AFA Yes DOH NO!

[LukeAisleWalker]

Mr. Campbell, as an active union person YOU should quit spreading misinformation regarding Federal law. Sen. McCaskill's amendment did not and does not prohibit "stapling."

The amendment states that two unionized groups must negotiate in good faith the merger of their seniority lists. If the groups are unable to come to agreement, then binding arbitration is required. There is NOTHING in the amendment which would prevent the arbitrator from ruling that the most senior person in one group should be below the most junior person of the other group--i.e., stapling. Granted, such an outcome is highly unlikely, but do not go around telling people that it can't happen anymore due to the law. The law says no such thing.

Why was the legislation brought to the floor? What was the impetus?
It was because of what AA did to the TWA FAs. The amendment may not specifically state that there can be no stapling but in keeping within the framework of its original intent, NO arbitrator would do such a thing. You have to go back to its original purpose. Claire McCaskill, of course, is from MO where many of her constituents were put out on the street by what AA did in this situation. THAT is why the amendment was brought to the floor in the first place. No?

 

[FWAAA]

Like I said, misinformation is a big problem.

 

[jimntx]

The REASON a legislator offers a bill or the history leading up to it is of NO CONSEQUENCE in a court of law. What the law SAYS, not what it intended, is what the courts use. There have been many instances of Congress going back and "fixing" a law because when implemented it turned out not to say what Congress intended.

The point of my post was simply to once again point out that people are posting misinformation (formerly known as lies) about what the law says and telling others they need not worry about union mergers because the law "prohibits/prevents/stops" stapling. It does not.

 

[jimntx]

Why was the legislation brought to the floor? What was the impetus?
It was because of what AA did to the TWA FAs. The amendment may not specifically state that there can be no stapling but in keeping within the framework of its original intent, NO arbitrator would do such a thing. You have to go back to its original purpose. Claire McCaskill, of course, is from MO where many of her constituents were put out on the street by what AA did in this situation. THAT is why the amendment was brought to the floor in the first place. No?

I suggest you talk with some of the US Airways pilots (East) who said NO ARBITRATOR would ever rule any other way than DOH because both groups were ALPA. See also the Nicolau award.

Under Federal law, as long as an arbitrator does not make a ruling which violates a Federal law--such as, ruling that all female employees would be junior to all male employees--the Federal arbitration laws do not require arbitrators to rule any particular way. I wouldn't bet my mortgage payment on what the "original intent" of a law was. They use the law and the legal precedents established for a particular area of labor law. They do not use INTENT of the law.

 

[Danny Campbell]

jimntx:

Now come on...really?

Ok -- Let me put it another way then...

The chance that an arbitrator would determine "stapling a group to the bottom of a seniority list" is an acceptable means of resolving a "fair and equitable" seniority integration is practically NIL. The new law requires a minimum floor of "fair and equitable". Let be honest here, if an arbitrator ever ruled on such a thing, you can pretty much guarantee it would his/her LAST CASE ever used in the dispute of resolutions.

You've got to admit, it's not only 'unlikely' -- it's pretty much out of the realm of possibility.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

I suggest you talk with some of the US Airways pilots (East) who said NO ARBITRATOR would ever rule any other way than DOH because both groups were ALPA. See also the Nicolau award.

Under Federal law, as long as an arbitrator does not make a ruling which violates a Federal law--such as, ruling that all female employees would be junior to all male employees--the Federal arbitration laws do not require arbitrators to rule any particular way. I wouldn't bet my mortgage payment on what the "original intent" of a law was. They use the law and the legal precedents established for a particular area of labor law. They do not use INTENT of the law.

OK, so now with the USAirways situation, you're saying the McCaskill Ammendment doesn't promise DOH. Before you were saying it doesn't provide a guarantee against stapling. Were US East pilots stapled? No.
You're trying to keep a pseudo argument going. I'm no longer biting.....you and I both know that because of this amendment, no arbitrator can keep in line with "fair and equitable" by stapling a whole group of employees to the bottom of a seniority list unless every one of those employees is junior to the other group.

 

[Danny Campbell]

FWAA:

You asked....The AFA - isn't that the union voted in by the NW FAs? The ones that had excuse after excuse for not taking any self-help measures until after a federal judge had ruled they couldn't strike?

Don't you mean...AFA - the union that had the balls to push the issue of having the "right to strike" (even in bankruptcy) for the first time in our history? Somehow, you are reading it the other way around. We were the first group to reject TWO CONTRACTS in bankruptcy and we were the FIRST GROUP to push the issue of our RIGHT TO STRIKE. We delayed our strike deadline only ONCE and that was a two part reason. 1. the deadline was overshadowed by the terrorists threats in London and 2. the last thing you want to do is spit in the court's eye before they rule on a Temporary Injunction. We made the right decision, as we WON that first case. It was the immediate appeal hearing that we lost and the court imposed the injunction on us.

 

[jimntx]

OK, so now with the USAirways situation, you're saying the McCaskill Ammendment doesn't promise DOH. Before you were saying it doesn't provide a guarantee against stapling. Were US East pilots stapled? No.
You're trying to keep a pseudo argument going. I'm no longer biting.....you and I both know that because of this amendment, no arbitrator can keep in line with "fair and equitable" by stapling a whole group of employees to the bottom of a seniority list unless every one of those employees is junior to the other group.

First off I said neither of the things you are reading into my post. The amendment does not promise or prohibit ANY outcome, one way or another. It simply calls for binding arbitration if the parties can not reach a seniority merger agreement. Full stop. End of sentence. End of amendment.

And whether or not the arbitrator got another arbitration job or not is not something I would want to bet my career on. The point is that in this future arbitration, they ruled in such a way that I am incensed (see also the US Airways (East) pilots) and feel that I have been treated unfairly. However, binding arbitration means just that...BINDING arbitration. No appeals, no court cases. No redos. Binding.

The point I have been trying to get across to all of you is don't put all your eggs in the "basket" of the McCaskill amendment by believing any post that says that the amendment calls for or prohibits any particular outcome. It doesn't. That's all I'm saying.

And, Mr. Campbell, did I or did I not in my original response to you say that a stapling ruling would be highly unlikely. Of course, it would be. But, don't go around posting that it prohibits stapling. Sen. McCaskill herself was quoted by another f/as trying to prove your invalid point when Sen. McCaskill said that her amendment "would make it very difficult" for another unionized group to do what the APFA did. There is a fine, but telling and important, difference between make it difficult and make it impossible. My union makes it difficult for the company to fire a f/a. They do not, and can not, make it impossible. See the difference?

 

[jimntx]

posted twice for some reason.

 

[Danny Campbell]

jimntx:

I think we agree more on the point (of arbitration of seniority) than we disagree. Frankly, that's why I support our AFA "date-of-hire" policy. Now, having been in many arbitrations and having personally put on many cases myself, I think the NWA FAs are in a stronger position than the Delta FAs for two reasons, 1. We are the more junior group of FAs (hence your reference to the USAirways v. America West decision) and 2. We have a collective bargaining agreement with the strongest language in the industry.

 

[cooper43]

OK Coop...if you read my previous post above, give me a way of combining seniorities and then please defend your rationale. This is not a put down in any sort of way. I'm just looking to see why you think in any situatiuon that DOH is not the most fair way of integrating 2 seniority list. I assume you are based in JFK, well NWA has a JFK base also. Until they took away the Tokyo non-stop 2 years ago it was a moderately senior base. Now a lot of those F/As have transfered out but the base still exists. If they are to combine those 2 bases into one larger one, why should they be penalized and given less superior flying or days-off choices? Again I'm just looking for a plausible explaination as why DOH is not fair?

Relitive senority instead of DOH would resolve any gaps in senority by one carrier or the other. In other words the top 20% of both groups could be blended and so for and so on (just an example). That way if one group hired a lot of people one year and the other airline waited a year to hire they would be blended equally and not unfairly disadvantaged, it would protect both groups and if you were disadvantaged in anyway it would be by a very small amount instead with DOH certain senorities could be drastically affected at the same time others only affected a little. It seems so easy to say DOH is the most fair but if you really look at it, the issue is more complicated than just one parameter.

 

[bagboy]

Relitive senority instead of DOH would resolve any gaps in senority by one carrier or the other. In other words the top 20% of both groups could be blended and so for and so on (just an example). That way if one group hired a lot of people one year and the other airline waited a year to hire they would be blended equally and not unfairly disadvantaged, it would protect both groups and if you were disadvantaged in anyway it would be by a very small amount instead with DOH certain senorities could be drastically affected at the same time others only affected a little. It seems so easy to say DOH is the most fair but if you really look at it, the issue is more complicated than just one parameter.

Coop, Time served is time served. If I have 20 year of service that is where I should stand on a seniority list. Any way you cut it, someone will be in the corner crying "It's not fair".(thats you coop) DOH is the right thing to do. Blend this..!..

 

[cooper43]

Coop, Time served is time served. If I have 20 year of service that is where I should stand on a seniority list. Any way you cut it, someone will be in the corner crying "It's not fair".(thats you coop) DOH is the right thing to do. Blend this..!..

Well I see you are trying to bring this to a childish conversation, but I prefer to stick to the issue. The people who are for DOH are probably those who think that they will benefit from that way of doing things. As I said before DOH is too simplistic to deal with f/a's and Pilots senority issues. How many mergers in the history of airline mergers have used this process? America West and Us Air is the most recent attempt and that has not worked out so well, as they are still fighting that out. Blending may hurt everyone just a little but it would not hurt any one group a lot. Can you think of any other mergers of two large airlines where they have used strickly DOH? I am asking becuase I dont know and would like to know if it has happened and how successful it has been.

 

[Blackdog]

How many mergers in the history of airline mergers have used this process?

Here's one and its a biggie....Northwest aquiring Republic Airlines in 1986. Straight DOH. We set the precedent then and hopefully an Arbitrator will see that track record and stick with it. And remember NW was a mostly int'l carrier and they aquired a strickly domestic one (except Montego Bay, Grand Cayman, and Mexico).

 

[BABABOOY]

Why confine yourself to Strict letter of the law as the AFA states.
When I am looking at around 5,000 of the 8,000 NW F/A's coming above me. Why
not ask for RELATIVE seniority as our pilots are asking? What is NW's ratio of intl to domestic?
not counting what their Foriegn nationals fly. IF its good enough for our pilots its good enough
for the F/A's. I say lets negotiate and bulid fences if you have to.