US Pilots Labor Thread 7/7-7/14 - NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[Hawkhunter]

[

"Head firmly in the sand. I've reached the point, frankly, where I'm considering avoiding East metal, because I (and many others) have a solid reason to wonder whether the guy in either seat actually has it together. If you don't see why your course of action was doomed from the start, you never will."




Who cares what you do or think. I thought none of you wanted East metal? Believe it or not, we dont like you guys either. If you dont see why we feel we got screwd then" you never will".

 

[Piedmont1984]

He would if both sides came to an impasse and agreed on binding arbitration, and then lived up to their agreement.

Unlike a certain cowardly group that had to create an entire new union as a way to avoid their agreement.

How did that work out?

We agreed to what should have been "fair" binding arbitration.

Classic argumentum ad hominem. Besides, since when is fighting city hall cowardly?

We are in the second half.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

We agreed to what should have been "fair" binding arbitration.

Classic argumentum ad hominem. Besides, since when is fighting city hall cowardly?

We are in the second half.

Your side agreed to abide by the arbiter's decision, that is binding arbitration. You man up, and live with the result.

Not fighting "city hall" You can't fight when you agreed to the arbitration.

Come on, you guys are in a union, you guys always harp on how the company must live up to the contract. No difference here.

BTW, I studied logical fallacies in college too, it doesn't impress me much.

 

[Richard]

I just deleted a couple of posts which constitute and refer to an incident of name calling and personal attacks--which are PROHIBITED on this board.

Stop it now--discuss the ISSUES not the POSTERS.

There is plenty of room in the corn field.

 

[88 B.T.D.]

...

 

[East Hole]

Beats me, because the someone hired just prior to the merger happened to be the furloughed pilot hired in '88.

Would that be sarcasm, irony or poetic justice?

That would be wrong because there were 1988 hires that were never furloughed.

 

[hp_fa]

Deleted by me. I was finally able to send an appropriate PM.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Your side agreed to abide by the arbiter's decision, that is binding arbitration. You man up, and live with the result.

Not fighting "city hall" You can't fight when you agreed to the arbitration.

Come on, you guys are in a union, you guys always harp on how the company must live up to the contract. No difference here.

BTW, I studied logical fallacies in college too, it doesn't impress me much.

The company never lives up to the contract, which is why we have a long list of grievances outstanding. Bad example HPearly.

Sounds as though you were present when logical fallacies were covered - but sound asleep.

Obviously an unjust, unfair and soon to be discredited arbitrator's decision also doesn't impress you.

And if you've concluded that there hasn't been a fight these past two years, check in again when your orbit brings you back into this solar system :blink:

 

[HPearlyretiree]

The company never lives up to the contract, which is why we have a long list of grievances outstanding. Bad example HPearly.

Sounds as though you were present when logical fallacies were covered - but sound asleep.

Obviously an unjust, unfair and soon to be discredited arbitrator's decision also doesn't impress you.

And if you've concluded that there hasn't been a fight these past two years, check in again when your orbit brings you back into this solar system :blink:

Yeah, but its OK for a union not to live up to their own agreement? LAME

Not unfair, not unjust, not to be discredited. Your side agreed to the arbitration, then you didn't like it and wanted to take your football home. Too bad, can't do that, Nic is the law, and it is not going away. But, feel free to waste millions of $$ on a Quixotic quest, the lawyers will gladly accept the money.

Such denial, its sad.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Yeah, but its OK for a union not to live up to their own agreement? LAME

You got me there. Which agreement exactly did USAPA enter into which they are not honoring?

If we are ultimately compelled to abide by an agreement entered into by a previous union which no longer exists on this property then I want a Federal Court to tell me so - not an AOL hometown court - and certainly not a former HP employee.

Until then, this is an issue which has captured the attention and interest of judges, attorneys and legal scholars - along with a few thousand pilots - and for good reason.

It ain't over till it's over.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

You got me there. Which agreement exactly did USAPA enter into which they are not honoring?

If we are ultimately compelled to abide by an agreement entered into by a previous union which no longer exists on this property then I want a Federal Court to tell me so - not an AOL hometown court - and certainly not a former HP employee.

Until then, this is an issue which has captured the attention and interest of judges, attorneys and legal scholars - along with a few thousand pilots - and for good reason.

It ain't over till it's over.

You huff and you puff.

Guess what? The Nic is still there..........and that's the law!!! Appeals are going down the drain.

 

[HPDriver]

Looks like USAPA continues to paint themselves into a corner.

An excerpt from the publicly available transcripts of the remedy hearing:


THE COURT: I will tell you, I have done a lot of work
on this and given it a lot of thought, and my sense arrived at
after considering many alternatives is that it is essential to
have this protection against discrimination by indirection.
And that the circumstances, the history of the clear and
abundant bad faith and discrimination here means that the
Court's not running on a blank slate and USAPA's not running on
a blank slate.
We're dealing with a history of proven pervasive
violation of duty, and therefore, it's necessary for the Court
to come up with a rule, with a remedy that will restore the
neutral and even-handed motivations to the process and, in
particular, to the ratification process.
Now, I haven't heard anything that would change my
mind to the question.

 

[Piedmont1984]

You huff and you puff.

No, just chafe when insulted.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

You got me there. Which agreement exactly did USAPA enter into which they are not honoring?

If we are ultimately compelled to abide by an agreement entered into by a previous union which no longer exists on this property then I want a Federal Court to tell me so - not an AOL hometown court - and certainly not a former HP employee.

Until then, this is an issue which has captured the attention and interest of judges, attorneys and legal scholars - along with a few thousand pilots - and for good reason.

It ain't over till it's over.

Actually the East union guys entered into an agreement that they are not honoring, they then became USAPA. USAPA was formed to circumvent Nic.

You can't run from the truth, and Wake and the jurors sure knew the truth.

Didn't they.

 

[Megasnoop]

Actually the East union guys entered into an agreement that they are not honoring, they then became USAPA. USAPA was formed to circumvent Nic.

You can't run from the truth, and Wake and the jurors sure knew the truth.

This will be settled in the 9th circuit, not on this chat. "They" (East) did not become USAPA. East and West became USAPA. All pilots were allowed to vote.

What Wake said in his court this week has no bearing on the 9th Circuit. They will not hear it. The jury ruled on what they were allowed to hear and on the judge's instructions. We believe the judge made appealable errors. So we appeal. That's our privelege. You attack us for exercising our rights. That's your privelege.

Not unfair, not unjust, not to be discredited. Your side agreed to the arbitration, then you didn't like it and wanted to take your football home. Too bad, can't do that, Nic is the law, and it is not going away. But, feel free to waste millions of $$ on a Quixotic quest, the lawyers will gladly accept the money.

USAPA does not equal "your side." USAPA didnt even exist when the NIC came out. ALPA didn't even think the NIC was fair and equitable. They spent over $1M to compromise it out. Your side stopp its ground. That was your right and obligation to your membership. We dont spend our money wisely? West sued us for DFR. Any expenses incurred for trial were spent wisely. Just as expenses for appeal. That is what the union BPRs and majority members demand. You scoff at the motions we file. We file motions to cover all the legal angles. You miss one and you could jepardize the whole case. Is that spending you into the ground? Hardly. Its covering all the bases to challenge a result of a lawsuit we didnt file. We have the will and the funds to persue this. If you dont, thats your deal.

NIC will not be overturned by the courts. But its hardly "law." No telling how the 9th will rule. We could lose our appeal. Depending on the court's wording, that could be the end of it. A court reversal could be limited (it wasnt ripe, come back when you have a DOH contract), middle of the road (the judge made some errors that force it to be tried again) or wide (as a matter of law, this case is reversed, sent back to the judge to dismiss). For every argument in your brief, we'll have a counter, and vice versa.

One thing you (and the East ALPA-phyles) wont get is quick end to this. We will play it out, along with LOA84, $70m guaranteed payments and the pension investigation. The law allows us to.

Meanwhile, we'll attend the negotiating sessions, keeping in mind we cannot deliver or even discuss a TA that has DOH language in it, at least not until we get a favorable ruling from the court.

Since your an HP earlyretiree, I'm not sure why all this gets you so upset. You have no personal stake in this, unless you have a wife who still flies on the west side.