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

[Freighterguynow]

Can you give us some idea on a ratifiable fair and equitable deal for relief for the east.

Maybe something like the Empire guys - Doh if you stay in your current domicile and equipment, also for furlough with priority rights to stay in domicile. The NIC if you bid out. No fences for either side.


Or ( if any mention of DOH is a nonstarter West)

5 year fences on attrition and widebodies and LOS for furlough.

That's just my thoughts ...

 

[Captain Underpants]

Underpants,

Can you give us some idea on a ratifiable fair and equitable deal for relief for the east.

No I have no idea at this point. I have joined the union paid my dues and will contact my union representitives with suggested changes for the new contract.

I will vote for the new contract if I think it is fair. I expect West pilots will do the same. The court will not and can not interfere with rights granted union members under labor law.

underpants

 

[jimntx]

Yes of course I expect a court order to require USAPA to negotiate the Nicolau award into a joint contract. The West is stuck with the Nic award as well. Nic was very lazy and provided almost no conditions or restrictions , protections or guarantees for either side. USAPA must now produce a ratifiable contract by bargaining all 30 sections of the CBA while complying with the court order whatever it turns out to be.

For example our reserve processing used to be by seniority order with the ability to pass trips until ALPA changed it to a time balancing system disregarding seniority. This of course gave up our seniority rights for this part of the contract in section 25 (scheduling) even though seniority was established by the final and binding Kagel award in section 22 (seniority) of the contract.

Do you understand the problem now?

underpants

Is it the binding or the arbitration that you are struggling with? Binding arbitration awards are not negotiable, they are binding. Yeah, so in the past your union has bargained away perks that used to be based on seniority. It happens. Boo-frickin-hoo. There are senior fa/s here at AA who are still outraged that due to the concessionary contract of 2003, they now have to actually show up to work to get company-paid benefits--such as medical. (Believe it or not, they used to be able to not fly for months or years on end and still get full benefits. And, I'm not talking about IODs or out sick. I mean just dropping every trip, every month.)

Your bargaining agent demanded and got binding arbitration. Because you didn't like the result, you want a do over. And, it appears that you are willing to destroy your career and the careers of thousands of others if you don't get your way. That's what I understand.

 

[nycbusdriver]

We crafted an agreement and voted on it.

As I suspected. Evade the answer to the question by replying with the "process," not the "method."

As far as our concern for protecting your job, we've done that in spades in previous give backs. Now, it's time to look out for Number One. You're along for the ride; sorry about that, but it is what it is. Get over it or quit.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

What if both sides are in sectuon 6, both sides reach an impasse the company imposses a new CBA contaning NIC, you can walk or work, get a 90 degree colling off period and have congress legistate uou contract so it can happen.

Better be careful what who wish for!

You really want Congress to get involved in this????? YIKES! :down:

 

[73320]

No I have no idea at this point. I have joined the union paid my dues and will contact my union representitives with suggested changes for the new contract.

I will vote for the new contract if I think it is fair. I expect West pilots will do the same. The court will not and can not interfere with rights granted union members under labor law.

underpants

Underpants,

Thanks for the reply. I think you folks need to start thinking of ideas that are much different than the ideas that your union reps have expressed in the past. I am sure the bashing and vitriol on here is great sport for both sides, meanwhile it is very costly, and continues to undermine the future of all employees. The current leaders and direction of USAPA is toxic to the west. They will never trust/support them. If the trial results produce status quo and take it back to east contract veto to implement the nic, perhaps throwing the ball in the wests court will produce desirable results. It appears that the west counsel and results have been consistently better. Maybe a liveable solution and better outcome for all would be possible with a west BPR as distasteful as that may seem, it may actually move us along much faster. Have you ever polled the west to see who wants to come east? I have an 84-85 bid power east and dont plan on ever using it. I can imagine how joyful it would be excersing that right, a warm reception and fun filled trips for all. Consider it professional courtesy or whatever you will but I am guessing that the vast majority in the west are like minded. Others will/would go east for various reasons. More ideas and constuctive dialogue cant hurt.

 

[hp_fa]

We have a seniority list and USAPA can try to negotiate a change to it within the constraints of the law.

The question is who does USAPA negotiate with when it is negotiating against/with itself?

 

[hp_fa]

I am having trouble with US Aviation today due to what seems to be a database error that keeps occurring, so that keeps me from scrolling through all the posts fairly quickly. However, I have a practicality question that needs to be addressed at some point and that is who and how are the West to be represented by and how do they get equal financial support to do so.

USAPA is the sole bargaining unit. As such it controls the purse strings. It also controls, by its constitution, representation by and for the West pilots. So, how is West to be funded for legal and merger support in any negotiations when it is, by definition and law, part of USAPA. USAPA can simply pick up the phone and speak with legal counsel and that conversation and whatever work is required is paid for by USAPA. Who does West call and who pays for anything they perceive they may need to adequately represent their views on any potentially contested issues? Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen are conflicted on giving advice to West, both ethically and legally. So, does USAPA allow West to hire their own lawyers, accountants, etc. until a single CBA is ratified?

This is a serious question that needs consideration going forward.

 

[N924PS]

As I suspected. Evade the answer to the question by replying with the "process," not the "method."

As far as our concern for protecting your job, we've done that in spades in previous give backs. Now, it's time to look out for Number One. You're along for the ride; sorry about that, but it is what it is. Get over it or quit.

My what a hissy fit.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Yeah, so in the past your union has bargained away perks that used to be based on seniority. It happens. Boo-frickin-hoo.

Exactly... now you get it. Contracts are negotiable. How seniority is applied in the contract is negotiable.

underpants

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I am having trouble with US Aviation today due to what seems to be a database error that keeps occurring, so that keeps me from scrolling through all the posts fairly quickly. However, I have a practicality question that needs to be addressed at some point and that is who and how are the West to be represented by and how do they get equal financial support to do so.

USAPA is the sole bargaining unit. As such it controls the purse strings. It also controls, by its constitution, representation by and for the West pilots. So, how is West to be funded for legal and merger support in any negotiations when it is, by definition and law, part of USAPA. USAPA can simply pick up the phone and speak with legal counsel and that conversation and whatever work is required is paid for by USAPA. Who does West call and who pays for anything they perceive they may need to adequately represent their views on any potentially contested issues? Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen are conflicted on giving advice to West, both ethically and legally. So, does USAPA allow West to hire their own lawyers, accountants, etc. until a single CBA is ratified?

This is a serious question that needs consideration going forward.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The judge here is trying to rewrite labor laws. Once the NMB decided that the pilots were one group this should have ended.

Now, the judge MAY declare that USAPA cannot negotiate on it's own behalf. This is purely judicial activism, and I am anxious to see just how he "splits the baby".

 

[nic4us]

I
USAPA is the sole bargaining unit. As such it controls the purse strings. It also controls, by its constitution, representation by and for the West pilots. So, how is West to be funded for legal and merger support in any negotiations when it is, by definition and law, part of USAPA. USAPA can simply pick up the phone and speak with legal counsel and that conversation and whatever work is required is paid for by USAPA. Who does West call and who pays for anything they perceive they may need to adequately represent their views on any potentially contested issues? Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen are conflicted on giving advice to West, both ethically and legally. So, does USAPA allow West to hire their own lawyers, accountants, etc. until a single CBA is ratified?

This is a serious question that needs consideration going forward.

Great point, I say USAPA has to pay for West legal fees including West suing USAPA, turnabout is fair play and after all as USAPA pointed out in their finacial disclosures, legal fees in defence of DFR are germane, well then it would hold true that legal fees in support of DFR are also germane, and should be paid by the ( I use the term loosely) union.

In other words, if I have to pay for you to sue me, you have to pay for me to sue you. This might bring about some more level headed thinking.

 

[cleardirect]

Exactly... now you get it. Contracts are negotiable. How seniority is applied in the contract is negotiable.

underpants

Really! Could the union negotiate into the contract a 10 hour scheduled domestic flying day?

Could the union negotiate that all women can only be F/O’s?

Could the union negotiate that only pilots over 55 can fly a wide body airplane?

As you can see other laws apply to a contract. FAR’s, age discrimination and federal court orders have a very real effect on what a union can and can not negotiate.

Final and binding arbitration backed up with a federal injunction carries a bit of weight with it.

 

[oscarjazz]

I am having trouble with US Aviation today due to what seems to be a database error that keeps occurring, so that keeps me from scrolling through all the posts fairly quickly. However, I have a practicality question that needs to be addressed at some point and that is who and how are the West to be represented by and how do they get equal financial support to do so.

USAPA is the sole bargaining unit. As such it controls the purse strings. It also controls, by its constitution, representation by and for the West pilots. So, how is West to be funded for legal and merger support in any negotiations when it is, by definition and law, part of USAPA. USAPA can simply pick up the phone and speak with legal counsel and that conversation and whatever work is required is paid for by USAPA. Who does West call and who pays for anything they perceive they may need to adequately represent their views on any potentially contested issues? Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen are conflicted on giving advice to West, both ethically and legally. So, does USAPA allow West to hire their own lawyers, accountants, etc. until a single CBA is ratified?

This is a serious question that needs consideration going forward.

Under ALPA Merger Policy, after a merger, the two merger committees remain as separate entities, not governed by the MEC. The trip drops and hotel expenses are paid by the union, but each side has to levy an assessment on their own pilots to pay legal fees.

This is how I would set it up. The West pilots and East pilots get to select their merger representatives. They will be funded by USAPA, except for the lawyers fees which are independent. They each get to pick their own lawyers. These merger reps have full authority to represent their pilots. If they can agree on a negotiated solution to their seniority issues, then the full USAPA membership would vote to approve the changes. If they can't agree, then I guess it goes on forever.

I can't see any other way but to return to some previous status quo where each side gets an independent decision on moving forward.

 

[V1cut]

Great point, I say USAPA has to pay for West legal fees including West suing USAPA, turnabout is fair play and after all as USAPA pointed out in their finacial disclosures, legal fees in defence of DFR are germane, well then it would hold true that legal fees in support of DFR are also germane, and should be paid by the ( I use the term loosely) union.

In other words, if I have to pay for you to sue me, you have to pay for me to sue you. This might bring about some more level headed thinking.

Hmmm...how's the weather in your world?

You guys are finally seeing what some of us have been saying for months now. Even in a win, you won't get the Nic....OR some creative negotiations will take place to effectively make Nic moot, even if it is the seniority list (in compliance with the letter of the ruling) And the lightbulbs are just now lighting up out there? Hey, USAPA will comply within the letter of the law regarding legal remedy dictated by Wake. (read that part carefully)

Regarding your proposal that USAPA pay for both sides of this lawsuit, you are on some serious paote friend. HP's question is troubling in that it should be obvious who the "parties" are going forward at this point...USAPA (and it's members with voting authority) and the company. Thats it. There is no "who does the west deal with going forward?" The west has only one avenue to deal with anything, as has been the case for some time now: USAPA. Review the judge's comments regarding the parties going forward...and who is the collective and legal representative going forward. And what rights the voting members of said representative have under the law. The judge went further, and Seham spelled it out where Wake was unsure: that Wake will leave no room for contempt charges (under the Nic remedy) if West claims "stalling" on a CBA....the ONLY 2 parties who can bring a "stalling" charge to the NMB is (1) USAPA or (2) THE COMPANY....(there is no "west") in the equation.

HP, that you even suggest that "what lawyer do they call?" as being an option is a little stunning, considering your legal experience. They join the union (and vote) for what they hope to see...or, they do exactly what they've been doing: sit on the sidelines and watch the union do it's business while they complain loudly.

Wake has made it pretty clear. Maybe you should review his discussions with the lawyers regarding potential remedies and the fallout thereof.