2014 Pilot Discussion

[Piedmont1984]

None of this matters, really.  If the appropriate and effective palms are properly greased, the Board will find Single Carrier status tout-de-suite.
 
(I threw in the French to piss off the PHX reactionaries and watch their mouths begin to foam.)

Does that mean bragging about one's attire?

 

[traderjake]

You have good intentions but we are going about it the wrong way.

Electricity and TV is good enough for Alex Jones.... So it's good enough for us. He also brought his outhouse indoors, and functional plumbing is also good enough for Alex...

 
I'll tell Alex you appreciate his accomplishments (even if for the wrong reasons). 
 
"Border Patrol Union VP: CDC ‘had no interest in’ Immigrant Influx Harboring Disease"
 
http://www.infowars.com/border-patrol-union-vp-cdc-had-no-interest-in-immigrant-influx-harboring-disease/

 

[snapthis]

Supreme Court issues narrow ruling against labor unions
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 10:12 a.m. EDT June 30, 2014

 
The Supreme Court decided an important labor union representation case Monday.
(Photo: Tony Dejak, AP)

192 CONNECT 4 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 18 COMMENTEMAILMORE

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Monday that home-care workers in Illinois do not have to pay dues to public employees unions.
 
The opinion by Justice Samuel Alito was a narrow loss for organized labor. It did not overrule the court's "agency shop" precedent applying to all public employee unions.The challenge to the mandatory union dues, brought by eight home-care workers in Illinois, represented the biggest labor case to come before the court this term -- putting at potential risk the future viability of public employee unions.
 
For decades, the law has allowed unions to collect dues from all private or public employees they are required to represent. Those who object don't have to contribute to political or lobbying activities, but they must chip in for the unions' efforts in fighting for better wages, benefits and working conditions. The home-care workers in Harris v. Quinn served individuals with disabilities through the federal-state Medicaid program. They argued they should not have to pay dues for the state's contract with the Service Employees International Union, even though the union is required to represent them and they benefit from its services.
 
The workers, who were represented in court by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, contended that public employee unions are engaged in lobbying the government, often on issues the workers oppose. That implicates their First Amendment rights because the union speaks for them. The importance of the case to public employee unions wasn't lost on the justices during oral argument in January. A decision against the union "would radically restructure the way workplaces across this country are run," Justice Elena Kagan said then. Justice Antonin Scalia had expressed concern that letting public employees bail out would deprive the unions of funds needed to carry out their legally required duties.Going into Monday, organized labor had been batting .500 at the court this term. The court dismissed a case in December that threatened to strike down labor-management agreements that help unions organize workers in exchange for concessions.
 
In January, the court unanimously denied 800 Indiana steelworkers compensation for the time it takes to put on and take off protective gear
Follow @richardjwolf on Twitter.

192 CONNECT 4 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 18 COMMENTEMAILMORE
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-supreme-court-birth-control-mandate-20140630,0,7311433.story

 

[USA320Pilot]

Will USAPA's Agenda Hurt the Pilots Again?
 
For those pilots who support USAPA's actions when negotiating with APA I have a few questions for you. How many unions following a SCS determination were:

1. pre SCS obligated by the new union to pay post-single carrier old union bills including costs of its current headquarters?

2. pre SCS were obligated to maintain the old union's independent operation authority throughout the JCBA and SLI process?

3. pre SCS were obligated to pay for ongoing litigation expenses in any subsequent DFR cases for the old union?

4. Pre SCS recognized the old union as a party to the protocol agreement even after the old union ceases to be the certified bargaining representative (contrary to its own position in a case like Addington litigation, the judge's ruling in that case and the specific language of a MOU?

According to APA, "These are not commitments APA is willing to entertain and are what brought seniority protocol negotiations to a halt."

Let me ask you this. If after USAPA was elected as our union would USAPA have provided the four points above to the America West ALPA MEC?

In my opinion, USAPA has committed another legal violation, is taking an action in federal court against another court's ruling, and is attempting to violate our contract multiple times to remain relevant and act like a union post SCS.

That's not going to happen and only hurts USAPA's efforts to be a party to the M-B arbitration, if held. How is this hurting USAPA? Just like in LOA 93 discussions each offer got worse-and-worse because of the Hardliner's ridiculous demands.

As APA said, our pending union is not willing to entertain USAPA's Protocol Agreement, Union Merger Transition Agreement, and Global Agreement demands, which I understand. APA has offered USAPA a F&E process, its own MC, its own MC funding, and an autonomous MC post SCS per court documents. That would certainly prevent an APA AA-TWA ALPA scenario as some pilots fear, but, that's not enough for USAPA who wants to control the West throughout the process (in an effort to staple virtually the entire West pilot group to the bottom of the US Airways-America West ISL before M-B) by acting like a union for the next two years post SCS.

So where are we now? We wait for the NMB to declare SCS (where Judge Silver unequivocally held USAPA must cease all SLI work) and judge Howell's ruling.

Finally, what's your opinion of USAPA hiding the 4 bullet points above under the guise of ISL strategy? To me the points have nothing to do with a an ISL strategy and is more about union officials not having to fly the line, FPL, ease of life, and power. What's your take on this?

 

[Pi brat]

Will USAPA's Agenda Hurt the Pilots Again?
 
For those pilots who support USAPA's actions when negotiating with APA I have a few questions for you. How many unions following a SCS determination were:

1. pre SCS obligated by the new union to pay post-single carrier old union bills including costs of its current headquarters?

2. pre SCS were obligated to maintain the old union's independent operation authority throughout the JCBA and SLI process?

3. pre SCS were obligated to pay for ongoing litigation expenses in any subsequent DFR cases for the old union?

4. Pre SCS recognized the old union as a party to the protocol agreement even after the old union ceases to be the certified bargaining representative (contrary to its own position in a case like Addington litigation, the judge's ruling in that case and the specific language of a MOU?

According to APA, "These are not commitments APA is willing to entertain and are what brought seniority protocol negotiations to a halt."

Let me ask you this. If after USAPA was elected as our union would USAPA have provided the four points above to the America West ALPA MEC?

In my opinion, USAPA has committed another legal violation, is taking an action in federal court against another court's ruling, and is attempting to violate our contract multiple times to remain relevant and act like a union post SCS.

That's not going to happen and only hurts USAPA's efforts to be a party to the M-B arbitration, if held. How is this hurting USAPA? Just like in LOA 93 discussions each offer got worse-and-worse because of the Hardliner's ridiculous demands.

As APA said, our pending union is not willing to entertain USAPA's Protocol Agreement, Union Merger Transition Agreement, and Global Agreement demands, which I understand. APA has offered USAPA a F&E process, its own MC, its own MC funding, and an autonomous MC post SCS per court documents. That would certainly prevent an APA AA-TWA ALPA scenario as some pilots fear, but, that's not enough for USAPA who wants to control the West throughout the process (in an effort to staple virtually the entire West pilot group to the bottom of the US Airways-America West ISL before M-B) by acting like a union for the next two years post SCS.

So where are we now? We wait for the NMB to declare SCS (where Judge Silver unequivocally held USAPA must cease all SLI work) and judge Howell's ruling.

Finally, what's your opinion of USAPA hiding the 4 bullet points above under the guise of ISL strategy? To me the points have nothing to do with a an ISL strategy and is more about union officials not having to fly the line, FPL, ease of life, and power. What's your take on this?

Why do pose these as questions? You don't listen to answers.

 

[nevergiveup]

Sit back, have a cigarette if needed. Do not panic. Do not attempt to adjust your set. everting going to b okay! The sun will come out tomorrow! Evverybody.....the sun will....

 

[end_of_alpa]

Supreme Court issues narrow ruling against labor unions
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 10:12 a.m. EDT June 30, 2014

 
The Supreme Court decided an important labor union representation case Monday.
(Photo: Tony Dejak, AP)

192 CONNECT 4 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 18 COMMENTEMAILMORE

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Monday that home-care workers in Illinois do not have to pay dues to public employees unions.
 
The opinion by Justice Samuel Alito was a narrow loss for organized labor. It did not overrule the court's "agency shop" precedent applying to all public employee unions.The challenge to the mandatory union dues, brought by eight home-care workers in Illinois, represented the biggest labor case to come before the court this term -- putting at potential risk the future viability of public employee unions.
 
For decades, the law has allowed unions to collect dues from all private or public employees they are required to represent. Those who object don't have to contribute to political or lobbying activities, but they must chip in for the unions' efforts in fighting for better wages, benefits and working conditions. The home-care workers in Harris v. Quinn served individuals with disabilities through the federal-state Medicaid program. They argued they should not have to pay dues for the state's contract with the Service Employees International Union, even though the union is required to represent them and they benefit from its services.
 
The workers, who were represented in court by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, contended that public employee unions are engaged in lobbying the government, often on issues the workers oppose. That implicates their First Amendment rights because the union speaks for them. The importance of the case to public employee unions wasn't lost on the justices during oral argument in January. A decision against the union "would radically restructure the way workplaces across this country are run," Justice Elena Kagan said then. Justice Antonin Scalia had expressed concern that letting public employees bail out would deprive the unions of funds needed to carry out their legally required duties.Going into Monday, organized labor had been batting .500 at the court this term. The court dismissed a case in December that threatened to strike down labor-management agreements that help unions organize workers in exchange for concessions.
 
In January, the court unanimously denied 800 Indiana steelworkers compensation for the time it takes to put on and take off protective gear
Follow @richardjwolf on Twitter.

192 CONNECT 4 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 18 COMMENTEMAILMORE
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-supreme-court-birth-control-mandate-20140630,0,7311433.story

"Narrow ruling", HA! It looks like mandatory unions dues days are numbered. Already coming to a theatre near us...."Serna v. TWU 3:13-cv-02469-N". More to follow.

 

[Phoenix]

"Narrow ruling", HA! It looks like mandatory unions dues days are numbered. Already coming to a theatre near us...."Serna v. TWU 3:13-cv-02469-N". More to follow.

If Unions have to start performing for the employees rather than dancing with management they are gonna be in a world of hurt. (though I have not read the ruling, from the reports I doubt west pilot should take too much notice.)

 

[traderjake]

"In a decision released Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a case in which US Airways pilots were challenging the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.’s calculation of their benefits."
 
http://www.airlinedaily.com/feeds.html#http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNExJ4cIPORP8HcpFxUZ88KvMAQe8g&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=DKWxU6CTBNHzggeDi4HAAw&url=http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/high-court-denies-us-airways-pilots-request-in-pension-case.html/

 

[767one]

 
That's what you get if you let anyone else drive the Belarussian tractor.  Or, will it chase you down all by itself?

 
 
 
You never know what might happen with "Crazy Ivan". If you read Stephen King's  book Christine you would know what I'm talking about....I never tun my back on Ivan.
 
Bob

 

[767one]

Glad to hear you're OK, I agree with NYC, I was a little worried you had a mishap on the Belarus.

Happy 4th to you as well.

Regards,
Snap, Spartan, Tony, JJ, Dire Wolf, Westicle.

I've lost track.

 
 
Actually I did have a mishap and have been down for maintenance for bit. I made the mistake of allowing myself to have the pneumonia vaccination while on a visit to my doctor for another issue. Two days later I had alternating fevers to 102.5 and chills and shaking so bad I couldn't walk or talk and my arm swelled up from the shoulder to the elbow turning lovely shades of red, blue and purple. It turned out to not be a reaction to the vaccine but an infection at the injection sight. It's getting better with antibiotics. The main thing is to keep it from the knee replacement because that would be a bad bad thing. Can you guess what my answer will be next time they ask if I want any kind of vaccination? 
 
Bob

 

[luvthe9]

"In a decision released Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a case in which US Airways pilots were challenging the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.’s calculation of their benefits."
 
http://www.airlinedaily.com/feeds.html#http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNExJ4cIPORP8HcpFxUZ88KvMAQe8g&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=DKWxU6CTBNHzggeDi4HAAw&url=http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/high-court-denies-us-airways-pilots-request-in-pension-case.html/

Well we are sure your very happy about this, your a real scumbag!

 

[traderjake]

The village idiot rears his ugly head, again.

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
 
Actually I did have a mishap and have been down for maintenance for bit. I made the mistake of allowing myself to have the pneumonia vaccination while on a visit to my doctor for another issue. Two days later I had alternating fevers to 102.5 and chills and shaking so bad I couldn't walk or talk and my arm swelled up from the shoulder to the elbow turning lovely shades of red, blue and purple. It turned out to not be a reaction to the vaccine but an infection at the injection sight. It's getting better with antibiotics. The main thing is to keep it from the knee replacement because that would be a bad bad thing. Can you guess what my answer will be next time they ask if I want any kind of vaccination? 
 
Bob

 
Sounds like you should be more hesitant about any injection than about vaccinations.  Hope you never need blood!

 

[luvthe9]

The village idiot rears his ugly head, again.

We all know it's you and Munn.