AFA labor discussion (Work related)

[VAflyGal]

This cess pool? Cess Pool

i just have to say that i love your screen name. too funny

 

[flybynite]

EKKK! Sorry that screen name makes me cringe.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

EKKK! Sorry that screen name makes me cringe.

If you are west, it should. The east is going to be taking west hostages.

 

[Move2CLT]

If you are west, it should. The east is going to be taking west hostages.

How so?

 

[HPearlyretiree]

This is just the opinion of D.Volpe. This is not the opinion of the AFA as a whole.

Being on USAPA's side is a pretty stupid place to be lately.....

What part of "Binding" don't you all get?

 

[Harry Callahan]

Being on USAPA's side is a pretty stupid place to be lately.....

What part of "Binding" don't you all get?

You're retired wtf you know about this

 

[SparrowHawk]

Being on USAPA's side is a pretty stupid place to be lately.....

What part of "Binding" don't you all get?

The judge is going to rule shortly. Me? I'm waiting for the judges ruling. I will agree that based on what's presented here it doesn't look like a great time to be in USAPA. Been seeing signs of some squirming amongst the die hards, so we shall see.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

You're retired wtf you know about this

I know what binding means, I've worked labor relations before. And, I am not retired, just retired from the airline biz, still active in the workforce, probably got another 25 years of management in me.

But, answer the question, "What part of binding, don't you get?"

 

[SparrowHawk]

I know what binding means, I've worked labor relations before. And, I am not retired, just retired from the airline biz, still active in the workforce, probably got another 25 years of management in me.

But, answer the question, "What part of binding, don't you get?"

The problem I have with your argument is that there is no fairness or binding in life. Ask the 108 people who got the boot end of May from my former employer who were all over 50 and in order to get their severance package had to agree not to sue the company. Fair? Smacks of coercion to me not to mention a host of other violations.

You make a moral argument and as shown in my example there are no morals in business otherwise the dead weight would have been fired instead of the oldest with the highest salaries.

I get your point, hell I actually agree with it as the rule of law should always prevail. Fact is that in modern business morals have no place, just performance metrics. The shareholders demand it and the CEO and management team had best provide it. Trust me if the US shareholders thought that Ben Baldanza would provide them with a better ROI, Ben would be CEO and Doug would be packing his personal effects before the ink was dry on Ben's contract.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

The problem I have with your argument is that there is no fairness or binding in life. Ask the 108 people who got the boot end of May from my former employer who were all over 50 and in order to get their severance package had to agree not to sue the company. Fair? Smacks of coercion to me not to mention a host of other violations.

You make a moral argument and as shown in my example there are no morals in business otherwise the dead weight would have been fired instead of the oldest with the highest salaries.

I get your point, hell I actually agree with it as the rule of law should always prevail. Fact is that in modern business morals have no place, just performance metrics. The shareholders demand it and the CEO and management team had best provide it. Trust me if the US shareholders thought that Ben Baldanza would provide them with a better ROI, Ben would be CEO and Doug would be packing his personal effects before the ink was dry on Ben's contract.

You can't be for the rule of law then be against it. Contracts mean what they say, and when you agree, you agree. Its binding, throw out all the other hyperbolic crap about evil corporations, and all the bias you have against Doug.

Three parties signed on to Binding Arbitration, they agreed to live with the results. You can't claim after the fact that you don't agree, its like making a bet in poker, but then taking it back because you didn't get the card you wanted.

Strip away all the other baloney, when you sign a contract, you live up to that contract, plain and simple. No equivocation, no dancing around the issue, no skirting, no cognitive dissonance.

Sign a contract, live up to it, its quite simple. Only scoundrels renege on what they agree to.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Only scoundrels renege on what they agree to.

I think that was my point. Scoundrel reside in nearly every office in America and apparently Japan as well since I worked for a Japanese company.

See binding is only binding when the judge tells you it is, not when 2 parties agree that it is. Even though we fight like cats and dogs you and I could do business on a handshake. Why? Integrity, values etc etc. I don't have to like you to do business with you. I just have to trust you.

Seriously, go look in the mirror and you'll see a dinosaur. I see one everyday, a great big ugly one at that. Words like Honor, integrity, trust, credibility are nothing more than a cruel punchline to the scoundrels who run things. Look at the POTUS, next time he honors a promise will be the first and this is what our young people see as role models.

Sorry if I was unclear on my prior post. Hope this clarifies.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

I think that was my point. Scoundrel reside in nearly every office in America and apparently Japan as well since I worked for a Japanese company.

See binding is only binding when the judge tells you it is, not when 2 parties agree that it is. Even though we fight like cats and dogs you and I could do business on a handshake. Why? Integrity, values etc etc. I don't have to like you to do business with you. I just have to trust you.

Seriously, go look in the mirror and you'll see a dinosaur. I see one everyday, a great big ugly one at that. Words like Honor, integrity, trust, credibility are nothing more than a cruel punchline to the scoundrels who run things. Look at the POTUS, next time he honors a promise will be the first and this is what our young people see as role models.

Sorry if I was unclear on my prior post. Hope this clarifies.

Again, drop the subjective hyperbole and all that crap.

Binding means binding, you sign a binding contract and say you will agree to the outcome, then you do it. You don't form another union to escape what you have agreed to.

Don't care about the POTUS, don't care about any other crap.

Focus.

The issue is, did 3 sides agree to binding arbitration? Yes. Did one side attempt to not live by which they agreed to? Yes.

You make a legally binding agreement to do something, you live up to it.

 

[Move2CLT]

I think that was my point. Scoundrel reside in nearly every office in America and apparently Japan as well since I worked for a Japanese company.

See binding is only binding when the judge tells you it is, not when 2 parties agree that it is. Even though we fight like cats and dogs you and I could do business on a handshake. Why? Integrity, values etc etc. I don't have to like you to do business with you. I just have to trust you.

Seriously, go look in the mirror and you'll see a dinosaur. I see one everyday, a great big ugly one at that. Words like Honor, integrity, trust, credibility are nothing more than a cruel punchline to the scoundrels who run things. Look at the POTUS, next time he honors a promise will be the first and this is what our young people see as role models.

Sorry if I was unclear on my prior post. Hope this clarifies.

So, according to you, a contract is no good if one party is unethical? Why do you think we have s court system. Your posts don't make any sense! It's like your posting just to post.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Again, drop the subjective hyperbole and all that crap.

Binding means binding, you sign a binding contract and say you will agree to the outcome, then you do it. You don't form another union to escape what you have agreed to.

Don't care about the POTUS, don't care about any other crap.

Focus.

The issue is, did 3 sides agree to binding arbitration? Yes. Did one side attempt to not live by which they agreed to? Yes.

You make a legally binding agreement to do something, you live up to it.

The various laws beg to differ with you. I don't and you can't live on Fantasy Island with this stuff. The harsh, stark reality is that if you don't like a decision you hire a lawyer. That's the way this country works.. I was raised that if you made a deal you lived with it and apparently you were as well. Clearly Cleary and others were not thus this seemingly endless barrage of venom, vitriol & legal fees.

Supposedly a Marriage contract is also a legal binding contract between two parties of sound mind. Over 50% of these binding contracts are broken. It's basic contract law. Plus our culture is one of me me me first, last and always.

With one side feeling it wasn't treated fairly did you really expect them to go to their membership and say "A deal is a deal"? They'd be swimming with the fishes. Look at the history. The so called leaders had an axe to grind with ALPA so they laid the groundwork for a new independent union (USAPA). They know they possess a majority ad can ram through a lot of what they want. Typical bullies. Trouble is they're bound to binding arbitration with an arbitrator they approved. One with a pretty good track record I might add. So USAPA comes to fruition and the Nic award goes horribly wrong (Might have the chronology wrong) in their eyes now what are they supposed to do? They promised the world on a Silver platter and delivered a bucket of manure with a blue ribbon tied around it.

Do you really think that those at the top give a hoot in Hades about pilot #4879 on the seniority list and his/her well being? They don't! never did. This is and was IMO about gaining a sweetheart deal for themselves at the expense of the members from the East & West. Nice office, full pay, prestige amongst peers. No way their egos allow them to piss that away so they sued using members money to fund their actions. Think about it! Really what else could they do? It's naive to think they would just accept the award when doing so would have cost them their cushy jobs and FPL, not to mention the other trappings of power.

Now here we are with umpteen court cases, acrimony out the ying yang and not one pilot has seen a dime more in income and is now potentially exposed to a potential damage award and subsequent assessment.

I grew up in a world where a deal was a deal and sadly it's not that way now. You're dead bang right, however that and $5.00 will get you a Latte at Starbucks.

 

[john john]

You can't be for the rule of law then be against it. Contracts mean what they say, and when you agree, you agree. Its binding, throw out all the other hyperbolic crap about evil corporations, and all the bias you have against Doug.

Three parties signed on to Binding Arbitration, they agreed to live with the results. You can't claim after the fact that you don't agree, its like making a bet in poker, but then taking it back because you didn't get the card you wanted.

Strip away all the other baloney, when you sign a contract, you live up to that contract, plain and simple. No equivocation, no dancing around the issue, no skirting, no cognitive dissonance.

Sign a contract, live up to it, its quite simple. Only scoundrels renege on what they agree to.

What happen to some of the Binding Arbitration awards in the union’s contacts of the past at US that don’t exist now?