US Pilots Labor Thread 6/2-6/9 STAY ON TOPIC

[aquagreen73s]

Im still not convinced your not a plaintiff.

He's not.

And 9/11 wasn't an inside job,
Apollo 11 wasn't faked in a Hollywood studio,
Sam Giancana had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination,
And no mischevious cartel from the Caymans stole the US Air pilot's pension.

 

[Elevation]

Previously, the Court stated that a trial on the issue of damages could take place during the week of August 10, 2009 or the week of August 18, 2009. [Doc. # 454.] Counsel for Defendant has represented to the Court that a trial scheduled to commence August 18, 2009, would disrupt the collective bargaining process.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that trial on the issue of Plaintiffs damages is set to commence on August 11, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.

 

[hp_fa]

Im still not convinced your not a plaintiff. No one who has a life and claims to not to have a dog in this fight would be spending so much time fretting over this and being so one-sided. Your pie-in-the-sky will never happen that way, hp, no matter what Plaintiffs "Plan 9 From Outer Space" tells the judge. USAPA legal fees will be paid by the bargaining unit. The bargaining unit, not just members. U.S. Supreme Court case Ellis V The Railway Labor Clerks. Once upon a time in a galaxy far far away…, actually the Ninth Circuit; a RLA case emerged called Ellis v. Railway Labor Clerks (actually a Western Airlines case). The plaintiffs, (Ellis), didn’t want to have their dues pay for certain union activities and so they went to court and the case ended up before the Supreme Court.

Hi Snoop.

I am going to need time to respond to your Eliis comment. But just so you aren't left wondering too much I will say that I don't preliminarily believe Ellis stands for what you say it does. However, before I finalize that I do want to review it further, and that means tomorrow.

The real reason I am even responding at all tonight is the mistaken belief that I am a plaintiff. It isn't true. The easiest way for you to pretty well confirm it is to click on my "hp_fa" name, and then click on "Member's Posts" and take the express train all the way back all 92 pages. That will be in 2004. Look at a few posts their and you should come to the conclusion that I was indeed an FA. The only pilot license I have is a private with an instrument rating and a glider rating and last I knew I needed to have an ATP to be a plaintiff in this case.

More tomorrow....goodnight.

 

[A320 Driver]

Wow, Ardenian, telling it like it is! ALPA lawyers choking every meeting, vetting every news release or writing them themselves, coming up with one way after another to keep the rank and file membership from recall meeting on the CLT Reps. It was outside lawyers from Cohen Wies and Simon pulling the strings for National, not the contract administrators. Your right, CWS started representing ALPA in the late 40s long after ALPA organized most of airline pilots. Theyve been milking that cash cow to over $6M per year, if I got the LM-2s right. No wonder they always lurking behind the curtain, to protect their turf.

Warts and all, your right, we have control over our union, not answering to the "tool." Im not on board with all the leadership, but they are our elected leadership. Contrary to ALPA, if we want any of them out, we can do it. snoopo

A320 Driver B)

 

[nycbusdriver]

Hi Snoop.

I am going to need time to respond to your Eliis comment. But just so you aren't left wondering too much I will say that I don't preliminarily believe Ellis stands for what you say it does. However, before I finalize that I do want to review it further, and that means tomorrow.

The real reason I am even responding at all tonight is the mistaken belief that I am a plaintiff. It isn't true. The easiest way for you to pretty well confirm it is to click on my "hp_fa" name, and then click on "Member's Posts" and take the express train all the way back all 92 pages. That will be in 2004. Look at a few posts their and you should come to the conclusion that I was indeed an FA. The only pilot license I have is a private with an instrument rating and a glider rating and last I knew I needed to have an ATP to be a plaintiff in this case.

More tomorrow....goodnight.

Well, if the text of the Supreme's decision is as clear cut as it appears to be, I am anxious to see how your incisive legal mind can figure out a way that the entire CBA will not be paying for this litigation.

 

[nic4us]

Well, if the text of the Supreme's decision is as clear cut as it appears to be, I am anxious to see how your incisive legal mind can figure out a way that the entire CBA will not be paying for this litigation.

I see a big whole in the SCOTUS Ellis case as it would apply to our circumstance.

It says that fair litigation cost are chargeable to the bargaining unit. It does not say damages in the amount equal to litigation cost cannot be awarded to, in this case a plaitiff, who wins said fair litigation. They are two seperate things.

So the way I read it ellis says USAPA can charge the cost of Addington as a union expense to the bargaining unit, and Judge Wake can award the West class those same charges in remedy.

So to be technically correct, USAPA can charge me their cost for the trial and then they can pay me my damages.

Oh, they can also charge me, as a union expense, those damages they have to pay. But I am thinking the damages I recieve will also cover the cost of that.

What Ellis affirms is that the east is on the hook for all of these cost.

 

[traderjake]

Well, if the text of the Supreme's decision is as clear cut as it appears to be, I am anxious to see how your incisive legal mind can figure out a way that the entire CBA will not be paying for this litigation.

Your fantasy of rewriting the seniority list is costing every pilot (East and West) money.

You happy now?

The list still isn't going to change.

 

[nycbusdriver]

So to be technically correct, USAPA can charge me their cost for the trial and then they can pay me my damages.

Oh, yeah! Judge Wake will supposedly countenance nothing from USAPA that could possibly be construed to circumvent HIS decisions, but you think he will be happy to circumvent a Supreme Court decision with some seemingly legal slight of hand. The 9th Circuit would just LOVE that.

 

[N905TW]

Im still not convinced your not a plaintiff. No one who has a life and claims to not to have a dog in this fight would be spending so much time fretting over this and being so one-sided. Your pie-in-the-sky will never happen that way, hp, no matter what

Mr Cleary, is that you?

What's wrong with HP's posts? Oh yes, I forgot, they don't fit in with the lies your union is spewing to the lemmings back in PHL and CLT.

"In my opinion" , HP FA has been more than even keeled and neutral on his postings since this entire disaster began. I for one enjoy his opinions and references of law, even when they do not support the West side. If you don't like what he writes, and you don't think his posts are factual, skip them.

 

[Hawkhunter]

Your fantasy of rewriting the seniority list is going to make every pilot poor the the lawyers rich.

You happy now?

The list still isn't going to change .

Maybe not, but how long will it take you to cash in your ticket?

 

[Megasnoop]

I see a big whole in the SCOTUS Ellis case as it would apply to our circumstance. It says that fair litigation cost are chargeable to the bargaining unit. It does not say damages in the amount equal to litigation cost cannot be awarded to, in this case a plaitiff, who wins said fair litigation. They are two seperate things.

No “whole†in Ellis, Nic4, no matter how you try to shape the debate by skewing what you just read. I only addressed the litigation costs, $$ to attorneys. Re-read what I posted. I didnt address damages, Ellis dosnt either. What Wake can or cant do, who he can charge cant be found in Ellis.

So the way I read it ellis says USAPA can charge the cost of Addington as a union expense to the bargaining unit, and Judge Wake can award the West class those same charges in remedy.

So to be technically correct, USAPA can charge me their cost for the trial and then they can pay me my damages.

Oh, they can also charge me, as a union expense, those damages they have to pay. But I am thinking the damages I recieve will also cover the cost of that.

What Ellis affirms is that the east is on the hook for all of these cost.

Ellis had nothing technically correct to do with damages. Its about litigation costs (attorney fees). But at least you are finally getting it. Member or not, your going to at least have to pay attorney fees. Pass that on to TAZZ. If the judge awards “the class†attorney fees for Harper, youll be paying 1/3 of your own attorney fees as well (attorney fees arent damages).

Now on damages, what AOL is up to is so transparent. You got legal fees to pay, and if you dont get them from Wake, the only way to pay them is with damages. Wake knows hes got a problem with damages. He said, “Let me – for example, a logically possible outcome is that plaintiffs could prove liability. The Court would grant some equitable relief. But when the day came, there would be failure to persuade that things would have – the timing of the negotiation would have been such that plaintiffs would have gotten to different and better positions than they are today. That’s logically possible. So we could end up in a situation where a damage claim could fail later on entirely even though a liability claim and injunctive relief of some sort is granted here. I’m not making any judgment about it. It just occurred to me that that’s a possibility.â€

Theres a lot more to this than just what Wake has been telegraphing to you, Nic4. Do you want it all at once, or education by a thousand posts?

 

[nic4us]

Oh, yeah! Judge Wake will supposedly countenance nothing from USAPA that could possibly be construed to circumvent HIS decisions, but you think he will be happy to circumvent a Supreme Court decision with some seemingly legal slight of hand. The 9th Circuit would just LOVE that.

It is not legal slight of hand.

USAPA or any union has the authority to charge cost of fair representation litigation to the bagaining unit. They can also charge the bargaining unit with the damages they lose in a DFR lawsuit.

A litigant who wins damages has the right to claim them.

These are two completely seperate issues.

I would love to watch Seham explain why it does not matter that he lost a lawsuit because the damages will be paid for by the class that was awarded those very same damages.

Again, Ellis affirms that USAPA can charge cost of fair representation litigation to the bargaining unit. You, me, every USAirways pilot is on the hook for these cost. The difference between an East pilot and a West pilot is that the West pilot is in the class that won the lawsuit, ( an identity seperate from USAPA) and will be able to claim any damages that are awarded.

 

[cleardirect]

The Supreme Court stated in its preamble,
Hence, when employees such as petitioners object to being burdened with particular union expenditures, the test must be whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues. Under this standard, objecting employees may be compelled to pay their fair share of not only the direct costs of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining contract and of settling grievances and disputes, but also the expenses of activities or undertakings normally or reasonably employed to implement or effectuate the duties of the union as exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
With these considerations in mind, we turn to the particular expenditures for which petitioners insist they may not be charged.

…..5. Litigation. The expenses of litigation incident to negotiating and administering the contract or to settling grievances and disputes arising in the bargaining unit are clearly chargeable to petitioners as a normal incident of the duties of the exclusive representative. The same is true of fair representation litigation arising within the unit, of jurisdictional disputes with other unions, and of any other litigation before agencies or in the courts that concerns bargaining unit employees and is normally conducted by the exclusive representative. [/i]


Good night, hp. Hope the above doesnt give you nitemares.

Snoop,

That is an interesting case. Something that you found in your spare time or something that Seham has feed to the east pilots? A close reading brings out a couple of questions though.

First do you see where it says THE TEST. To me that means that there is a question as to what a union can and can't so. It is not automatic. There are a lot of caveats in this statement that gives the court latitude to determine who pays the fees. This case also says that the suits were filed separately (later consolidated). The addington case is a class action suit. A difference that could be important. Don't know for sure but I would guess that class action cases bring a different set of rules or laws with them.

The bolded words tell me that the west may not have to pay for the expenses brought on by a group determined to do harm to another group within that union. Simply because the majority wants it that way. Don't be surprised if this case does not have the effect that you want it to.

ps. I know the plaintiffs. HP-FA is not one of them.

 

[traderjake]

Maybe not, but how long will it take you to cash in your ticket?

Wrong again, I'm an East pilot.

Only a USAPA supporter calls not having your job stolen a winning lottery ticket.

 

[nic4us]

No “whole†in Ellis, Nic4, no matter how you try to shape the debate by skewing what you just read. I only addressed the litigation costs, $$ to attorneys. Re-read what I posted. I didnt address damages, Ellis dosnt either. What Wake can or cant do, who he can charge cant be found in Ellis.



Ellis had nothing technically correct to do with damages. Its about litigation costs (attorney fees). But at least you are finally getting it. Member or not, your going to at least have to pay attorney fees. Pass that on to TAZZ. If the judge awards “the class†attorney fees for Harper, youll be paying 1/3 of your own attorney fees as well (attorney fees arent damages).

Now on damages, what AOL is up to is so transparent. You got legal fees to pay, and if you dont get them from Wake, the only way to pay them is with damages. Wake knows hes got a problem with damages. He said, “Let me – for example, a logically possible outcome is that plaintiffs could prove liability. The Court would grant some equitable relief. But when the day came, there would be failure to persuade that things would have – the timing of the negotiation would have been such that plaintiffs would have gotten to different and better positions than they are today. That’s logically possible. So we could end up in a situation where a damage claim could fail later on entirely even though a liability claim and injunctive relief of some sort is granted here. I’m not making any judgment about it. It just occurred to me that that’s a possibility.â€

Theres a lot more to this than just what Wake has been telegraphing to you, Nic4. Do you want it all at once, or education by a thousand posts?

On Ellis, my point exactly.

On Wake's discussion of damages, he is saying you may not get damages for lost wages etc...because there will be no way to prove that a CBA with improved wages etc would have been reached or when it could have been reached.

As to attorney fees. I will not have to pay 1/3, I will be responsible for 1/5000th of all the attorney fees, STK's and SSMP's. Fortunately for me I am a member of a class who won a lawsuit, and hopefully will be awarded a reimbursement of STK's attorney fees, and possibly any dues I was reponsible for to USAPA. So in the end I will not pay SSMP's fees either. I think that is what is being "telegraphed" when Wake talks about "equitable relief".

I'll take the thousand posts, that way I get at a slower pace and might be able to understand it better.