US pilot labor thread 7/5-7/12

[prechilill]

I presume that the west group has adopted the absurd philosophy that the party which loses an election should prevail rather than the other way around - judging from their repeated "tyranny of the majority" slogan.

The majority won. That means the majority sets the agenda. Provided the minority is not deliberately or arbitrarily discriminated against or abused, the process is democratic and legal.

USAPA's position is that DOH is fair and equitable and has a long and well established precedent within labor unions. The Niclolau award was an aberration and ALPA's handling of it was a failure of responsibility. It is not about stapling or retribution. That is a characterization AWAPPA uses to further it's own ends.

AWAPPA is led by ALPA residue.

I sense somebody's panties are in a wad... here, take a tissue, boo hoo, boo hoo.

 

[electricjet98]

I presume that the west group has adopted the absurd philosophy that the party which loses an election should prevail rather than the other way around - judging from their repeated "tyranny of the majority" slogan.

And you'd be wrong. USAPA won the election; at least that much we can all agree upon.

The majority won. That means the majority sets the agenda. Provided the minority is not deliberately or arbitrarily discriminated against or abused, the process is democratic and legal.

USAPA's position is that DOH is fair and equitable and has a long and well established precedent within labor unions. The Niclolau award was an aberration and ALPA's handling of it was a failure of responsibility. It is not about stapling or retribution. That is a characterization AWAPPA uses to further it's own ends.

Combining two groups of approximate equals, (DOH's, relative financial strengths which directly relate to career expectations, aircraft and routes, etc.) would certainly be the quickest and easiest route. But when considering the merger of airlines that bring disparities to the new entity, DOH may not be the fairest route. That is what ALPA was able to see years ago and corrected with their merger policy and desired goals. Following this policy was agreed to by both groups. One group believes that by simply changing bargaining agents, previous decisions and agreements no longer apply.

Following this logic, USAPA should just find a new attorney and file the same charges with the same court again. If changing bargaining agents releases you from previous obligations why shouldn't changing attornies be any different?

 

[electricjet98]

For what it is worth....

I have seen and read a copy of the Memorandum of Decision and Order.

OK, what is my point? This stuff is/was Law School 101 as far as the pleading of any alleged basis for relief was concerned. It is rare for this to occur and frankly not the kind of thing that builds one's legal career.

Frankly, if I were USAPA, I would look to resolve this entire matter and do it soon. That means accepting Nicolau and perhaps negotiating some form of fence agreement and present it to the membership as the best that can be done under the circumstances. I recall many folks here having essentially said they know that Nicolau may well stand and that they were happy simply dumping ALPA for the perceived cost savings of not supporting the ALPA infrastructure. If that is the case, then this is the time to own up to that and get this matter behind everyone.

Flame bait!!!

What are you doing...this will get you banned for life!!!

The boys from the east take a dim view of any serious thought, debate or independent thinking!!!

 

[EastUS]

The boys from the east take a dim view of any serious thought, debate or independent thinking!!!

How would you presume to know that?

 

[hp_fa]

Flame bait!!!

What are you doing...this will get you banned for life!!!

I could see how some folks could consider my comments in that post as flame bait, however I would disagree with them and just say it is a comment on just how badly things went for the plaintiffs in that action. I saw someone post that it was a technicality, but it was far more then that. You don't get causes of action dismissed with prejudice for technicalities. Technicalities may cause a dismissal without prejudice, but not with prejudice.

The hell of it is, from my perspective, that this wasn't so much of a West beating East type thing as it is more akin to a very serious self-inflicted gunshot wound that may well have been caused by bad legal work. That is honestly how I assess it and I know that by saying that here I am now going to hear the litany of some who will say things like who are you to say things like that? "You are, or were, just a glorified bartender" they will say. All true, except for the ten years I actually spent working in law and where I actually did some interesting things before I started tending bar. For a lot of reasons this was a bad loss.

And now the USAPA members, if they are smart, will need to quickly assess where they are and where they should go with this whole East vs. West thing. That isn't directed at Mr. Bradford, et al., but at the entire current membership. Quite a few folks posting here made a big deal about being able to vote on a lot of things when union management changed from ALPA to USAPA. Well, you are at a good time to start doing some voting because the path is fraught with pitfalls and will be very expensive, especially considering the risks involved.

And no, no one here needs to trust me on this......

Finally, as a disclaimer, I have absolutely no inside information. I just know how to read legal documents and know that process from the inside rather than from the outside.