Time For USAPA to Really Think About Our Most Pressing Problem…Risk Versus Reward: Part II
I have spent some amount of time thinking about US Airways pilot's current ISL conundrum. This post is a little long, but I encourage each of our forum’s members to read this information, think about the “risk versus reward”, and then discuss these thoughts with other pilots.
An East pilot asked: “The whole post (Demagoguery Works) is a great read. It may even insinuate I am one of the "Recognition Failures", and that is fine. If most of the post is true, and I feel most of it is. I think for the ones who know the "Real Deal" one of the mentioned names is probably done more damage to this pilot group than any other pilot. He has done so under the banner of fighting for your seniority. My Question is. Do I lay down and die, nothing I can do. Do I stay on the side lines and plead innocence or do I get in the fight even against all odds?”
Another East pilot's comments: I believe USAPA needs to fight and we need to “get in the fight even against all odds.” But, before USAPA can fight the union has to define the fight, look at the odds of success, and provide all US Airways pilots, East and West, the best possible approach in the boxing ring.
But, to fight just to fight because you don’t like the situation is a strategy that time and time again has miserably failed us. How many arbitrations and lawsuits have the UELs, whether with ALPA or USAPA, has the union has won because they wanted to fight? Has this UEL strategy gotten a little old and tired?
What are the realistic odds the NMB is going to rule that a single arbitrator can conduct a M-B SLI arbitration before SCC when APA and AAG correctly argued USAPA’s idea violates our contract? Has this UEL strategy gotten a little old and tired?
It is very important to accept Pat Szymanski successfully argued in Judge Silver’s court that a segment of a union cannot negotiate seniority and this can only be done by the authorized collective bargaining agent. Now USAPA is forced to argue other side of this argument in D.C federal court in its suit and APA/AAG’s countersuit, which is a legally unsupportable argument – not to mention hypocritical.
Typically I provide exact quotes to build my argument and then use phrases like “I believe’ or “In my Opinion” to separate fact from opinion. In the interest of brevity I’m going to write from my heart because I too agree we should fight, but the fight should be to obtain the best possible JCBA and ISL, period. As a bright informed pilot pointed out nothing else matters.
BACKGROUND
In the APA Proposed Protocol Agreement, if APA is the only duly designated representative, APA will be able to designate Merger Committee members to represent (for seniority integration purposes) pilots of a pre-merger seniority list in an arbitration similar in nature to the M-B protocol. Once the committees have been designated the committees shall fill their own vacancies.
This does two things. One it allows APA, NOT USAPA, to designate Merger Committee members. Two, it might allow APA to designate a Merger Committee from the pre-merger America West pilot group to represent the pre-merger America West pilots separately from the East pilots.
USAPA would like to have the authority over the Merger Committee so they can seed the committee with Date of Hire hardliners or some other Demagogues. USAPA would be disinclined to seat any members from the pre-merger America West seniority list either on the USAPA Merger Committee or a separate America West committee.
Of course the USAPA argument is that America West is not separately represented by their own union and would have to be represented by USAPA. And, of course APA, AAG and the courts agree with that view and will apply that view to the situation once USAPA is no longer the duly designated representative for pre-merger (this latest merger) US Airways pilots to prevent USAPA from being a political party to the process.
Here is why USAPA is now forced to argue both sides of the argument... which is legally unsupportable.
Furthermore, USAPA has a political problem. USAPA is the minority representative among the pilots it is duty bound to represent. When you consider the West pilots combined with about the top 1500 pilots on the East and the bottom 500 new hires, USAPA represents less than half of the pilots on this property.
Combine USAPA’s minority status with the fact that USAPA has failed to provide either a contract or a seniority list to its members in its entire existence and you see a useless organization (some will argue that USAPA brought us the MOU, but short memories forget that USAPA turned it down before they tried to convince the pilots to turn it down). It was the line pilot who voted to bring the MOU to the property even after USAPA held road shows to convince pilots to turn it down. USAPA should see that vote as clear evidence that this pilot group really wants a contract.)
LOOKING FORWARD
In spite of APA’s tortured history with seniority integration, APA is offering the US Airways pilots arbitration, which mimics the M-B process per their proposed Protocol Agreement, which is attached to this email. This is decidedly different than past APA behavior and should be seen as APA exercising it duty to fairly represent its pilots (the former US Airways pilots will be members of APA and will legally need to be fairly represented).
That process will be managed by a panel of three arbitrators and will give all of the pilots an equal bite at the apple. Certainly the pre-merger APA Merger Committee members will present a seniority scheme which they deem favorable to the pilots they represent. So will the pre-merger East pilots. And, if the West pilots seat a merger committee, they, too, will argue a scheme which they deem favorable to the pilots they represent. All of this will be presided over by a panel of arbitrators.
The question is “is this fair?” One might argue that it would be “more fair” to the minority pilots that USAPA represents if USAPA could choose a hard line Merger Committee and prevent the West from speaking to the arbitrator. Anyone who would argue such a position should be strongly reminded of how we got where we are in the first place. Our hard line representatives at ALPA argued an untenable Date of Hire seniority scheme to an arbitrator and lost. In the wake of that loss, those same hard line representatives migrated to USAPA and have systematically destroyed our ability to collectively bargain or protect ourselves. This cost this pilot group many hundreds of millions of dollars in lost wages and retirement opportunities, not to mention life style benefits like vacation and a new bidding system.
Add to this that USAPA has never abided by any arbitration. Knowing this, would you like to offer USAPA another opportunity to ignore yet another arbitration?
It seems that APA is willing to use the M-B Protocol even though it is not legally bound to do so. This seems fair. Other carriers have sidestepped the M-B process (Southwest) when it suited their self-serving agendas. APA seems to be offering a better deal than the AirTran pilots got.
USAPA has its leg caught in a trap of their own design – I believe it’s either time to start chewing or agree to APA and AAG’s proposed Protocol Agreement with a 3-way ISL arbitration. If not..then we can expect to receive a court order permitting APA to exclusively control the ISL process, if so desired, per the RLA and Judge Silver’s order. Obviously, this could be devastating where we end up with another AA-TWA type of SLI where the US Airways pilot's concerns become our reality. But, at least Dave Ciabattoni could stand up at a union meeting and once again proclaim “I would rather continue with the DOH strategy, lose, and live with the result than change our approach.” Let’s hope USAPA agrees to a 3-way ISL arbitration and drops its complaint or at this point the Nic might seem like a good deal to the East DOH zealots.
