Edward
Veteran
This is the new topic & remember folks no personal attacks. Thank you.
ALPA/USAPA topic of the week
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,513
- 0
FYI:
Fellow pilot,
As we promised, USAPA has received commitments from our insurance providers for group life and AD&D insurance coverage. At USAPA's request, renowned insurance provider ING, working with Harvey Watt and Co., has committed to the following:
The same benefits contained in the ALPA plan
The same rates as the current plan rates
Guaranteed issue based upon verification that the same benefits existed under the ALPA plan
Effective date will be the same date that ALPA chooses to terminate its coverage
A forty-five day period of time to allow pilots to complete the transfer process
All that will be required to complete the transfer will be a copy of the pilot's most current insurance bill
Attached you will find a copy of the Commitment Letter from the National Sales Director of ING, or you may click here to view a copy.
This, fellow pilot, is just a hint of what you get from a union designed to represent only your interests. Stay tuned for many more announcements from USAPA, including Aeromedical, committee structure and staffing, and interim Rep staffing.
Thank you for your continuing support.
(authentic USAPA communication - click here to confirm)
Fellow pilot,
As we promised, USAPA has received commitments from our insurance providers for group life and AD&D insurance coverage. At USAPA's request, renowned insurance provider ING, working with Harvey Watt and Co., has committed to the following:
The same benefits contained in the ALPA plan
The same rates as the current plan rates
Guaranteed issue based upon verification that the same benefits existed under the ALPA plan
Effective date will be the same date that ALPA chooses to terminate its coverage
A forty-five day period of time to allow pilots to complete the transfer process
All that will be required to complete the transfer will be a copy of the pilot's most current insurance bill
Attached you will find a copy of the Commitment Letter from the National Sales Director of ING, or you may click here to view a copy.
This, fellow pilot, is just a hint of what you get from a union designed to represent only your interests. Stay tuned for many more announcements from USAPA, including Aeromedical, committee structure and staffing, and interim Rep staffing.
Thank you for your continuing support.
(authentic USAPA communication - click here to confirm)
Another turd bomb from ALPA sympathizer. After AWA Chairman get's done posting on OUR boards, who can you trust anymore?!? Anyway...file this one under: Nice...but....True?!? I've seen several of these "Court Summaries" pop up on various boards, and my overriding thought is: If USAPA has given up on overturning the award, then who really cares about what the courts said in the past? I mean really...the best protection is a HIGH fence. I guess the thought is: USAPA can build a better fence by agreeing to a cost-neutral contract. Well, after all the give backs and backroom deals I've learned to live under 93...so bring it on...I'm ready for YEARS and YEARS of lower pay: My seniority is not for sale!!
Have a chuckle at the summaries below:
Have a chuckle at the summaries below:
Today’s subject: How will USAPA’s plan for the seniority list work?
Now that I have submitted my card TWICE and am looking forward to casting my vote, I’m starting to try and digest all of the vomit coming from ALPA and the propaganda on the USAPA website. This thing is getting serious, and it’s time to get down to brass tacks.
USAPA claims that by changing unions we’ll be able to get rid of the Nicolau list, renegotiate one with management, and also be better protected in future mergers. I’ve taken the time to compare the arguments side by side. It seems that while ALPA could likely be blowing some smoke our way, USAPA is most definitely over-reaching. Read on, and decide for yourself.
USAPA CLAIMS: PAST COURT CASES SUPPORT OUR BID TO REORDER THE LIST BASED ON DOH
USAPA’s argument here is that seniority is covered by collective bargaining agreements, and that if ALPA is no longer the CBA then we can get rid of the Nicolau travesty. Sounds good, but what are the chances of this REALLY happening. Our attorney’s and their attorneys seem to be citing the same cases as supporting their position. Both sides are quoting from Rakestraw v. United Airlines Inc. (which was a case that consolidated TWO appeals, one was the United case, and the other was TWA/Ozark), and ALPA v. O’Neill. Both are available for download from the USAPA website (whose address I hope everyone knows by now), otherwise you have to subscribe to a law-talking website.
Rakestraw v. United Airlines Inc.
HELP US or HURT US? I say neither. I don’t think this case belongs in an argument about merging seniority lists. The arguments in this case revolve around how to integrate striking pilots into the seniority list and when a pilot becomes an employee.
This case arose from the strike of May 1985. United had trained 570 pilots for new positions at the time of the strike. “In a departure from practice, United did not hire them at the start of training but said that the hiring would be effective only when they reported for fight duty.†When the trainees went out on strike, United hired replacements. After the strike ended ALPA sued to force United to rehire the striking pilots, which they did. However, their seniority was initially set at their new start date, and not the one from prior to the strike. The returning pilots ended up junior to the replacement pilots. In 1991, as part of their new collective bargaining agreement ALPA gave $200 million in concessions in order to change the seniority dates of the pilots who struck to their pre-strike dates. The replacement pilots brought suit, and had an injuction issued in their favor. The striking pilots appealed, and in Rakestraw v. United, they won. So, the seniority dates of the striking pilots were set to the date when they first started training, which made them senior to the replacement pilots that were hired during the strike.
USAPA says: This case supports our view that the list can be reordered in order to reduce friction in the labor group, and that it also supports date of hire as the rational method for determining seniority.
ALPA says: This case was not about DOH per say, but whether or not you can arbitrarily juggle someones seniority to favor one group over another.
MY TAKE: This case was about how to handle the seniority of striking workers…not how to merge seniority lists. The ruling did not center on whether DOH was the best method to determine seniority, but WHAT the DOH should be. United management changed their practice of defining when a pilot was hired (from beginning-of-training to reporting-for-duty), and used this change as a basis for favoring the replacement pilots. This case went back and forth a few times. In the circuit court, Judge Conlon ruled in favor of the replacement pilots because he felt that ALPA had shown a vendetta against the replacement
Now that I have submitted my card TWICE and am looking forward to casting my vote, I’m starting to try and digest all of the vomit coming from ALPA and the propaganda on the USAPA website. This thing is getting serious, and it’s time to get down to brass tacks.
USAPA claims that by changing unions we’ll be able to get rid of the Nicolau list, renegotiate one with management, and also be better protected in future mergers. I’ve taken the time to compare the arguments side by side. It seems that while ALPA could likely be blowing some smoke our way, USAPA is most definitely over-reaching. Read on, and decide for yourself.
USAPA CLAIMS: PAST COURT CASES SUPPORT OUR BID TO REORDER THE LIST BASED ON DOH
USAPA’s argument here is that seniority is covered by collective bargaining agreements, and that if ALPA is no longer the CBA then we can get rid of the Nicolau travesty. Sounds good, but what are the chances of this REALLY happening. Our attorney’s and their attorneys seem to be citing the same cases as supporting their position. Both sides are quoting from Rakestraw v. United Airlines Inc. (which was a case that consolidated TWO appeals, one was the United case, and the other was TWA/Ozark), and ALPA v. O’Neill. Both are available for download from the USAPA website (whose address I hope everyone knows by now), otherwise you have to subscribe to a law-talking website.
Rakestraw v. United Airlines Inc.
HELP US or HURT US? I say neither. I don’t think this case belongs in an argument about merging seniority lists. The arguments in this case revolve around how to integrate striking pilots into the seniority list and when a pilot becomes an employee.
This case arose from the strike of May 1985. United had trained 570 pilots for new positions at the time of the strike. “In a departure from practice, United did not hire them at the start of training but said that the hiring would be effective only when they reported for fight duty.†When the trainees went out on strike, United hired replacements. After the strike ended ALPA sued to force United to rehire the striking pilots, which they did. However, their seniority was initially set at their new start date, and not the one from prior to the strike. The returning pilots ended up junior to the replacement pilots. In 1991, as part of their new collective bargaining agreement ALPA gave $200 million in concessions in order to change the seniority dates of the pilots who struck to their pre-strike dates. The replacement pilots brought suit, and had an injuction issued in their favor. The striking pilots appealed, and in Rakestraw v. United, they won. So, the seniority dates of the striking pilots were set to the date when they first started training, which made them senior to the replacement pilots that were hired during the strike.
USAPA says: This case supports our view that the list can be reordered in order to reduce friction in the labor group, and that it also supports date of hire as the rational method for determining seniority.
ALPA says: This case was not about DOH per say, but whether or not you can arbitrarily juggle someones seniority to favor one group over another.
MY TAKE: This case was about how to handle the seniority of striking workers…not how to merge seniority lists. The ruling did not center on whether DOH was the best method to determine seniority, but WHAT the DOH should be. United management changed their practice of defining when a pilot was hired (from beginning-of-training to reporting-for-duty), and used this change as a basis for favoring the replacement pilots. This case went back and forth a few times. In the circuit court, Judge Conlon ruled in favor of the replacement pilots because he felt that ALPA had shown a vendetta against the replacement
After you are done laughing at the one above, try this one out. It was on justplanenews.com for a while, and then disappeared. I think I saw a Westie post it here, but I can't find it. Somebody likes to think they are an attorney. Pal...you're just a West pilot that's about to be paying USAPA dues. You think being at the bottom of the industry compares to what we have been through? Just wait till we take over...that will be real pain!! USAPA: like ALPA...just not so crappy. DOH...DOH...DOH...say it with me!!
Again...thanks for spending the time reading the court case, but it really doesn't matter. So what if we can't overturn the list?!?! I'll sit on my side of the fence till I retire...which is considerably less time than the proposed fences I have heard about...sorry pals! Majority Rules!!
=TripNic=
O’NEILL V. ALPA
One of the court cases that USAPA has listed on it’s website is the case of O’Neill v. ALPA which was settled in 1991. This case puportedly supports the USAPA cause in their quest to renegotiate the seniority list, and install a date-of-hire (DOH) methodology. A closer read of the case indicates that USAPA may want to steer clear of citing this case.
O’NEILL V. ALPA IN PLAIN ENGLISH
This case arose from an acrimonious strike at Continental airlines. Of the 2000 pilots at Continental, all but 200 honored the strike called for by ALPA. After two years, Continental announced a vacancy bid. “Although ALPA authorized strikers to submit bids, Continental announced that all of the positions had been awarded to working pilots. ALPA and Continental then agreed to end the strike, dispose of some related litigation, and reallocate the positions covered by the 85-5 bid. Striking pilots were offered the option of settling all outstanding claims with Continental and participating in the 85-5 bid positions' allocations, electing not to return to work and receiving severance pay, or retaining their individual claims against Continental and becoming eligible to return to work only after all the settling pilots had been reinstated.” The resulting litigation was a result of the striking pilot’s dissatisfaction with the return to work agreement that ALPA negotiated with Continental. O’Neill Et. Al. alleged that ALPA breached it’s duty of fair representation in it’s treatment of the striking pilots. Essentially, they felt that ALPA had not negotiated a good enough agreement.When this case first went before the court ALPA prevailed; the court issued a summary judgement. The striking pilots won on appeal, but the appeal was ultimately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
USAPA SAYS…
USAPA attorneys have quoted some of the court’s opinion in support of their claim that they can vacate the Nicolau award and re-order the seniority list while avoiding a DFR lawsuit by the America Worst pilot group. Here’s the quote:
ALPA SAYS…
ALPA or the WEST MEC hasn’t really made a reponse specific to O’Neill that I can find.
MY TAKE…
USAPA has a liability here because I think they take the judges words out of context, and don’t recognize quote is part of the court’s larger theory which actually supports NOT re-doing work that has already been done by a collective bargaining agent. The O’Neill v. ALPA case was more a question about whether the government should be allowed “judicial review” of a union’s performance in negotiating agreements when determining whether a bargaining agent violated their duty of fair representation.
First, the Supreme Court had to consider what constituted “duty of fair representation.” The court cited other cases. Here is how they defined DFR:
Next, the court had to consider the striking pilot’s claim that the back to work agreement constituted a breach based on basis that it was arbitrary. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of appeals had over-stepped it’s authority:
“We are persuaded, however, that the Court of Appeals' further refinement of the arbitrariness component of the standard authorizes more judicial review of the substance of negotiated agreements than is consistent with national labor policy.”
The Supreme Court even went on to say that the government needed to say out of the business of passing judgment on a union’s performance:
“As we acknowledged above, Congress did not intend judicial review of a union's performance to permit the court to substitute its own view of the proper bargain for that reached by the union.”
-and-
“Any substantive examination of a union's performance, therefore, must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that negotiators need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.”
The part of O’Neill v. ALPA that gives me the most heartache is the quote below. It’s from the same case (Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman) that is part of the basis of O’Neill, and is cited by USAPA as supporting their point of view:
Why does this give me hearburn? It’s the “legal landscape at the time” portion. I imagine USAPA saying “Well, Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman say this…” and then the AWA attorney saying “I’m glad you brought up Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, because the legal landscape at the time was that US Air and America West were both represented by ALPA!” Where’s my Pepto? In the end, the court concluded that the return to work agreement negotiated by ALPA did NOT violate the DFR standards.
CONCLUSION
As you can see, O’Neill v. ALPA was not a question regarding DOH. It was a question about ALPA’s duty of fair representation to striking pilots. What resulted form the process of answering the question before it, the U.S. Supreme court took actions which will severly hinder USAPA’s efforts.
1. The Supreme Court upheld past rulings which protected unions’ authority to bargain on behalf of their members.
2. The Supreme Court also held that courts should not substitute their own view “of the proper bargain” that should be reached by a union.
HELP US or HURT US?
I think you can see that USAPA hasn’t thought out their plan very well. Please take the time to read these past cases. They are full of ugly suprises for USAPA! You are being asked to bank your future representation on a house of cards that has a shaky foundation!
Vote Intelligently.
Again...thanks for spending the time reading the court case, but it really doesn't matter. So what if we can't overturn the list?!?! I'll sit on my side of the fence till I retire...which is considerably less time than the proposed fences I have heard about...sorry pals! Majority Rules!!
=TripNic=
O’NEILL V. ALPA
One of the court cases that USAPA has listed on it’s website is the case of O’Neill v. ALPA which was settled in 1991. This case puportedly supports the USAPA cause in their quest to renegotiate the seniority list, and install a date-of-hire (DOH) methodology. A closer read of the case indicates that USAPA may want to steer clear of citing this case.
O’NEILL V. ALPA IN PLAIN ENGLISH
This case arose from an acrimonious strike at Continental airlines. Of the 2000 pilots at Continental, all but 200 honored the strike called for by ALPA. After two years, Continental announced a vacancy bid. “Although ALPA authorized strikers to submit bids, Continental announced that all of the positions had been awarded to working pilots. ALPA and Continental then agreed to end the strike, dispose of some related litigation, and reallocate the positions covered by the 85-5 bid. Striking pilots were offered the option of settling all outstanding claims with Continental and participating in the 85-5 bid positions' allocations, electing not to return to work and receiving severance pay, or retaining their individual claims against Continental and becoming eligible to return to work only after all the settling pilots had been reinstated.” The resulting litigation was a result of the striking pilot’s dissatisfaction with the return to work agreement that ALPA negotiated with Continental. O’Neill Et. Al. alleged that ALPA breached it’s duty of fair representation in it’s treatment of the striking pilots. Essentially, they felt that ALPA had not negotiated a good enough agreement.When this case first went before the court ALPA prevailed; the court issued a summary judgement. The striking pilots won on appeal, but the appeal was ultimately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
USAPA SAYS…
USAPA attorneys have quoted some of the court’s opinion in support of their claim that they can vacate the Nicolau award and re-order the seniority list while avoiding a DFR lawsuit by the America Worst pilot group. Here’s the quote:
“For that reason, the final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S., at 338 , that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ “
ALPA SAYS…
ALPA or the WEST MEC hasn’t really made a reponse specific to O’Neill that I can find.
MY TAKE…
USAPA has a liability here because I think they take the judges words out of context, and don’t recognize quote is part of the court’s larger theory which actually supports NOT re-doing work that has already been done by a collective bargaining agent. The O’Neill v. ALPA case was more a question about whether the government should be allowed “judicial review” of a union’s performance in negotiating agreements when determining whether a bargaining agent violated their duty of fair representation.
First, the Supreme Court had to consider what constituted “duty of fair representation.” The court cited other cases. Here is how they defined DFR:
“We hold that the rule announced in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190 (1967) - that a union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions are either ‘arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith’ - applies to all union activity, including contract negotiation.”
Next, the court had to consider the striking pilot’s claim that the back to work agreement constituted a breach based on basis that it was arbitrary. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of appeals had over-stepped it’s authority:
“We are persuaded, however, that the Court of Appeals' further refinement of the arbitrariness component of the standard authorizes more judicial review of the substance of negotiated agreements than is consistent with national labor policy.”
The Supreme Court even went on to say that the government needed to say out of the business of passing judgment on a union’s performance:
“As we acknowledged above, Congress did not intend judicial review of a union's performance to permit the court to substitute its own view of the proper bargain for that reached by the union.”
-and-
“Any substantive examination of a union's performance, therefore, must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that negotiators need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.”
The part of O’Neill v. ALPA that gives me the most heartache is the quote below. It’s from the same case (Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman) that is part of the basis of O’Neill, and is cited by USAPA as supporting their point of view:
“We further hold that a union's actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953), as to be irrational. [499 U.S. 65, 68]”
Why does this give me hearburn? It’s the “legal landscape at the time” portion. I imagine USAPA saying “Well, Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman say this…” and then the AWA attorney saying “I’m glad you brought up Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, because the legal landscape at the time was that US Air and America West were both represented by ALPA!” Where’s my Pepto? In the end, the court concluded that the return to work agreement negotiated by ALPA did NOT violate the DFR standards.
CONCLUSION
As you can see, O’Neill v. ALPA was not a question regarding DOH. It was a question about ALPA’s duty of fair representation to striking pilots. What resulted form the process of answering the question before it, the U.S. Supreme court took actions which will severly hinder USAPA’s efforts.
1. The Supreme Court upheld past rulings which protected unions’ authority to bargain on behalf of their members.
2. The Supreme Court also held that courts should not substitute their own view “of the proper bargain” that should be reached by a union.
HELP US or HURT US?
I think you can see that USAPA hasn’t thought out their plan very well. Please take the time to read these past cases. They are full of ugly suprises for USAPA! You are being asked to bank your future representation on a house of cards that has a shaky foundation!
Vote Intelligently.
dariencc
Veteran
- Dec 4, 2006
- 1,284
- 1,912
You used the same line when posting the fake "USAPA" memo the other day, tripnic. Sorry, no one is buying your "found this on justplanenews but now it's gone" rap. We're not buying the Alpa propaganda you keep pushing for a "laugh," either.
You're a busy guy for someone who just joined this forum last week.
The Alpoids get more desperate by the day.
dariencc
Veteran
- Dec 4, 2006
- 1,284
- 1,912
Here is an actual USAPA letter you may have missed, tripnic. You don't suppose they are talking about you?
Fellow pilot,
Please read this carefully.
We sent a previous email to highlight faked messages that are being posted, supposedly from USAPA. We decided that this issue was important enough that we included one of these messages to show you just how low the "other side" will go, and to alert you to this new misinformation campaign.
Let there be no misunderstanding - nothing has changed with regard to the Nicolau award, or any of the other reasons the US Airways pilots deserve a new union.
We anticipate this kind of thing to only get worse. This will require that you, the line pilot, read everything carefully, to be sure you understand what is being said.
As mentioned in the previous email, anything from USAPA comes from a USAPA email address and/or is signed by a USAPA Officer or volunteer.
Thanks you for your continuing support.
Scott Theuer
Communications Chairman
Fellow pilot,
Please read this carefully.
We sent a previous email to highlight faked messages that are being posted, supposedly from USAPA. We decided that this issue was important enough that we included one of these messages to show you just how low the "other side" will go, and to alert you to this new misinformation campaign.
Let there be no misunderstanding - nothing has changed with regard to the Nicolau award, or any of the other reasons the US Airways pilots deserve a new union.
We anticipate this kind of thing to only get worse. This will require that you, the line pilot, read everything carefully, to be sure you understand what is being said.
As mentioned in the previous email, anything from USAPA comes from a USAPA email address and/or is signed by a USAPA Officer or volunteer.
Thanks you for your continuing support.
Scott Theuer
Communications Chairman
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
ALPA advocates "separate but equal"? How about locking the West out of international flying. THAT IS WHAT ALPA IS ABOUT!
E
EastUS
Guest
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
Greg Rizzuto, spokesman for the Northwest branch of ALPA, said last week that "a short-term economic benefit is not worth sacrificing the possibility of advancement."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/t...northwest_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/t...northwest_N.htm
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
This is exactly right. In fact I just flew with a captain who was part of this whole mess just after the '85 strike. He was hired after the 570's, did not strike, is not a scab, and was in favor of having his seniority adjusted to go behind the 570's who were hired first. So I'd say his perspective and account of the facts is pretty objective.
Rakestraw v. United Airlines does not support USAPA's DOH position. No one within ALPA disputes that DOH determines a person's seniority within each airline individually. It is only when 2 separate airlines with separate seniority lists are merged that merger policy comes into play, since there is no such thing as a national seniority list.
In the above case, United arbitrarily changed it's definition of WHEN a pilot is considered an employee, so as to pressure the 570's to cross the picket line. No work = No job. Remember, the company thought they were hiring strike breakers. But when the 570's did not strike, the company was infuriated, fired them (which goes against their argument that they were never hired), and then strongly resisted hiring them back when the strike ended. Part of the return to work agreement with ALPA was getting them back on the property in any way possible. But it took many years, and the above referenced case to recognize their original start date, which has always been the day you start training. And remember, not all the pilots who were hired after the 570's ere part of the law suit. Many of them, like the captain I flew with, supported having their seniority adjusted.
This case has nothing to do with mergers and seniority integration of two separate pilot groups. I think many East pilots don't know all the facts about the legal references USAPA is trying to use and, and they are blindly trusting their legal council without asking the right questions. USAPA is not building their case on a solid legal foundation. They are taking advantage of the emotion behind the issue, and it would be prudent for each and every East pilot to familiarize themselves objectively with USAPA's legal arguments before making their decision to vote for them. JMO
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
You used the same line when posting the fake "USAPA" memo the other day, tripnic. Sorry, no one is buying your "found this on justplanenews but now it's gone" rap. We're not buying the Alpa propaganda you keep pushing for a "laugh," either.
You're a busy guy for someone who just joined this forum last week.
The Alpoids get more desperate by the day.
Dariencc,
Are you saying that Tripnic looks like an ALPa shill dressed up as a USAPA supporter?
He/she/it writes like a lawyer doing billing and seems to be so "informed"
! The only thing I want to know is this another "subtle" part of the ACPC ALPA dues at work or is this pro bono?! nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
alpa has to go, I have an example of their typical arrogant style, things have not changed in years.
"It's a dirty little secret within UAL, and to some extent ALPA National"
alpa can turn their back on scabbing article.
"It's a dirty little secret within UAL, and to some extent ALPA National"
alpa can turn their back on scabbing article.
E
EastUS
Guest
If you're not really carefull...you might eventually come dangerously close to admitting that actual seniority properly has some slight basis upon when one's hired.
Of course..we all fully realize that this shouldn't apply to mergers...integration via astrological charts/"career expectations"/Alpo "processes"...or any "relative" perspectives.
- Status
