US Pilot Labor Thread 7/20-7/26

[sharktooth]

Trouble with whom?On what precedent do you base that opinion?

Are you going to rearrange a combined system bid, all by yourself?

This should be good.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

The letter means absolutely nothing. Terminations occur for failing to pay dues. Nothing more, nothing less. Membership in USAPA is not a requirement for continued employment. This latest tactic is nothing more than a feel good antic. Oh well.

 

[CAVOK]

So the solution seems to be:

1) Apply in the hopes of rejection based on the dissenting statement.

2) Avoid termination because if they apply but are not accepted, they are protected from termination by the company as it is USAPA who refuses their membership...(just like ALPA policy)

This is rather transparent, and regardless of full membership status or not,
maintenance dues are payable, in any event...as we all know.

They've delayed paying dues about as long as they can, and now the rubber meets the road...

You are right that the dues have to be paid whether or not they want to participate in USAPA. It is due to the Taft-Hartley Act.

From Wikipedia:

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the "closed shop." The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a "union shop" rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under "union shop" rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.
A similar arrangement to the “union shop” is the “agency shop,” under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union.

Discharging will begin just as furloughs, I believe, bit by bit.


CAVOK

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Interesting comments: FYI

Guys, for the last year we’ve heard all the reasons why the Nicolau award is binding on the company and now binding on USAPA, even though it was done under ALPA Merger Policy. According to the TA:

IV. Seniority List Integration

A. The seniority lists of America West pilots and US Airways pilots will be integrated in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy and submitted to the Airline Parties for acceptance. The Airline Parties will accept such integrated seniority list, including conditions and restrictions, if such list and the conditions and restrictions comply with the following criteria:
1. no “system flushâ€￾ whereby an active pilot may displace any other active pilot from the latter’s Position; and
2. furloughed pilots may not bump/displace active pilots; and
3. no requirement for pilots to be compensated for flying not performed (e.g., differential pay for a position not actually flown); and
4. allows pilots who, at the time of implementation of an integrated seniority list, are in the process of completing or who have completed initial qualification training for a new category (e.g., A320 Captain or 757 First Officer) to be assigned to the position for which they have been trained, regardless of their relative standing on the integrated seniority list; and
5. does not contain conditions and restrictions that materially increase costs associated with training or company paid moves.

U-Turn has always believed the NIC had to be accepted. The TA speaks for itself, or does it? Today, we’re not so sure. There was Doug Parker’s statement in the Training Center on July 8th that he thought the NIC was negotiable (“we’ll see what happens…we won’t draw line in the sandâ€￾). That statement tracks with what our own Merger Attorney wrote in court-filed papers last summer. He said the company has no obligation to accept the Nicolau Award. Read the next paragraph from his response to last summer’s absurd East MEC Vs West MEC law suit. The East MEC was the “plaintiff.â€￾ Freund’s reply to the East MEC lawsuit (emphasis added):

1.Thus, the “arbitration awardâ€￾ Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacateâ€￾ is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Application, Ex.1 at 2,9 (ALPA will present to the company the merged seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy arbitration procedures, and “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority listâ€￾). Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacatingâ€￾ and “arbitration,â€￾ the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacateâ€￾ an “arbitration awardâ€￾ that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.

Our MEC’s merger (and now AWAPPA’s) attorney said the NIC was “in actuality the proposed seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the company, but which…the company is not required to accept,â€￾ that it is “only a part of ALPA overall bargaining proposal,â€￾ and that NIC “does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company.â€￾ The way we read the above is that since the Nicolau seniority list isn’t enforceable on the company, the East had no right to challenge it last summer.

If you think we’re taking the above out of context, Google and read the entire response, prepared by West Merger Attorney. Case 1:07-cv-01309-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/24/2007 Freund’s response for the West MEC is 125 pages, but the important pages are 3-6. They spell out exactly what our Merger attorney thinks about whether the company must accept the NIC. According to him, they don’t.

There is no doubt at U-Turn that if the NIC Award is scrapped there will be a DFR lawsuit. In fact, U-Turn has long supported a DFR lawsuit if the NIC is gone. If for nothing else, we need to clear the air and exhaust all our legal options. USAPA has to be expecting a DFR as soon as there’s a single contract dumping the NIC. Their expectations of winning are as high as ours. Unfortunately for us, the bar in winning a DFR is high. How could the Freund comments above help?

Before we raise the money to file that DFR lawsuit, the movers and shakers who plan on putting it together ought to reread what our own Merger Attorney said about whether the NIC was binding on the company. Those quotes above could come back to haunt us. Our own attorney can’t have it both ways.

And when we’re deciding who to DFR, just remember this quote out of the ALPA Merger Policy Manual: “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list.â€￾ Did they? With the way ALPA treated us, maybe we ought to give some real thought about who to DFR.

 

[IntegrityMatters]

No wonder you guys (East) don't ever fare well in front of judges or arbitrators. A little bit of independent research might prevent you from being surprised the next time a judge or arbitrator hands you down something that doesn't seem consistent with what your union leadership is telling you.

BTW - I think USAPA is actually doing a fine job of brining the East and West together. The 1000+ East USAPA non-members and the 1800 West pilots have both quickly learned the meaning of the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

 

[EastUS]

BTW - I think USAPA is actually doing a fine job of brining the East and West together. The 1000+ East USAPA non-members and the 1800 West pilots have both quickly learned the meaning of the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

It's been fully understood for a long time now. Your "Righteous Position" is assured of imminent triumph..months ago..and any minute now for sure..and we "won't even get 200 cards!!" Anything new out there??..Ah!=Within Fantasyland's Finest: 1,000 east pilots presumably now oppose USAPA and are just dying to give you their seats, and acknowledge your "Holy Cause"...much like most of the east pilots didn't even vote, and the west would "be laughing" after the election ....Anything "new" to such lunacy at all nowadays?..Didn't think so. Get even the smallest grip, or merely continue to amuse yourselves in such fashion. It truly just doesn't much matter anymore.

"We" can try working together...or not..your choice/suit your non-voting selves. Your management, without any possible doubt, are laughing themselves sick, and writing you all off as hopeless, self destructive, and easily manipulated, complete fools out there. Good night.

 

[Megasnoop]

BTW - I think USAPA is actually doing a fine job of brining the East and West together. The 1000+ East USAPA non-members and the 1800 West pilots have both quickly learned the meaning of the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Mr. Integrity, you need to work on your math skills. With almost 3,000 dues-paying members, non-members are less than 300 back here. But nice try at typical West/AWAPPA disinformation. You'll get another bite at the apple in 21 months, long after the new list is in place. You can still DFR us, but you'd better look for a new atorney. Your current one doesn't even think the NIC is in stone. After reading the latest U/Turn, I looked up the court case and they had it right. your atorney really did say the NIC was just a bargaining position.

1.Thus, the “arbitration award†Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacate†is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Application, Ex.1 at 2,9 (ALPA will present to the company the merged seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy arbitration procedures, and “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority listâ€). Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacating†and “arbitration,†the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate†an “arbitration award†that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.

When your own atorney says the company doesn't have to accept the list and Parker says he won't draw a line in the sand, you've got some serious problems, good buddy. With attorneys like that, who needs enemies. Can't wait for the West spin.

A little bit of independent research might prevent you from being surprised the next time a judge or arbitrator hands you down something that doesn't seem consistent with what your union leadership is telling you.

A little bit of independent research might prevent you from choosing a DFR atorney who doesn't even believe in your cause. And speaking about lack of consistency in MEC/AWAPPA leadership, did they ever tell your members what their attorney told the court last summer? S

 

[elixir]

Well, upon re-reading this thread, and the Leo suggestion, I also believe that the sun has illuminated some thinking out west, possibly inspired by the July 8 meeting where Parker basically denied rubber stamping Nic...and reasserted that the company will do whats best for the company, not draw lines in the sand, and PHX/LAS leisure markets are going to get hurt going forward in this environment.
This revelation, coupled with the inevitable agency shop rules regarding non-dues paying pilots covered by a bargaining agent and CBA have changed the tactic some...so yes, I think there's a tactical shift..."considering available options"

 

[elixir]

The applications shouldn't be looked at or considered...so, "no joy" on the plan...think of it like a ballot with "hanging chads" on it....it just never happened.

It is my opinion that no strategy has changed, per se, but that the reality of getting fired over this is sinking in. The solution to the termination threat is to apply, but stack the deck so you get rejected...ie: the conditional statement and disclosure.

The rejection resets the clock (just like ALPA) and keeps the company from being able to fire you...if you're "trying to get membership approval, but keep getting turned down..."

Thats why a flat rejection is not the way to handle this.

(nice try though...)

To clarify, the "resetting the clock" refers to the amount of back dues that would be due and payable if and when membership is granted. I am under no illusions that these west guys intend to be current with their mandatory dues...I'm expecting them to abide by their .05/month plan as discussed on their chatroom....just enough to not get fired, but remain in bad standing. Naturally, in bad standing, they still can't vote...so....there ya go.

Hard to recover from a poorly executed strategy..unless they thought Prater was going to ride in on a white charger and save them...

 

[nycbusdriver]

Membership....shmembership...

It makes no difference. Either dues or fees are payable beginning April 18, 2008.

All the tricks and delay tactics make no difference. The meter is running. Period.

The company agrees; the NMB agrees.

 

[elixir]

I agree...thats been the case all along. So why the doctored applications?

Those shifty westies...always cooking up a new "strategery"

 

[sharktooth]

I agree...thats been the case all along. So why the doctored applications?

Those shifty westies...always cooking up a new "strategery"

I wonder if their "strategy" involves getting USAPA to accept at least one "doctored" application, then getting someone else to file a DFR over not having the "same opportunity" as the one with the false app.

I would think USAPA would be rather careful about this. Perhaps the AWWAAPA-ers are trying to snow USAPA with administrative overload.

Perhaps such "false" applications should be posted somewhere, so we know who is being silly.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Their efforts are nothing more than a red herring, grasping at straws - all of which are short - and so "strategery" is more appropriate than "strategy".

 

[AAA73Pilot]

BTW - I think USAPA is actually doing a fine job of brining the East and West together. The 1000+ East USAPA non-members and the 1800 West pilots have both quickly learned the meaning of the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

I love your imagination. Who tells you this stuff? Or do you just make it up as you go along? For what purpose? Self justification for your actions? First off you don't even have 1800 pilots total. After furloughs, you'll be down to around 1550. Second, USAPA members total in excess of 2800+ now. With most on DCO.

So I have to ask, why put this mis-information out? Is there some point to it? Or is it just another feel good exercise hoping to justify your position? I ask again, for what purpose?

 

[sharktooth]

Their efforts are nothing more than a red herring, grasping at straws - all of which are short - and so "strategery" is more appropriate than "strategy".

Truly.