2015 Pilot Discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
nic4us said:
 
The scumbag move is to write an MOU that is illegal and discriminates.....
 
Said MOU having been voted into being by fully 98% of "sparta". Without your overwhelming support it might've actually failed..."You'se" mean that very same MOU?
 
Sigh...Can "you'se" even possibly begin to imagine just how much of a total joke people reasonably and necessarily perceive your sad sort to be?
 
Grow Up.
 
cactusboy53 said:
I look in the mirror every day, and usually pretty happy with who I am. ......
 
Some gently suggested reading then:  http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568
 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder
 
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/narcissistic-personality-disorder
 
It's your life. Make of it what you can, wannabe "heroic soldier" of "sparta"....and of course, equally-self-fantasized and naturally ultimate paradigm of all of humankind's "INTERGRITY"..... OR; you should at least consider some clearly much-needed and obviously long-overdue professional help. Your choice.
 
"The Supreme Court's conservative justices signaled Monday they are ready to deal a severe defeat to public employee unions by striking down mandatory fees paid by teachers and other public employees in about half the nation."

What state do I have to move to? :D
 
[SIZE=12pt]“In this instance, despite a year of negotiating efforts, there was no agreement on a list. Subsequently, the Representatives choose the Undersigned as Board Chairman and opted for the Med-Arb process. Those mediation efforts, held over the course of five days in October 2006, were similarly unsuccessful. Thereafter, the Parties agreed on the arbitration ground rules, and, pursuant to the Policy, each chose a Pilot Neutral from ALPA's Pilot Neutral Master List as a nonvoting member of the Arbitration Board.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]George Nicolau, Mediator[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]AWA/AAA Opinion & Award; May 07, 2007[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]*******************************************************************************************************************************************[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Today's word, boys & girls, is RENEGE.[/SIZE]
 
re·nege
riˈneɡ,riˈniɡ/
verb
verb: renege; 3rd person present: reneges; past tense: reneged; past participle: reneged; gerund or present participle: reneging; verb: renegue; 3rd person present: renegues; past tense: renegued; past participle: renegued; gerund or present participle: reneguing
go back on a promise, undertaking, or contract.
"the East pilots chose to start a new union for the sole purpose of reneging on the Nicolau Award"

synonyms:

default on, fail to honor, go back on, break, back out of, withdraw from, retreat from, welsh on, backtrack on;


break one's word/promise about: "he reneged on his the promise to abide by the process of arbitration and the final and binding product of that process"



 
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
nic4us said:
 
You may be correct, I have forgotten the exact timeline, but we were waiting for a decision from the 9th.
 
I will restate...The West got a seat at the table, because the former bargaining agent was guilty of violating its DFR to the West class, and all parties involved (ie. the company, the Arbs, and the APA) knew it and were not about to collude with the same violation and taint the process.
 
 
 
Only one problem with your re-statement, the West's seat at the table came prior to the 9ths decision. 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Phoenix said:
"The Supreme Court's conservative justices signaled Monday they are ready to deal a severe defeat to public employee unions by striking down mandatory fees paid by teachers and other public employees in about half the nation."

 
 
There are credible, logical arguments for that point of view.
 
But if the Supremes rule that no one needs to pay germane fees, then the unions in place should be under no obligation to defend non-members when the employer comes after them for any reason.  If the employee refuses to contribute to the cost of collective bargaining, then that emloyee should be considered an "at will" employee....period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
nycbusdriver said:
There are credible, logical arguments for that point of view.
 
But if the Supremes rule that no one needs to pay germane fees, then the unions in place should be under no obligation to defend non-members when the employer comes after them for any reason.  If the employee refuses to contribute to the cost of collective bargaining, then that emloyee should be considered an "at will" employee....period.
What collective bargaining?! :lol:. Maybe a little capitalism could blow some cobwebs out of the ghost haunted union (association) halls.

It will be what it will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Phoenix said:
What collective bargaining?! :lol:. Maybe a little capitalism could blow some cobwebs out of the ghost haunted union (association) halls.

It will be what it will be.
 
I don't mind employees opting not to join a union, or to even refuse to contribute to the cost of negotiating and maintaining a contract.  
 
I just don't think they should get a free ride and expect the union to defend them or their jobs when an employer decides that "at will" means "goodbye."
 
It should work a bit like insurance, or better yet, the subscriber method used for some rural fire departments.  If you own a home in the area protected by such a fire department, you can pay an annual subscription and the fire department is responsible for responding  to try to save your house if it catches fire.
 
You can opt out of it, and if your house catches fire, the fire department will show up to make sure the subscribers' houses stay safe while they watch yours turn to ashes.
 
I think that's ne way that capitalism works, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Just read the oral argument transcripts.  Looks like Abood will get overturned.  Hanson will be next (RLA).  The RLA specifically states that the exclusive bargaining agent (union) must treat with the company and they MUST represent ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE CRAFT OR CLASS (regardless of the money paid in and in this case soon to be ZERO).  It's time the APA dies on the vine.  They supported the "corporate" AOL and now they get what they deserve.
 
I personally work for the Company and NOT the un"I"on.  After the greed the West and the APA think THEY should be treated over us I'll stake my claim with the Company.  The un"I"on is all about the I:  the "individual" and NOT the collective.  Want to know what the superior intellect (APA/West) think of you (East, TWA, third listers, etc.) just read the seniority transcripts.  
 
The WEST wanted to get rid of USAPA well they GOT it...they're going to get it in SPADES soon and I do not care about them and their "life in the fishbowl".  The company doesn't care about "seniority", you don't care about my seniority and ergo you'll get what your given in 2020.  You don't like it?  LEAVE!
 
The Company pays my bills and NOT the APA/WEST.  We are on our own and all of need to think about life with the New American from now on.
 
BTW, theres plenty of lawyers out there to represent you for unfair treatment.  Just ask the CLT and PHL reps about their lawyers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
And I DON'T want the un"I"on to have "exclusive" rights to negotiate with the Company.  I fly as much as I want and I tell the Company I'm here to help THEM.  They treat me very fair, I visit the CP office regularly to ask questions and get help and they do just that.  Just like Robert Isom says, follow the SOP's, the Company policies and procedures, do the right think (but don't stick your neck out and color outside the lines) and you'll be fine.  But even IF I need "insurance" you don't have to by it from the un"i"on when there are PLENTY of Labor Lawyers out there to handle your case and represent you.  Ive been predicting this for YEARS: "employment at will" has arrived!!!  HOORAH!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.