-binding thoughts. Wouldn't that risk undercutting USAPA's legitimate
position as the union, as the single collective bargaining agent? No one is challenging the validity of that.

MR. SEHAM: A lot less than ordering us what to bargain for. Because at least in that fashion we have the ability to go to our members, both East USAPA members and West USAPA members, and say if our constitution, in your view, or our proposal in your view does not sufficiently obtain the compromise that the Rice Committee and Blue Ribbon Committee and Wye River lockdown were seeking, then we'll return to that process which was arguably interrupted under the same political circumstances, and again, each -- both sides, to the extent anyone concludes that there is a monolithic East and a monolithic West, both sides have to be satisfied in their autonomous majority. I re-emphasize we would not be happy about it. But in terms of forcing us to a particular result, that would be far less intrusive and far less burdensome on the Court itself.

THE COURT: There is truth in your observation with avoiding intrusive judicial management. That's a fundamental principle of the courts of equity to not take on injunctive remedies that they lack the practical ability to monitor, to police and enforce. But on the other hand, if, in fact, the remedy were an injunction that says you have to negotiate for this Seniority List, I wonder whether that remedy might have the advantage of minimally intruding -- well, if that's -- if that's the legal
right, it's not intruding at all. But minimally disrupting collateral aspects of the collective bargaining process because in the end, what it would mean is USAPA goes back to the table. There are all the other issues to negotiate. They do the best they can. They submit it to the members, and the members, as I see it, if the majority in the end are sufficiently distressed that they don't want have to a new single Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Court ordered list, then they can vote it down.

MR. SEHAM: How many votes do we have to take? If they vote it down once, is the injunction dissolved?

THE COURT: The power of the members to vote their self-interest does not empower them, in my view, to validate a DFR that is previously determined to be a DFR. So what it means is the members have to choose between what their representative has come up with the best deal but it's not going to come up with a different Seniority List. And if they reject it, the union can go back and negotiate for different and better terms, but it will not have a different Seniority List. So it would not disrupt and take advantage of the normal entitlement of the members to consider all of their self interest and make an up or down vote on the agreement. But they will be knowing that if they act out of an unregulatable disregard of the Court's determination of the union's obligation, the result is they are still at the lowest pay scale in the industry, they are foregoing what could have been obtained and they will know that whatever betterment could come from a new CBA is still not going to change that.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

You just, perhaps accidently, touched on a practical issue that I have raised and that is the ability of USAPA to, when appropriate, poll or provide West with a means to vote on any issue(s) that Judge Wake includes in any injunction that he issues.

Does USAPA have a way to poll "East" members, or was that an error in how you referred to the "membership out East"?

As the sole bargaining representative USAPA has, as we all now know for certain, a duty to represent all the pilots. So, when speaking in terms of actual duties of USAPA we should probably not refer to "East" at the same time because that allows the perception, intended or unintended, that USAPA is synonimous with East.

I'm really not picking on you. It is a fine point that we all probably need to consider as we post.

Nothing accidental about it...I think USAPA should poll ALL members in good standing as to their wishes on what to vote on going forward. I happen to agree with you that we will see the floodgates open on west applicants for membership...(so they may help drive a CBA, but they lack the numbers to do so)...but until they are members in good standing, (with a vote) then no polling required as they can't vote anyway.(Their choice) If that was unclear to you perhaps it is because there are only 200 or so west members with a vote. In contrast, all but maybe 300 or so East pilots are in good standing (with a vote)...ergo, the East comment. Further, it is the East members who will have to decide how to proceed as they are the parties (defendants) considering an appeal...
At best, USAPA should consider polling ALL MEMBERS CURRENTLY IN GOOD STANDING in this matter. Polling the West pilots who are not currently members in good standing, AND who were plaintiffs is illogical....(the plaintiffs position is established already)
Hope that helps.

PS, HP thanks for the t-scripts, can you please source the paragraphs preceeding wherein Wake discussed the Nic remedy as being immune from contempt if it's voted down in a CBA?
I keep reading posts about contempt, which Wake discussed.

If not, thats fine...it's in there.

 

[electricjet98]

At best, USAPA should consider polling ALL MEMBERS CURRENTLY IN GOOD STANDING in this matter. Polling the West pilots who are not currently members in good standing, AND who were plaintiffs is illogical....(the plaintiffs position is established already)
Hope that helps.

Haven't we already decided that USAPA is responsible for representing ALL pilots @ LCC? At a time when USAPA has just been found liable for NOT fairly representing all LCC pilots, wouldn't it behoove them to at least once, reach out to ALL of the pilots it represents in a non-binding poll, both those that are currently members AND those which USAPA would like to become dues-paying members? Does the leadership truely wish to hear from all of the pilots at LCC or just those that they know will support their agenda?

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

But as I think about this at times, Mr. Stevens, it
seemed to me that if the plaintiff prevails, the remedy is an
injunction that orders the union to negotiate for the Nicolau
Award. And I can't think of any other remedy. You had
mentioned something about ordering -- something about foregoing
a ratification vote. And I'm not sure what you are saying. If
all you meant to say is that the Court should order that there
be no specific individual ratification vote on the Seniority
List, no one is contenting that there is any right to that. So
I don't think the Court needs to say that.
If you are contending that the Court should fashion
some kind of injunction that allows the -- a final proposed CBA
to be voted on somehow without addressing the Seniority List, I
have two concerns that you will want to address. One, is I'm
just -- I can't visualize how that could be done, and second,
it seems to me that the members of the collective bargaining
unit have an absolute right to vote up or down on a CBA and
that no court can control that. Now, whether that doesn't --
and I'm not sure if there are any other remedy issues that you
had in mind. Let me look -- I had the clerk print this for me,
so let's see what you all listed.
new CBA is still not going to change that.
MR. SEHAM: The plaintiffs have already, I think, very
strongly, if not explicitly, suggested that there would be some
kind of contempt action because of dragging heels toward
negotiations or because they have actually stated there are
publications out there from one particular domicile that says
we're all going to vote this down.THE COURT: And, of course, it's premature for the
Court to think what it would do if a contempt action were
brought. But --
MR. SEHAM: Or whether a contempt action could be
brought against members for voting.
THE COURT: I will repeat myself. One of the virtues
of this approach is there wouldn't be any contempt action. The
remedy would take advantage of the legitimate normal self
interest, self interested perceptions of each member of the
bargaining unit to decide, I will take this deal or no deal.
And it really doesn't manipulate in any way the analysis of any
voting member -- I guess only the union members get to vote,


And this is where we are heading...unless Wake comes up with something that doesn't promote gridlock.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Haven't we already decided that USAPA is responsible for representing ALL pilots @ LCC? At a time when USAPA has just been found liable for NOT fairly representing all LCC pilots, wouldn't it behoove them to at least once, reach out to ALL of the pilots it represents in a non-binding poll, both those that are currently members AND those which USAPA would like to become dues-paying members? Does the leadership truely wish to hear from all of the pilots at LCC or just those that they know will support their agenda?

We are talking about a potential appeal...from the defendants..you are a plaintiff...right? The entire "class" of west pilots are "plaintiffs"..right?

No poll required...we know where you stand.

 

[electricjet98]

No poll required...we know where you stand.

And will the sentaments of all pilots be taken into account...both current members and those pilots that USAPA would like to see become members? Or just the sentaments of the choir that Cleary preaches to?