US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/30-7/7 KEEP ON TOPIC-NO PERSONAL COMMENTS

[ClueByFour]

Absolutely! When self help is reached all the contracts and contractual obligations would expire and would no longer be enforceable including East, West and the TA. All seniority obligations cease until a new contract agreement containing new seniority provisions is reached and ratified.

The injunction from Wake does not go away. Oops.

The East does not have the stones to strike. Let's be real--if there was gonna be a strike, it would have been during BKII.

 

[EastUS]

The East does not have the stones to strike.

As that's your assumption; kindly explain all the stated west fantasies of moving forward" towards "an industry leading contract".

 

[cleardirect]

Finally! Usapa has filed the LM-2 that we all have been waiting for. Ouch it is ugly. Looks to me that the only guy getting rich is Seham, maybe a couple of reps.

Just a quick look a couple of things stood out.

So far the RICO case that was dismissed with prejudice has cost $236,270.

Addington case only 4 ½ months billing through Feb. 6th. $592,877
That was before the trial started and the appeal has been billed.
Looks like it could be about $680,000 to March. Plus the trial
and appeal bills.

Brengle for January and February. Again before trial and the solitaire $93,879

Total to Seham’s firm so far from 7/1/2008 to 3/31/2009 $1,903,902

Net assets $2,358,034 that sounds good right.

Accounts receivable $2,198,095

No wonder section 29 letters are flying fast and furious. Seham wants his money.

Oops almost forgot. The Suzie arbitration should be just around the corner. If we win that one the west does not owe $2.1 million. Leaving usapa with $160,000. Kind of lame for an independent union with the highest rate of dues in the country.

And these are the guys that you picked to run the union. All in all it looks very irresponsible to me.

 

[hp_fa]

hp_fa,

It looks like we are headed for a major dispute under the RLA. Both industry standard pay rates/contract and the seniority issue are strike issues. After 12/31/09 USAPA may proceed through the NMB mediation process while maintaining separate operations and ending with self help. After 30 days of an impasse or 60 days with Presidential intervention all contractual obligations of both parties cease. The company is then free to impose new pay and working conditions and the union is free of legal constraints and may strike. All seniority obligations of both parties end as there is no longer a contract to bind the parties to. Courts may not impose injunctions against unions during a legal strike as the result of the Norris-Laguardia act. No court may deny a union the right to a legal strike by trying to block the section 6 NMB process.

Hi CU,

First I apologize for being late online today. I have had major computer issues and have spent 5-6 hours getting them resolved.

I don't think the NMB process will be as quick as you make it out to be in the post. In my opinion it will take 2-3 years before a mediator will ever release USAPA or any other bargaining agent to strike. Why? Before the release their has to be bargaining. You can't put the proverbial cart before the horse.

Next, assuming that your statement is true about the "seniority obligations of both parties end as there is no longer a contract" you are forgetting one thing. As used in that context the parties are the company and the union. However, the obligations of USAPA under the soon to be issued injunction are outside of that phrase because the parties to that are intra-union, specifically the Addington class and USAPA. Therefore, the seniority integration obligations of USAPA under the injunction remain.

Finally, if one took your contention to be true regarding seniority obligations of the parties, what is to keep the company from doing away with everyone's seniority because the obligations it was under ceased to exist. Think about it. You can't pick and choose what obligations disappear and which stay in place.

The union may impose a traditional strike, nontraditional rolling strike, or the company may lockout all workers and hire and train new temporary replacements. During a lockout the workers collect unemployment and may displace any temporary workers when the strike is settled. Workers cannot be terminated or disciplined for participating in a legal strike. The strike may continue until the union and company reach acceptable terms and conditions for a new contract to be signed and ratified by the voting union members.

A legal strike can include rolling strikes at the direction of the union. For example all CLT flights could be struck for 3 days or all Boeing flights for 2 days or all International flights for 1 day or PHX flights could be ordered struck for labor day weekend etc. Workers are usually notified just hours prior that their trips are struck work to prevent the company from scheduling strikebreakers. Nontraditional strikes are usually settled within weeks as companies suffer huge costs and lost revenue from disrupted operations.

Agreed. Basically your are suggesting the tactics utilized by APA under CHAOS (tm).

Courts have ruled that both the company and union may seek to change seniority as a result of a strike. Companies may allow strikebreakers (scabs) to retain positions attained while working during the strike. Unions may punish strikebreakers by changing their seniority as a condition of ending the strike. Punishing strikebreakers by stripping seniority is considered by courts to be a legitimate union objective and not a DFR.

We can hope the major issues can be settled prior to the destructive self help stage of the RLA. The company is not in a strong financial condition and will need the cooperation of the union and all pilots to survive in this competitive industry.

underpants

Again, go back and look at my first response. Any strike would not absolve USAPA of complying with the injunction for the intra-union dispute.

John

 

[cleardirect]

Hi CU,

However, the obligations of USAPA under the soon to be issued injunction are outside of that phrase because the parties to that are intra-union, specifically the Addington class and USAPA. Therefore, the seniority integration obligations of USAPA under the injunction remain.

Finally, if one took your contention to be true regarding seniority obligations of the parties, what is to keep the company from doing away with everyone's seniority because the obligations it was under ceased to exist. Think about it. You can't pick and choose what obligations disappear and which stay in place.

John

Excellent point.

If there is no more seniority list what would keep the company from stapling the east to the bottom of the list? A little punishment for being bad boys.

 

[Metroyet]

Finally! Usapa has filed the LM-2 that we all have been waiting for. Ouch it is ugly. Looks to me that the only guy getting rich is Seham, maybe a couple of reps.

Just a quick look a couple of things stood out.

So far the RICO case that was dismissed with prejudice has cost $236,270.

Addington case only 4 ½ months billing through Feb. 6th. $592,877
That was before the trial started and the appeal has been billed.
Looks like it could be about $680,000 to March. Plus the trial
and appeal bills.

Brengle for January and February. Again before trial and the solitaire $93,879

Total to Seham’s firm so far from 7/1/2008 to 3/31/2009 $1,903,902

Net assets $2,358,034 that sounds good right.

Accounts receivable $2,198,095

No wonder section 29 letters are flying fast and furious. Seham wants his money.

Oops almost forgot. The Suzie arbitration should be just around the corner. If we win that one the west does not owe $2.1 million. Leaving usapa with $160,000. Kind of lame for an independent union with the highest rate of dues in the country.

And these are the guys that you picked to run the union. All in all it looks very irresponsible to me.

How coincidental...USAPA is in the same financial condition as their Airline was the day DP had the merger epiphany! So USAPA is as financially Bankrupt as they are Morally.

 

[hp_fa]

Finally! Usapa has filed the LM-2 that we all have been waiting for. Ouch it is ugly. Looks to me that the only guy getting rich is Seham, maybe a couple of reps.

That has been my contention all along. Seham managed to hook USAPA, via Bradford, and has been milking that cow for all it is worth.

One more thing to think about, especially to the lurkers out there who have chosen to stay out of the discussions on the board. Seham seemingly made many statements, promises and theories available to Bradford which were well beyond what the majority of labor attorneys believe. (Some of them already came out in court and there is plenty of reason to believe that more evidence exists.) In essence he was trying to re-write a significant portion of labor law. If his theories were adopted into law he and his firm would become far more marketable as labor law specialists which would translate into much more business and more money in his pocket. He got Bradford to buy into all of this as evidenced by USAPA hiring SSM&P. USAPA is paying for all of this and clearly Seham has a lot to gain and nothing to lose because he gets paid anyway. Also, as evidenced by USAPA's claim that approximately 93-94% of its total expenses are germaine to dues objectors, you folks are paying for this unless you take whatever action is necessary to get USAPA's germaine expenses to not include the various expenses that arose from the RICO litigation and the Addington litigation.

 

[Snowskier]

Said "small group", one must assume, constitutes all of our fellow pilots who's careers would effectively be over under nic?

Their careers were already over even before the Nicolau and even before the merger report. I read the Salamat report that Chip mentioned in his letter and these pilots would never have seen the left seat and the Nicolau did nothing to change that fact.

 

[LOA93]

How can usapa strike if they're not allowed to open section 6. Doesn't the proposed remedy require no separate contracts? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought a union can't strike under joint negotiations.

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

You have to remember, Seeham lost several of his cash cows, so he has to make up for it some how.

1 Amfa at NW, gone
2. Amfa at UA, gone
3. PFAA at NW gone.
4. AMFA at FlyI
5. AMFA at ATA

He has lost all those big clients, no money coming in and to this day I cant see how any union would use a firm that has represented companies against unions and lost the major status quo case at ACA.

He represented Alitalia and EL AL in lockouts and strikes against the IAM.

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

Lets see what old Capt Chipper has to say, got a link?

 

[Elevation]

DELAY:



The Court hereby continues the damages trial from August 11 to January 19,
2010 at 9:00 a.m.

 

[hp_fa]

Lets see what old Capt Chipper has to say, got a link?

It may have been removed.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Assuming the judge's draft remedy becomes the final version, the answer to your first question lies there.

I can't find the part in the draft remedy that says the contract is unmodifiable.

I assume someone who's opinion you'd take seriously will eventually explain what's wrong with your new theory. I'm also sure that you wouldn't take my word for anything. A hint, thouth - the answer to your second question also lies in the draft remedy.

I can't find the part in the draft remedy that says any new agreements must be the same as the old expired agreements.

underpants

 

[BoeingBoy]

You're looking for the wrong thing. Instead of "unmodifiable" think about limits on the type of modification. It'll come to you...

Jim