USAirways pilots labor thread 7/23-7-29

[700UW]

2009 or 2010?

 

[hp_fa]

If Bradford did his research instead of shopping for what he wanted to hear, he would have seen the sham of a lawyer Seeham is.

The other possibility is that Bradford was so blinded by what he wanted to hear that he didn't want to hear what the other counsel he interviewed were actually saying.

USA320Pilot has said that Bradford is intelligent. So, accepting that premise as accurate, the most likely scenario is that Bradford was opinion shopping. The problem with that practice is that it is often the attorneys who tell you what you don't want to hear that are the best counsel to have as general counsel. Why? Objectivity is really required to represent any entity, especially a large one such as a labor union.

The lack of objectivity in how counsel views the law when it does not agree with the position the client wishes to take is dangerous and actually a disservice to the client. A good lawyer can be a good advocate, but in private with his/her client the counsel needs to tell the client all the bad things about their case, preferably before they are knee deep in litigation.

The other huge problem, that I raised early on in the litigation, is when general counsel is also trial counsel, even more so when the counsel is swimming upstream against what most other counsel consider to be a flood of statutory and case law.

The unfortunate result here is that the client, Bradford and later USAPA, heard what was desired and seemingly never hear contrarian legal opinions within its legal team (except for the possibility of Jim Bringle who is no longer employed by USAPA) and now has had both a permanent injunction and a verdict of being liable for a breach of the duty of fair representation made against it.

 

[hp_fa]

2009 or 2010?

I thought it was 2009...

 

[700UW]

His post says 5 months from now, but also says 2010, CBAs under the RLA become amendable 60 days prior to the amendable date.

 

[Megasnoop]

If USAPA could get the company to actually negotiate, they could put out a tentative agreement tommorrow, and it still wouldn't pass a vote of the MIGS. USAPA doesn't have to put anything in the agreement and it still won't pass. You can speculate all you want on what USAPA might do to to bring a contempt charge, but I sumise, they won't have to do anything if the NIC is attached to bring a No vote. There currently aren't anywhere near enough AOL supporters who are MIGS to make it even close. You surely underestimate the negativity of this award, in the eyes of the East pilots. There will never be enough money from this inept management team to make a majority of the East pilots to once again throw the junior pilots under the bus. You have not factored in the fact that the last ALPA votes which did exactly that, barely passed. Since those votes, a large number have retired, or left the property. Like I said before, we can wait and see. The West hasn't gone through anything like the East, and they continue to underestimate our resolve.

Right on, Spike and good to see you back on the chat. Why not get a company offer and put it out to vote right now? "Let my Daddy vote!" We all know it will never pass, especially with $70M coming our way, the 9th appeal and LOA93/84 pay restoration. After reading Donn Buttkovic's 2 emails on why we should win on pay restoration, I'm feeling pretty good about our position. BTW, he negotiated LOA93 and he knows what he negotiated. The more I read what he wrote and the more I hear about how much he's helped us in winning arbitrations lately, I'm getting a grudging respect for what he's doing. He was a die-hard ALPAphyle and ALPA's National Negotiating Chairman. He lost a lot of prestige and FPL when ALPA got the boot. But he is helping us now.

Let Wake and the Westies have their vote. Then they'll see our resolve. Anyone who votes for a Kirby is rolling the dice. There was no $70M in the Kirby. It was also almost a 20% pay reduction form LOA84 rates. And for all those 2-contract Westies, we've got a long history of signing bonuses (read retro pay), delayed bonuses ($70M), pay restoration (LOA93/84) and pre-set provisions (stock options in fall 2005). West and the East ALPA-lovers can talk all you want about us losing thousands every year. We're not buying it.

This is not a matter of resolve. It is a matter of law.
The west has the law on our side.

I didn't know the Appeals Court had ruled. And speaking of all the "odds" about winning at the 9th, West BPR says only 8.8% are overturned. Unbiased Anonymous "Facts" says only 4%. Truth is, 90% of all the 13,000+ cases any Appeals Court hears are Habeas Corpus cases, pro-forma attempts by criminal attorneys to fill in the squares for their guilty clients.

Dear members,
"qu'ils mangent de la brioche"
Sincerely,
Mike "Antoinette" Cleary

Then let them eat crew meals!

Half the lies they tell about me aren't true. Yogi Berra

 

[700UW]

I wish you well on the 93/84 pay rates arbitration but back in 1993 when the IAM M&R had clear snap back language it had to go to arbitration and we lost.

The arbiter said we were treated no different than any other workgroup at US even though we had specific snap-back language the arbiter disregarded it and we lost.

 

[Pi brat]

After reading Donn Buttkovic's 2 emails on why we should win on pay restoration, I'm feeling pretty good about our position. BTW, he negotiated LOA93 and he knows what he negotiated.
Then let them eat crew meals!

Half the lies they tell about me aren't true. Yogi Berra

I think Donn B. was recalled before LOA93. I think that was the work of the new and improve neg. committee.

 

[USA320Pilot]

During LOA 93 discussions Donn Butkovic and Phil Carey were recalled from the Negotiating Committee by the RC4 and in protest Jeff Tokash and Gerry McGuckin resigned. The Negotiating Committee was restaffed with Doug Mowrey, Ted Schott, Jack Greenhall, nad Dean Collelo. None of these men had ever been on a Negotiating Committee before and none had attended the George Meaney Center for Labor Studies Negotiating Course.

This all "rookie" Negotiating Committee became the first Negotiating Committee to negotiate a contract with a concession greater than the company's "ask" that made the US Airways pilots the lowest paid pilots in the industry.

As far as the pay freeze ending I would not spend money to soon. Even with the language written in LOA 93 and Donn's comments, a man I respect, the odds are very long USAPA will win this grievance for a number of reasons that I do not want to discuss on this board.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[nycbusdriver]

The amendable date of the east pilot contract is December 31, 2009, not 2010.

IMHO, the NAC could pass Section 22 to the company as the Nicolau in compliance with Wake's order, and the company could accept it on the spot, thus closing Section 22 negotiations.

That leaves almost everything else still to be negotiated, with a company negotiating schedule that is minimal and a mediator who also has a limited schedule to meet.

The NAC and the company are miles apart on compensation and working conditions. The meager Kirby offer is "still on the table," according to Parker's July PHX Crew News. But, compared to the possibility of LOA 84 rates coming alive in January for the east, the Kirby proposal is a huge concession. (LOA 84 was actually a concessionary side letter, so even those rates are below the east "book" rates.)

So, given that (in theory) the Nic is Section 22, who in the world in the east is going to vote in favor of a concessionary (Kirby offer) contract yet again?

And that's even assuming the highly unlikely event that the company will stop dragging their feet, and the mediator magically has her schedule cleared to accommodate the LCC pilots and company.

Bottom line: Even if USAPA dropped all appeals and caved on the Nic today, there will be no joint contract for years, and it is almost inevitable that there will be an impasse, federal mediation and a release for self-help (it si rumored that Bular has already expressed his opinion that a legal job action will occur before the pilots see a contract.)

 

[captainJack]

This all "rookie" Negotiating Committee became the first Negotiating Committee to negotiate a contract with a concession greater than the company's "ask" that made the US Airways pilots the lowest paid pilots in the industry.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions.

The "new" negotiating committee had to deal with ground well-poisoned by the special interest groups on the MEC and those adverse to conflict but loving the FPL. I would not be surprised to hear that Donn helped his own "recall" from the committee. From the way he has answered my questions, he seemed pretty disgusted with that particular MEC during the summer, prior to any RC "action". The two who resigned in "protest" could have provided continuity but chose, instead, to throw the entire pilot group under the bus, their feelings were hurt so.

All that said, if one can compare a finished TA from the new group with a proposal with numerous blank pages (blank checks) that the MEC first tried to send out for a vote, I believe the latest TA gave away less by millions compared to the "let my daddy vote" Jerry Glass blank check version that would have been subject to further modification by a bankruptcy judge. (timing being everything)

320: As far as your "valuation". I would take the word of the "rookie" chairman over anyone else, especially over those special interest groups as well as those adverse to conflict to the point of tears. Don't forget that the ALPA financial advisor was getting $1 million from the company (which, actually came from the pilots) to "get a deal". (any deal, apparently)

You had an MEC who wanted to be friendly with a management group who would do anything to "win", not because they "had to", but because it would fill out resumes. Glass publicly stated that management felt they had "left things on the table" and that bankruptcy II was likely in order to facilitate further labor concessions.

I know it can be hard to strip away emotional content but I wonder if you can get past the emotions generated by your likes or dislikes of individuals that you might find you are enabling the wrong group.

 

[USA320Pilot]

I mistyped LOA 93's amendable date, which is the end of this year or about 5 months away on December 31, 2009. Here in lies the probelm with the snap back idea because of the word "amendable."

captainJack said: "The "new" negotiating committee had to deal with ground well-poisoned by the special interest groups on the MEC and those adverse to conflict but loving the FPL."

USA320Pilot comments: That is true. The East MEC was controlled by four people called the RC4 who used over 50 "roll call" votes against the advice of all 3 MEC Officers, 8 of 12 MEC members, and every ALPA financial and legal advicor to negotiate LOA 93 becoming the first MEC/NC to provide the comapny an agreement greater than the "ask". I was at the MEC meeting where the NC briefed the MEC and pilots in attendance the company's contract opener was the AWA contract wit hJetBlue work rules.

Some of the same type of people and even some of the same people in charge of the East MEC during LOA 93 negotiations now control USAPA and are obtaining the same type of results for the pilot group.

After nearly 16 months in control of the union can you tell me one thing USAPA has done to benefit the pilot group?

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different resultsâ€￾. Think about this quote for a second and ask yourself, does this quote apply to the way the hardliners run your union?

For an example of this click here and here.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[nycbusdriver]

I mistyped LOA 93's amendable date, which is the end of this year or about 5 months away on December 31, 2009. Here is lies the probelm with the snapo back idea because of the word "amendable."

Under the RLA, labor contracts become amendable. Side letters, like LOA 93, which are not in the main body of that contract can, and do, expire in their entirety, or in the case of LOA 93, as indicated in the side letter itself. The fact that the main contract is amendable has no bearing on the explicit expiration date attached to the pay rates of LOA 93.

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different resultsâ€￾. Think about this quote for a second and ask yourself does this quote apply to the way the hardliners run your union?

This is a truism that gets repeated over and over by people too ignorant to understand what Einstein, a scientist, was talking about. Under laboratory conditions that don't change, doing the same experiment over and over again expecting different results is insanity. However, change any conditions and it's no longer doing the same thing over.

Thousands prove this, and disprove your interpretation, every hour in Manhattan. They drive around the same block 3 times looking for a parking space. On the fourth time around (doing exactly the same thing,) they find one. Is that insanity, or patience?

 

[USA320Pilot]

I'm not going to debate the LOA 93 snap back argument on this message board and I would encourage others interested in US Airways East pilots interested in getting a pay raise to not do so as well. Suffice it to say...this disagreement between USAPA and Management will very likely go to Arbitration and could take another 2 years to resolve.

However, I believe other events will overcome this Arbitration making the snap back discussion a moot point.

Again, after nearly 16 months in control of the union can you tell me one thing USAPA has done to benefit the pilot group? All I know they have done is misrepresent information, personally enrich them self with increased pay, authorized them self new vehicles for their use provided by the union, and authorized them self OCONUS/GSA per diem breaking campaign promises to the pilot group.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[ClueByFour]

As to what APA can do, it can alter seniority but that alteration must be in the interest of the bargaining unit as a whole. Undoing a DOH list would require a very good reason if it is already recognized as a standard in the industry and declared to be in the best interests of labor as a whole.

No, not under the USAPA standard it would not require any good reason. It's within a "wide standard of reasonableness," remember?

If USAPA is somehow successful on appeal, I can just about guarantee that any larger pilot union involved in a transaction with US will use the USAPA precedent to run thru McCaskill-Bond arbitration, ignore that award, and then staple USAPA to their list.

The current SCOTUS will not uphold DOH over everything else because it's the "gold standard." Take that one to the bank.

 

[hp_fa]

That leaves almost everything else still to be negotiated, with a company negotiating schedule that is minimal and a mediator who also has a limited schedule to meet.

The NAC and the company are miles apart on compensation and working conditions. The meager Kirby offer is "still on the table," according to Parker's July PHX Crew News. But, compared to the possibility of LOA 84 rates coming alive in January for the east, the Kirby proposal is a huge concession. (LOA 84 was actually a concessionary side letter, so even those rates are below the east "book" rates.)

So, given that (in theory) the Nic is Section 22, who in the world in the east is going to vote in favor of a concessionary (Kirby offer) contract yet again?

And that's even assuming the highly unlikely event that the company will stop dragging their feet, and the mediator magically has her schedule cleared to accommodate the LCC pilots and company.

Bottom line: Even if USAPA dropped all appeals and caved on the Nic today, there will be no joint contract for years, and it is almost inevitable that there will be an impasse, federal mediation and a release for self-help (it si rumored that Bular has already expressed his opinion that a legal job action will occur before the pilots see a contract.)

You better watch out, USAPA has told the Court of Appeals differently...

Good cause warrants expediting because the injunction effectively paralyzes efforts to conclude on-going collective bargaining at a major US carrier to the detriment of all parties including the public. Bargaining has been on-going since a corporate merger in 2005 between US Airways and America West Airlines.