US Pilots' Labor Thread 9/4 to 9/17--STAY ON TOPIC

[700UW]

If I recall, the company was in financial distress (under the dubious "leadership" of Seth Schofield) and had asked all the unions to agree to temporary give backs. ALPA stepped up to the plate and did so to keep the company solvent. The IAM refused, and went on strike. The AFA was still in talks, and decided to stage an illegal secondary boycott over the IAM picket lines. ALPA had done their part and saw the IAM as recalcitrant (which they were.) The AFA walkout was totally ineffective once the rank and file found out that they wouldn't be paid if they honored the picket lines and didn't show up for work. Most flight attendants crossed and worked, too. It was impossible to keep all fleets functional since required maintenance had to be done by supervisors, so a few of the fleets were grounded by the company as a stop-gap measure to keep the other fleets flying. ALPA, which had made the sacrifices asked of them, were assured that their pilots would be paid if they kept the airline flying. They did. The IAM was, and is, a stubborn bunch and were seen (after the EAL mess) as needing their noses rubbed in it.

In the aftermath, the IAM basically won their demands, while the pilots worked concessionary pay for a short time. The pilots were pissed that management gave in to the IAM. Later, as promised, the pilots were later made whole with the return of every penny they made in concessions with interest.

I am always willing to honor an honorable picket line. The IAM didn't want to play, so the pilots basically gave a figurative one-finger salute to the IAM and went to work.

Revisionist history?

The offer we voted down on day 30 of the cooling off period would have eliminated 50% of the line mechanics. We voted it down kept working for two more weeks under the old terms of the CBA and kept negotiating, it came to the point that Duane Andrews VP of Labor Relations (Lorenzo Protege) was begging us to stay at work and we finally went on strike on a Sunday night at midnight. Reached a TA after five days of being on strike and took pay concessions for a year, like everyone else, under a different formula and agreed to a few other concessions.

Guess since you werent an IAM member you just believed what you heard?

Your pilots also were cleaning airplanes during the 30 day cooling off period as we were short handed, I filed hundreds of grievances, yep thats honor performing other unionized work groups CBA covered work.

And everyone who took concessions in 92 got their money back, we got 100% back in 93 of pay concessions and another 100% in 94 and in 93 we got the stock options at $15 a share.

 

[700UW]

If the NMB declares self-help is available as a remedy, federal law prohibits Parker from firing anyone who participates in a union-sponsored job action.

He can't lock out workers and continue to operate. Also against federal law.

Do some study and get back.

BS, the company can implement a CBA after the 30 day cooling off period and nothing prevents them in the RLA to lockout workers and replace you after the 30 day cooling off period ends. Status Quo stops at the end of the 30 day cooling off period.

Go ask the TWA FAs who Ichan replaced during thier strike in 1986.

And Lorenzo at CO did the same.

Go ask the thousands of former NW AMT's how the company replaced them permanently during the strike and never offered thousands of them their jobs back while the replacement workers are still there. There is no law on the books that the company has to bring you back if the union strikes.

Better take the time to educate yourself, you are setting yourself up for a rude awakening.

 

[mach92flyr]

If the NMB declares self-help is available as a remedy, federal law prohibits Parker from firing anyone who participates in a union-sponsored job action.

He can't lock out workers and continue to operate. Also against federal law.

Do some study and get back.

Me thinks you need to brush up and do some study yourself. Here are some highlights for you. This material is not copyrighted, only requires a reference. Read it and weep:

Federal labor laws require a 60-day waiting period before workers can strike to force termination or modification of an existing collective bargaining agreement. The terms of the agreement remain in full force and effect during this period, and any employee who strikes can be fired. The 60-day "cooling-off period" begins when the union serves notice on the employer or when the existing contract ends. This provision does not affect the right of employees to strike in protest of some UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE of their employer. It does help to prevent premature strikes, however.


Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/10553/Strike-Fe...l#ixzz0QXhJf4Tk


Slowdown An intermittent work stoppage by employees who remain on the job. Slowdowns are illegal because they give the employees an unfair bargaining advantage by making it impossible for the employer to plan for production by the workforce. An employer may discharge an employee for a work slowdown.


Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/10554/Strike-St...l#ixzz0QXhtJzVs


In economic strikes, however, the employer is not required to take back the strikers immediately upon the settlement of the dispute. Economic strikers are still categorized as employees and are entitled to reinstatement in the event vacancies occur, but the employer does not have to reinstate any worker who has found substantially equivalent work elsewhere or who has given the employer a legitimate and substantial reason for not reinstating that worker. The hiring of permanent replacement workers has become an important management weapon against economic strikes, giving the employer the ability to hire a nonunion workforce and to threaten the local union with destruction. U.S. labor unions have been unsuccessful in persuading Congress to amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide immediate job reinstatement to economic strikers.

An employee has no right to be paid while on strike, nor does the employee have a right to claim UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION benefits, unless state law provides the benefit. Employees who refuse to cross a picket line on principle are treated in the same way as strikers, but those who are kept from their jobs through fear of violence are entitled to collect unemployment compensation.



Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/10554/Strike-St...l#ixzz0QXkM3PVe

Here is a case study for you, the NWA strike:

Viewpoint: Looking Back on the Northwest Strike
— Malik Miah and Terry O'Rourke

Striking mechanics and cleaners at Northwest Airlines (NWA) voted November 6 to end their 15-month strike. This marks a new stage in airline employees’ fight to turn back an orchestrated assault on wages, benefits, and working conditions.

This decision reflects the strikers’ desire to move on, but it also allows the strikers’ union, the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), to begin the difficult challenge of rebuilding the union at NWA.

AMFA takes encouragement from other workers and unions that successfully reestablished themselves following a similar defeat. AMFA workers at Alaska Airlines slowly yet persistently restored wages, benefits, and union status following a failed strike conducted by their former union in 1985.

Once it became clear that the strike by mechanics alone could not shut down the carrier, and the other unions on the property would settle with management then the AMFA leadership fought for the best possible strike settlement.

The strikers decided by a three-to-one margin to accept the strike settlement agreement. Each striker must now decide whether to accept ten weeks severance pay without recall rights or accept five weeks severance with two years recall rights.

The union lost its agency shop status in this strike. That means that no worker will be forced to belong to or pay dues to the union. The union, however, retains its status as the legal representative of the mechanic and related class and craft at NWA. If NWA does survive bankruptcy, clearly it is better to be in a position to seek to rebuild the union in the future.

The final settlement allows strikers to be recalled as openings occur. All seniority rights are protected. The original replacement workers hired from vendors and scabs that crossed the picket line remain on the property. Yet they don’t have super seniority for job assignments or protection from future lay offs.

It is a difficult situation no doubt. But history shows that a strong shop floor leadership can over time begin to rebuild the union and improve the lot of the workers.

LABOR DISUNITY
What lessons can be drawn from this 15-month long battle?
The strikers’ determination was not enough to achieve victory. The mechanics and related employees did what no other workers in the industry have done since the Eastern Airlines strike in the late 1980s—strike a union-busting management as it headed into bankruptcy. The strikers, however, were not able to shut down the carrier and force a fair settlement.

The chief reasons for the failure became clear early in the strike. The unity of management, courts, and government allowed NWA’s owners to keep its planes in the air. Disunity in the house of labor undercut the power of the strikers.

NWA management not only hired scabs prior to the strike, it received support from the courts and government at every turn. This included reassigning one FAA inspector that refused to look the other way as NWA maintenance struggled in the early days of the strike.

The leadership of the other unions at NWA, particularly the pilots and ramp and baggage handlers’ unions, refused to support AMFA’s strike. These two unions (the Machinists and the Air Line Pilots Association) each had a representative on the NWA Board of Directors. They not only turned their back on striking workers by crossing the picket lines, but even did struck work.

The failure to build a cross-union alliance exposes a fundamental weakness of all U.S. unions, not just in the airlines. The complicity of most NWA unions in undermining a legal strike (the flight attendants union was the lone exception) even before it began was a gift to management. That betrayal emboldened management to demand similar concessions from the other NWA unions.

AMFA’s decision to strike, in that context, was courageous. It was the only union to stand up and resist the corporation’s draconian concessions by walking the picket line.

Some labor officials criticized AMFA for striking against such odds. They point to AMFA’s independent status (it is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO or Change to Win federation) as the reason that it has few friends. AMFA was criticized as “elitist,â€￾ even though it represents not only mechanics, but also cleaners at NWA.

Regardless, the draconian nature of the company’s final offer, which would have eliminated over half of the union jobs at NWA, made the strike inevitable. The acid test for every union was simple: which side are you on?

LESSONS LEARNED
Could AMFA been better prepared? Could it have taken steps to improve the odds of winning? Of course.

The union could have responded aggressively with picketing and public relations once it became aware that NWA was training replacements at a hotel in Tucson, Arizona months before the strike deadline. (Editor’s Note: NWA spent at least $107 million to hire, train, and house scabs in the 18 months leading up to the strike alone.)

Reaching out to the wider labor community earlier and more aggressively could have led to more substantial support during the strike. Similarly, more should have been done to build alliances with community and campus organizations.

Since NWA operates internationally, AMFA could have also reached out early to international labor organizations to build allies. AMFA did begin to do that as the strike unfolded, and sometimes found unions abroad to be more responsive than their U.S. counterparts.

Unfortunately, even if all these avenues had been fully exploited, they could not outweigh the loss of coordinated action by the other unions at NWA.

ANOTHER WAY
There is one bright spot for labor in the airline industry. NWA’s feeder carrier, Mesaba Airlines, followed NWA into bankruptcy at the end of 2005. Seeing what had happened at NWA, the three main unions at the airline formed the Mesaba Labor Coalition.

The alliance was forged at all levels, with the unions (ALPA, AFA, and AMFA) coordinating their negotiations, legal tactics, and community outreach efforts.

The coalition offers a ready model for labor at every airline. Instead of factionalism, these unions are uniting against their common enemy.

This type of unity will be needed at United Airlines in 2009 when all six of the airline’s major unions’ contracts expire. We need a United Airlines Labor Coalition.

CHALLENGE AHEAD
At Northwest, the next step is to return to a property where scabs still work. It will not be easy.

Yet AMFA is still the legally recognized collective bargaining agent. This gives the union some leverage.

AMFA Assistant National Director Steve MacFarlane captured the sentiment of many NWA strikers: “While we did not stop Northwest, we did stand and fight for what was just and right.

“There is no shame in fighting and losing. There is only shame in failing to have the courage to defend yourself and your coworkers.â€￾

 

[nycbusdriver]

Interesting read:

I do like this quote, though:\

AMFA Assistant National Director Steve MacFarlane captured the sentiment of many NWA strikers: “While we did not stop Northwest, we did stand and fight for what was just and right.

“There is no shame in fighting and losing. There is only shame in failing to have the courage to defend yourself and your coworkers.â€￾

Rings true.

 

[Metroyet]

Rings true.

How? What they did was legal. What USAPA did/is still trying to do is ILLegal. Proven so in a court of law.

I fail to see the resemblance.

 

[nycbusdriver]

How? What they did was legal. What USAPA did/is still trying to do is ILLegal. Proven so in a court of law.

I fail to see the resemblance.

So then, fail to see the resemblance. Doesn't matter to me.

 

[700UW]

Gee the keyboard is pretty silent when someone is proved to be wrong.

Also under the RLA its only a 30 day cooling off period unless the President steps in and creates a PEB.

 

[nic4us]

You get the flying only with a joint contract so what's illegal is your claim to those positions outside ALPA merger policy which is, again, only with a joint contract.

Read the award again - the note all the way at the end - 95/95 is based upon 57
deliveries. We have 25. By the way, we parked 737's and replaced them with E-190's. If you want to work for $95/52 top of scale then here's hoping you get enough of those jets to make your eyes water.

What was illegal, and in violation of the TA, was for the east MEC to walk out of negotiations. What was also illegal was for the east pilots to form a union for the express purpose of detriment to the West. Whether their intent was to reneg on binding arbitration resulting in our seniority integration, or to reneg on binding arbitration regarding growth flying, or both.

25 RJs means 250 slots, 33% as per the award = 82 West slots. Plus 10 757 slots= 92 slots. The question is why is the West not flying those slots, and you answered correctly, we get them with a joint contract. The bigger question is who is responsible for canceling contract negotiations, throwing a temper tantrum, and delaying implementation of these arbitration results, by seeking to negotiate on their own terms and not the terms all the other parties involved and themselves contractually agreed to.

I am repeatedly told that there are no damages without a joint contract. There are damages because there is no joint contract, and while it will be argued that is not usapa's fault, they and the east pilots as a class sure seem to have been the biggest impediment toward one.

The company showed up, the West showed up, where was the east nc ? Oh they were at home using ALPA resources to form a new union ( also highly illegal -read- dual unionism). Once usapa showed up at the table their first order of business was to pass an ILLEGAL seniority list to the company, that really moved negotiations along.

 

[luvthe9]

A preview of things to come 1-1-10.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/business/india-business/Pilots-on-mass-leave-130-Jet-Airways-flights-cancelled/articleshow/4984594.cms

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

What was illegal, and in violation of the TA, was for the east MEC to walk out of negotiations. What was also illegal was for the east pilots to form a union for the express purpose of detriment to the West. Whether their intent was to reneg on binding arbitration resulting in our seniority integration, or to reneg on binding arbitration regarding growth flying, or both.

25 RJs means 250 slots, 33% as per the award = 82 West slots. Plus 10 757 slots= 92 slots. The question is why is the West not flying those slots, and you answered correctly, we get them with a joint contract. The bigger question is who is responsible for canceling contract negotiations, throwing a temper tantrum, and delaying implementation of these arbitration results, by seeking to negotiate on their own terms and not the terms all the other parties involved and themselves contractually agreed to.

I am repeatedly told that there are no damages without a joint contract. There are damages because there is no joint contract, and while it will be argued that is not usapa's fault, they and the east pilots as a class sure seem to have been the biggest impediment toward one.

The company showed up, the West showed up, where was the east nc ? Oh they were at home using ALPA resources to form a new union ( also highly illegal -read- dual unionism). Once usapa showed up at the table their first order of business was to pass an ILLEGAL seniority list to the company, that really moved negotiations along.

No matter how hard the east tries to re-frame the argument, that is it in a nutshell. Ahhhh, for the good old days when the only ones trying to screw us was management.

 

[hp_fa]

From the "I Told You So Department."

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND RELATED NON-TAXABLE EXPENSES, Pg 3-6. Document 613.

After shopping several law firms, a group of East Pilots found a law firm willing to guide, indeed promote, a scheme of advancing East Pilot seniority rights to the detriment of West Pilot seniority rights. This law firm, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, advised the East Pilots that, with majority status, they could create USAPA and use it to promote their seniority interests in disregard of the Nicolau Award. Mr. Seham told them, relying on his tortured reading of Rakestraw, that USAPA could advance East Pilot interests to the detriment of West Pilot interests so long as there was any rational relation to a legitimate union objective, regardless of USAPA’s actual motives.

USAPA, while guided by its legal advisor, left quite an evidentiary trail of bad faith. Much of that trail was apparently created to garner political support among East Pilots who wanted a union that would advance their majority interests over those of the West Pilot minority. USAPA, with legal guidance, acted while motivated by that bad faith. It drafted a constitution intended to create a pretext defining a duty to disregard the Nicolau Award. It made campaign promises to disregard the Nicolau Award. Once elected, it embarked on a preordained course to disregard the Nicolau Award. It did all these things solely for illegitimate motives.

USAPA left the West Pilots no option but to institute this litigation. Plaintiffs filed this action after the Airline announced plans to reduce service in a manner that would burden West Pilots far more than they would have been burdened if the transition to Operational Pilot Integration had occurred as intended. USAPA selected the Seham law firm to handle its defense. In essence, therefore, the Seham law firm was put in a position of defending both itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and USAPA for following that advice.

It was apparent early on that this lawsuit would determine just two material issues: (1) whether, as a matter of law, liability attached if USAPA’s only actual motivation in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots; and (2) whether, as a matter of fact, this was USAPA’s only actual motivation. Early in this litigation, the Court held, in regard to the first issue, that “the union’s position flies against the headwind of cases from other circuits.†Order, 9:27 to 9:28 (Nov. 20, 2008). Doc. # 84. At that point, because USAPA and its legal advisors knew their actual motivation, they surely
knew that USAPA would not prevail on the merits of the second, factual issue.

It was also apparent early on that USAPA had a strategy to delay decision on the second, factual issue as long as possible and to run up the costs of the litigation as much as possible in a needless and improper “war of attrition.†The vigor with which this case was defended, obviously based on this strategy, far exceeded what was needed. Perhaps this was in part because the defense team was defending itself as well as its client. Perhaps it was a coldly calculated attempt to outspend and exhaust Plaintiffs before they could obtain a verdict. What matters is that the costs were huge.

With a degree of bad faith that mirrored USAPA’s pre-litigation bad faith, USAPA took advantage of every possible legal maneuver to delay a decision on the merits and to expand the costs of the litigation. As a consequence, the litigation costs far exceeded what should have been necessary to resolve the case on the merits. USAPA, through its defense team, demanded substantial amounts of irrelevant discovery, filed unnecessary motions repeatedly raising the same issues, engaged in hostile and abusive practice against Plaintiffs personally, and repeatedly tried legal maneuvers to stay or continue these proceedings. USAPA is, therefore, not only responsible for creating the need for this litigation, but it is also responsible for causing it to be so expensive.

There is another goody in there, but I probably have quoted about as much as the moderators will allow. Let's see who finds it first.

 

[Barrister]

Clear,

N924PS would probably agree with you on the snap back, and may have even posted as much.

In all fairness I do not know who is flying more of the others routes. Personally, I seem to spend more than my fair share of time in PHL and CLT considering I am PHX based.

What I do know is that there was an arbitration over the growth 757s and the 190s and the West is owed some flying and rather than help us get it, a certain association employed an illegal stategy to try and keep us from collecting on that also. Further, they did nothing about the uneven furlough burden put on the West, except to arrange for former east pilots furloughed out of the west to take the jobs of others back east.

If I recall the West is owed 200 seats 5+5 in the 757s and 95+95 in the e190. That is 58 more seats than we have pilots furloughed. Who is flying those seats right now? Seems to me the damages just keep racking up. Problem is going to be how do you collect from welchers, liars and cheats.

You are owed NOTHING. Your whining is getting OLD.

 

[nycbusdriver]

From the "I Told You So Department."

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND RELATED NON-TAXABLE EXPENSES, Pg 3-6. Document 613.



There is another goody in there, but I probably have quoted about as much as the moderators will allow. Let's see who finds it first.

This is the plaintiffs' motion. It's not a court decision. What difference does it make? Will you tout the defendant's memorandum as something special?

 

[hp_fa]

This is the plaintiffs' motion. It's not a court decision. What difference does it make? Will you tout the defendant's memorandum as something special?

The contents and statements made in that Motion are not things normally said by counsel in motion practice, at least here in Arizona.

 

[cleardirect]

I like the chart on page two. It lists the battles and who won. Of the 16 listed. usapa only won two. That is not a very good record.

Maybe it is the paragraph right before the ones you posted.

This litigation would not have occurred but for the fact that East Pilots refused to abide by an arbitrated integrated seniority list (the "Nicolau
Award"￾). Going into the arbitration, the East Pilots agreed that the arbitrated award would be final and binding and would be used in
Operational Pilot Integration. Coming out of the arbitration, the East Pilots unjustifiably refused to abide by that agreement. Instead, they took many
actions to prevent Operational Pilot Integration using the Nicolau Award, culminating in the creation of USAPA for that purpose.

Maybe it is this part. Calling the judges attention to violation of court rules. Probably does not happen a lot.

Advancing pretextual arguments is not a valid litigation tactic. Pretext is dishonest because, by definition, it is an intentional effort to hide actual
motive.6 As such, a lawyer violates ER 3.3(a)(4) by presenting evidence, such as a client’s testimony, in an effort to advance a pretextual motive. See
ER 3.3 comment [8] (“A lawyer’s knowledge that evidence is false . . . can be inferred from the circumstances.”).