US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/2- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[233KILLS]

LOA 93 briefs are to be filed with the Arbitrator by June 11, 2010, and we will be providing the transcripts and information as this process unfolds. The NAC is meeting this week in Chicago with Mediator Terri Brown to continue the process of achieving an industry-standard contract for all US Airways Pilots. Management no longer has the excuse of legal decisions and court actions to prevent the negotiating process from moving forward.

June 11, 2010 Thank You for the info luvthe9

 

[oldiebutgoody]

OBG
It's amazing how all of the self entitled east pilots forget about the days and months before the merger announcement. Going to work was like going to a funeral. No one had carrier expectations, most did not think we would make it to the next payday. We were weeks if not days from 100% attrition.

I admit it wasn't the most pleasant time to work here, but I've NEVER gone to work a day when I didn't enjoy it. No one, including YOU knew what the future would hold. Sounds like you were one of the ALPA guys ready to give anything and everything to the company for ZERO returns. The company and ALPA had perfected scaring the pilot group into doing ANYTHING they wanted.

By the way, if you're concerned about company prospects, Parker AND Kirby have both stated that NEITHER company would exist without the other. Using unquantifiable concepts like career expectations and company financial condition is ludicrous. Even if you do, you have to give both sides a starting grade of ZERO for both.

 

[Heretic]

I was just thinking. There must be, oh, somewhere between one, to about two hundred and thirty three or more reasons to advertise to be something that one is not.

Some that do, actually succeed at being persuasive. Then again, some do not.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Those words sure don't sound like rulings. Courts look at law not fairness. They said might and maybe, not for sure.

Was ALPA bound by Nicoalu? Yes. Were they able to unilaterally without consent of the west change Nicolau? No. That means that usapa can not either.

We will sue if Nicolau is changed. So get on with it. Where is the TA that usapa is going to present? Time to step up and get a contract. It's been two years. The sooner a contract gets done the sooner the injunction can be put in place. Let's see how much leverage and ability usapa has to get a contract.

BTW before anyone goes blaming ALPA for not being able to get a contract either. It would be the same company, the same negotiators, the same economic conditions and the same pilot group. The only difference is the union name and people at the table on the pilot side.

Actually, courts do, indeed, look at fairness. That's what law is all about, and it's why legal interpretation is changed all the time.

Better finish paying your lawyer from the last goat rope. Since the NIC is dead he'll be needing you to pay more of his greens fees.

I just want ot know what Judge Wake's connection is to the West group, and why he would make himself look so stupid with such a stupid ruling. Any ideas?

 

[cleardirect]

Actually, courts do, indeed, look at fairness. That's what law is all about, and it's why legal interpretation is changed all the time.

Better finish paying your lawyer from the last goat rope. Since the NIC is dead he'll be needing you to pay more of his greens fees.

I just want ot know what Judge Wake's connection is to the West group, and why he would make himself look so stupid with such a stupid ruling. Any ideas?

I find it fascinating that you think that there must be some connection. There is no connection. Why do any of you find it so hard to believe that people from the outside with nothing to do with our situation can look at the facts and agree with the west?

We have people from other airlines and non airline people post agreeing with the west and they get attacked. The rest of the world has looked at this and come to the conclusion that what the east wanted was not fair. The arbitrator that has no connection to the west understood and issued a ruling. ALPA national who arguably had much more connection and reason to side with the east refused to change the Nicolau because the could not. A judge with no connection to the west found that what the east was trying to do was not right.

Only 2 of 3 judges in the ninth sort of punted the question down the road. Have you noticed no one from the west is called the two judges names or accusing them of some illegal connection? It is just people with a dispassionate and objective view have looked and decided that DOH will not work in this merger.

That is the simple answer no connection at all.

That is like asking what connection the RICO defendants had to a NC judge that dismissed with prejudice. None at all he just looked a the law.

One last thing. If you believe that the Nicolau is dead why keep saying it. Just sit back and wait for it to come. Who are you trying to convince us or yourself?

 

[nic4us]

DOH most certainly needs to be part of the formula. I'm quite sure it will be, especially since it's part of the founding principles of USAPA.

Founding principal?

Why do we not just go ahead and be honest for once? It is the only usapa principal. You aviation pros originally listed "Maintain uniform principals of seniority by DOH" in your constitution as priority one. Well above like number 7 "promote safety", until people started pointing out to you that what you were doing was illegal, and you may want to keep it quiet that you are forming a union to harm members you have a duty to represent, and are protected by that binding arbitration you are trying to weasel out of.

Ready for yiour 2005 DOH yet?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Founding principal?

Why do we not just go ahead and be honest for once? It is the only usapa principal. You aviation pros originally listed "Maintain uniform principals of seniority by DOH" in your constitution as priority one. Well above like number 7 "promote safety", until people started pointing out to you that what you were doing was illegal, and you may want to keep it quiet that you are forming a union to harm members you have a duty to represent, and are protected by that binding arbitration you are trying to weasel out of.

Ready for yiour 2005 DOH yet?

I guess since you guys never had a real retirement plan, duy rigs ar other niceties, you wouldn't know what it's like to watch your union just give them away without a membership vote. The NIC was only the final, albeit pretty huge, straw.

My DOH was well before 2005. How about yours? You're furloughed, right? You shouldn't get to take someone's job that's still on the property, even if he was hired AFTER 2005. There, how do YOU like reality?

 

[ROACLT]

Those words sure don't sound like rulings. Courts look at law not fairness. They said might and maybe, not for sure.

Was ALPA bound by Nicoalu? Yes. Were they able to unilaterally without consent of the west change Nicolau? No. That means that usapa can not either.

We will sue if Nicolau is changed. So get on with it. Where is the TA that usapa is going to present? Time to step up and get a contract. It's been two years. The sooner a contract gets done the sooner the injunction can be put in place. Let's see how much leverage and ability usapa has to get a contract.

BTW before anyone goes blaming ALPA for not being able to get a contract either. It would be the same company, the same negotiators, the same economic conditions and the same pilot group. The only difference is the union name and people at the table on the pilot side.

The ruling made it clear that USAPA is not bound by the Nicalou, only that they are obligated to bargain in good faith for all pilots, both East and West. Do you know what the legal definition of Good Faith is as it pertains to Duty of Fair Representation? As defined by the US Supreme Court, it is that a unions action toward its members be in a "wide range of reasonableness." Every union, not just USAPA has this responsibility.

B-scales were legally challenged in the 80's and even given the severe financial impact to a subset of employees, they were found to fall with in a "wide range of reasonableness" in a union representing the collective interest of its members.

If a DFR claim is made in court after a ratified contract is achieved, it will be the provisions of that contract and how it relates to the collective interests of its members that would be challenged, not that it isn't Nicalou, so it isn't fair. That isn't the legal issue, "Good Faith", is.

Unlike the rulings in Wake's court that didn't allow, USAPA to explain it's position of DOH with C & R's,, its fairness or comparison to other unions, so as to defend against a claim of "Good Faith" breach, they will absolutely get to next time, as the 9th circuit clearly identified USAPA's "legal" obligation.

Whatever USAPA establishes inside a ratified CBA, only needs to meet the legal standard of being in a "wide range of reasonableness", if legally challenged. A definition that Wake wouldn't even allow the Jury to hear, as part of his jury instruction. No longevity based seniority integration has been found in breach of "Good Faith", even ones that have made it into the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit went beyond just rendering this decision and published it, so it now required to be reviewed and cited as legal precedent for any future cases with similar legal issues.

Such a case filed in the future would be far more lengthy, more expensive, and a far weaker challenge against a much broader legal standard. All the evidence denied in Wake's courtroom would then be allowed in defining and defending a "wide range of reasonableness. Good luck with that and the retainer a law firm would likely require upfront to produce and serious legal work.

 

[Elevation]

Does anybody here think its odd the the company has not even acknowledged any of the current happenings? Two US daily's have been distributed and not a mention! I mean not even link to newspaper article they are totally ignoring it. Talk about a bunch of dodgey, run for cover weaklings.

 

[ROACLT]

deleted

 

[Barrister]

Actually, courts do, indeed, look at fairness. That's what law is all about, and it's why legal interpretation is changed all the time.

Better finish paying your lawyer from the last goat rope. Since the NIC is dead he'll be needing you to pay more of his greens fees.

I just want ot know what Judge Wake's connection is to the West group, and why he would make himself look so stupid with such a stupid ruling. Any ideas?

That is odd seeing as how HP-FA asured us that Wake wrote the book" was "very thorough" make "strong "findings of fact.
If he wrote the book he must not have read it lately....or is he fishing buddies with G. NIC

NPJB

 

[ROACLT]

Does anybody here think its odd the the company has not even acknowledged any of the current happenings? Two US daily's have been distributed and not a mention! I mean not even link to newspaper article they are totally ignoring it. Talk about a bunch of dodgey, run for cover weaklings.

I think you will find your union leadership has already met with management and will hear about it soon and they aren't going to insert themselves in "internal union seniority issues.". Hasn't their position always been, their legal obligation is to bargain with the legally authorized agent of the pilots?

 

[OTTER574]

The ruling made it clear that USAPA is not bound by the Nicalou, only that they are obligated to bargain in good faith for all pilots, both East and West. Do you know what the legal definition of Good Faith is as it pertains to Duty of Fair Representation? As defined by the US Supreme Court, it is that a unions action toward its members be in a "wide range of reasonableness." Every union, not just USAPA has this responsibility.

B-scales were legally challenged in the 80's and even given the severe financial impact to a subset of employees, they were found to fall with in a "wide range of reasonableness" in a union representing the collective interest of its members.

If a DFR claim is made in court after a ratified contract is achieved, it will be the provisions of that contract and how it relates to the collective interests of its members that would be challenged, not that it isn't Nicalou, so it isn't fair. That isn't the legal issue, "Good Faith", is.

Unlike the rulings in Wake's court that didn't allow, USAPA to explain it's position of DOH with C & R's,, its fairness or comparison to other unions, so as to defend against a claim of "Good Faith" breach, they will absolutely get to next time, as the 9th circuit clearly identified USAPA's "legal" obligation.

Whatever USAPA establishes inside a ratified CBA, only needs to meet the legal standard of being in a "wide range of reasonableness", if legally challenged. A definition that Wake wouldn't even allow the Jury to hear, as part of his jury instruction. No longevity based seniority integration has been found in breach of "Good Faith", even ones that have made it into the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit went beyond just rendering this decision and published it, so it now required to be reviewed and cited as legal precedent for any future cases with similar legal issues.

Such a case filed in the future would be far more lengthy, more expensive, and a far weaker challenge against a much broader legal standard. All the evidence denied in Wake's courtroom would then be allowed in defining and defending a "wide range of reasonableness. Good luck with that and the retainer a law firm would likely require upfront to produce and serious legal work.

You're forgetting the other part of this puzzle and that's the company and how it will view this in regards to the TA/transitional agreement. Will they go along with usapa's wish for doh with C n R's or will they be BOUND by an agreement made and signed and accepted via the TA? I'm sure lcc legal minds are working on this as we speak and will come to the same conclusion as most when it comes to this, but of course there's always usapa's twisted brain trust and twisted logic.

Sorry, but the 9th did nothing but punt the ball and delay the outcome of final and binding arbitration.

2 federal judges said we on the west have a ripe case...2 did not.

 

[OTTER574]

I think you will find your union leadership has already met with management and will hear about it soon and they aren't going to insert themselves in "internal union seniority issues.". Hasn't their position always been, their legal obligation is to bargain with the legally authorized agent of the pilots?

Pleaseeeeeeeeee, by all means present the mowrey doh c n r's list to the company again so we can all move forward in a federal court of law.

 

[Elevation]

I'm not saying the company has to issue a "statement of position" or the like I'm just curious on why they are ignoring the complete issue. I mean it's in most of the newspapers, they could highlight some links and tell the reader if they're interested read them, no commentary needed. The FA's are waiting on this also, so it has company wide interest.