LCC moved on?? Really???
That remains to be seen.
How about we wait for the final ruling, then give it a week to see what LCC does.
AUG/SEPT 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
LCC moved on?? Really???
That remains to be seen.
How about we wait for the final ruling, then give it a week to see what LCC does.
1) I'd merely observe that the mou that was floating around did nothing to confirm, much less establish the nic, nothing whatsoever. This was a potential agreement between the union and the company. This, to me, rather strongly suggests that your first premise is necessarily faulty. I submit my admittedly cynical opinion that this whole business with the attempt at a declaratory judgment was little more than an obvious delay tactic from team tempe, and did not at all necessarily reflect any huge degree of concern per issues of potential liability. We can both only guess at what company thought was truly put into the process.
2) As no contract in contemporary times can ever be made truly free from possible, subsequent litigation; I'd again suggest the presence of demonstrated flaws in that logic. Neither of us really expected to see any freedom from suit come forth from the court. To assume that the company, were it to demand the nic, would magically become free from any/all post ratifcation legal issues is again an unreasonable notion. In this "Best of All Possible Worlds" we inhabit...well...it's pretty much obvious that were we to shop courts around; we'd likely find one that would even accept suit against the sun for it's rising in the morning, versus the evening.
I believe, in order to accept your argument here; one must assume that even with two courts now ruling that the nic need not indeed be the final product, that there still exists an overwhelming company concern for post contract ratification liability. If such truly exists at all; neither of us can now know to what extent it would effect company decisions. (Then too; were this matter not left in the hands of the representing union...well..since when does the company otherwise determine pilot seniority...and how it must be done?) IF...a large if indeed, management sees any real need for an agreement with the pilot groups for use in pursuing a merger...well...again; we simply can't do more than guess at what they're willing to do for such. The previously referenced mou would suggest precious little immediate concern for a nic-or-nothing contract.....to say the very least. It must also be fairly noted that said mou was put forth prior to the proceedings in Judge Silver's courtroom.REALLY, Quote where SYMANSZKI, said that! He said they were willing to negotiate, !
In fact their is SCOTUS precedent saying usapa has to abide by the TA, REALLY? Didn't hear MARTY mention it, never brought up in front of WAKE! Write those checks now, your going to need some serious dinero, moving forward!
Judge Silver gave usapa the go ahead to try and negotiate a compromise. The company flat out told Silver that the company does not negotiate seniority, they accept what the union gives them (which they already have done and that list is the Nic). The company is not going to negotiate seniority.
usapa is not going to try to negotiate with LCC, usapa is going to try to negotiate with the West. Problem for usapa is AOL is not the West, and AOL is committed to the NIc at LCC, or making a boatload of money from LCC when they collude with the scab union in its DFR.
So, that leaves usapa to negotiate with themselves. Go ahead, knock yourselves out.
Before you open your ignorant pie hole again, you ought to do a little fact checking.
Here is the facts...jack...
usapa is by SCOTUS precedence and RLA law the inheritor of our CBAs.
Our CBAs call for an integration process that was followed to completion.
The "binding" in binding arbitration means it don't go away. The West can bring the NIc into any courtroom from here on out, plus any SLI in any future merger. usapa's scab plan...not so much.
1) I'd merely observe that the mou that was floating around did nothing to confirm, much less establish the nic, nothing whatsoever. This was a potential agreement between the union and the company. This, to me, rather strongly suggests that your first premise is necessarily faulty. I submit my admittedly cynical opinion that this whole business with the attempt at a declaratory judgment was little more than an obvious delay tactic from team tempe, and did not at all necessarily reflect any huge degree of concern per issues of potential liability. We can both only guess at what company thought was truly put into the process.
2) As no contract in contemporary times can ever be made truly free from possible, subsequent litigation; I'd again suggest the presence of demonstrated flaws in that logic. Neither of us really expected to see any freedom from suit come forth from the court. To assume that the company, were it to demand the nic, would magically become free from any/all post ratifcation legal issues is again an unreasonable notion. In this "Best of All Possible Worlds" we inhabit...well...it's pretty much obvious that were we to shop courts around; we'd likely find one that would even accept suit against the sun for it's rising in the morning, versus the evening.
1. (a) I do not recall exactly what the MOU said on seniority integration...other than it would be covered by McCaskill/Bond. I also recall this being a big deal for the east that had to be reassured that usapa's (not the MOUs) position is still the stated DOH in C&BLs. So, the MOU made no mention, and guess what...it will be the NIc and the APA list.
1. (b)The company has stated in court that they feel they are contractually committed to the NIc, and that they fear the West's lawsuit in the event the Nic is not used. Could be a delay tactic, but I doubt it. Delay is just a bonus that they get to pocket while it all works its way to the eventual Nic implementation.
2. My point is that LCC has zero interest in proving that a union can renege on an arbitration. To put LCC at risk of a hybrid DFR so that usapa can prove that usapa has found an unlikely way to renege on binding arbitration....(when in fact it is the opinion of most lawyers that usapa is FOS), would be a gross dereliction of their fiduciary duties. Simply stated, LCC ain't going to stick their neck out to prove unions can renege on deal by holding a representational election.
Somebody like to explain to me how to archive a post?
Ahh, never mind, this loser is wrong so often I can just go back a page or two to find him stepping in it.
Move2CLT
Veteran
Move2CLT
Veteran
Between the 9th and JUDGE silver and all the money you pay MARTY, you need some definition recognition!
Move2CLT
Veteran
Per the company's notions? That much seems entirely reasonable. Excuse the lack of response to your other posts at present, but it's past time to bail for now and head out into some real world commitments again. Have a good evening.
- Status
Similar threads
