ALPA Thread 1/18-1/25 ALL ALPA Discussed Here

[EastUS]

Tsk, tsk. You know that the letter head of ALPA and the ACPC has ALPA = Nicolau on top.

It's sadly amusing really, but part and parcel of the predictable Alpa campaign = "You NEED us..ummm...and you "need" our Nic too naturally..and..umm...errr...well..You're law firm stinks!, just trust us on that!..We'll be back with more compelling reasons for you to throw your seniority and not us away as soon as we can come up with some fresh stuff..untill then? Your law firm stinks! is the best we can try....We're not really too sure if the great "reasons" (ie: It's DESPERATE...we Just did it all for you!!) we blatantly lied to you about when you weren't allowed by us to vote on the pension obliteration, or the same flavor of BS will sell regarding the Nic....BUT..It's all for "your own good...just trust us"...and; We really want you to like us...or at least be really, really scared of dumping our sorry arses"

"The ACPC will explore the wrongs listed in LaVoy's letter and pose similar questions over the next few weeks" Wow!...I can hardly wait 😉...Yawn. Think of it.."the next few weeks"...on flight pay loss, eating fine meals in nice hotels, whilst others fly in their place..and this tripe's the best they can generate? 😉 I'm impressed.

 

[Phoenix]

It's sadly amusing really, but part and parcel of the predictable Alpa campaign = "You NEED us..ummm...and you "need" our Nic too naturally..and..umm...errr...well..You're law firm stinks!, just trust us on that!..We'll be back with more compelling reasons for you to throw your seniority and not us away as soon as we can come up with some fresh stuff..untill then? Your law firm stinks! is the best we can try....We're not really too sure if the great "reasons" we blatantly lied to you about when you weren't allowed by us to vote on the pension obliteration, or the same flavor of BS will sell this time....BUT..It's all for "your own good...just trust us"...and; We really, really want you to like us...or at least be really scared of dumping our sorry arses"

Hear, hear! Same old flavor of rubber dog$h!TT (RDS) I used to fly out of Hong Kong. No imagination those ALPA experts... ironic that the ALPA experts (their law firm perhaps?) Can't even come up with a different flavor or color for the RDS.

Seham stinks? OK! suppose we accept that ALPA assessment as a baseline standard... then what do tell dear pratlers, is your assessment of the ALPA law firms that have demonstrated their skill to speed us on our trip to this Pax ALPANA... these halcyon days? Indeed their record speaks volumes...

Oh, wait... would a real union blame their advisers, or would they man up?

 

[luvn737s]

So less information about the people behind the union you support is better? OK. Can any assessment of USAPA stand on its own, or must it always be compared to ALPA?

You've driven the ALPA-mobile for many years, and for many years it gave you dependable service. Then, due to neglect, it broke down and left you stranded. Now you're standing by the side of the road kicking it for letting you down. So you decide to take any replacement vehicle that comes along, without bothering to research it, inspect it or test drive it. Folks have told you that you can fix the ALPA-mobile, but you'd rather have something new. The folks pushing you into this new YUGO-SAPA are promising breathtaking performance and economy, if they can get it started. Many folks with no vested interest in either vehicle have tried to warn you of the cheap parts inside or the lack of support after the sale. But you are tired of the ALPA-mobile and you have nothing left to lose since you've begun ripping parts out of the old ALPA-mobile and quietly give them to the YUGO-SAPA people to help them get their prototype running and validate your faith in them. But they're more idea men than mechanics, so they've screwed that up too.

Need a lift?

 

[N924PS]

So less information about the people behind the union you support is better? OK. Can any assessment of USAPA stand on its own, or must it always be compared to ALPA?

You've driven the ALPA-mobile for many years, and for many years it gave you dependable service. Then, due to neglect, it broke down and left you stranded. Now you're standing by the side of the road kicking it for letting you down. So you decide to take any replacement vehicle that comes along, without bothering to research it, inspect it or test drive it. Folks have told you that you can fix the ALPA-mobile, but you'd rather have something new. The folks pushing you into this new YUGO-SAPA are promising breathtaking performance and economy, if they can get it started. Many folks with no vested interest in either vehicle have tried to warn you of the cheap parts inside or the lack of support after the sale. But you are tired of the ALPA-mobile and you have nothing left to lose since you've begun ripping parts out of the old ALPA-mobile and quietly give them to the YUGO-SAPA people to help them get their prototype running and validate your faith in them. But they're more idea men than mechanics, so they've screwed that up too.

Need a lift?

Great post!

 

[EastUS]

So less information about the people behind the union you support is better? OK. Can any assessment of USAPA stand on its own, or must it always be compared to ALPA?

You've driven the ALPA-mobile for many years, and for many years it gave you dependable service.

"dependable service"?? :blink: :blink: In WHAT way? The Alpo-mobile's always been:

1) Too expensive...ask anyone that endured the "B" Scale, and/or huge pay cuts/hugely increased medical expenses/etc.
2) Utterly unreliable. There I was riding along in the Alpo cab..we hit a bump, and Wham!...out fell the transmission/pension assembly right into the dirt. They hitched some jackazzes up to drag it further..and "Wham!..next little bump, and there went any concept of seniority.
3) The only similarity between Alpo and an antique, and now useless "vehicle"..is that the worn out Alpo Association model was initially designed decently for it's time, and years thereafter only "painted" and styled to look like a "Union"

"Need a lift?" I'd rather walk if need be. I trust standing on my own feet..Thanks though

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

Heard some USAPA card sharks were at the CLT training center stumping away this week - and that they were shown the door.

Too funny to see the desperate acts going on, since not enough legitimate cards were sent in.

Reminds me of a Journey song: "When the lights go out in the city.........."

 

[Benz M-100]

Amazing how much can happen here during a commute.

flyinawa asked:

Yeah, here's a question. What if Jet Blue would have bailed out your sinking boat?

"What ifs" are are irrelevent. The only thing that is relevent is what is possible in THIS sutuation at THIS time. Speculating about that which didn't happen is a waste of time.

prechill later asked:

USAPA's #1 goal is to rewrite the seniority list through a collective bargaining agreement. So how can you say their legal stance on seniority is irrelevant to a collective bargaining agreement?

Waaaaaayyyyy back on the first page, a post was made stating that ALPA was planning another AD HOC negotiating session. I simply stated my skepticism about the likelyhood of any kind of deal actually coming from THIS (the APLA 10 day lockdown) process. USAPA's legal stance will not affect THIS negotiation. Two entirely different things. Ultimately it really doesn't matter if a tentative deal is negotiated by ALPA or any other entity...If it includes Nic in its present form it stands NO chance of being voted in by the east pilots.

usabusdriver added:

I want you to think from the perspective of the west pilot. The westies want a contract, but there is no value in the current contract proposal for them, so why would they want to dismantle the NIC? Catch 22, east pilots need to negotiate with the company for a contract TA that has value for the wesites before they will negotiate "conditions and restrictions" on the NIC.

Ist alles klar?

A vexing problem to be sure. Unfortunately, the west doesn't appreciate how much value the east puts on senoirity. So far all I've heard is that the west will never, under any circumstances, consider conditions/restrictions to the Nic. If this information is not accurate, there may be a slim chance of getting something done. But just to be clear (klar), you could offer a 300% hourly raise and you'd STILL have a very slim chance of an east ratification if Nic's part of the deal. Seniority is THAT important to us. We've seen raises and other contract provisions come and go far too easily.

...and finally another tidbit from prechill:

I find it mind boggling a USAP like Benz100 could even flap his mouth about "getting a fair contract" when his version of "fair contract" is stapling the America West pilots. And this coming from a guy that has probably spent more years furloughed than actually wearing a uniform. Unbelievable- but not too surprising.

I never flapped about getting "a fair contract". I simply stated that any proposed contract that has an unaltered Nic as part of it WON'T pass muster with the east rank and file, and used my situation as an example. Nor did I state what "my version" of a fair contract was. However, I did state what it WASN'T! Furthermore, I never said that west pilots should be stapled. And this came from a guy who has never been furloughed and has been fortunate enough to have been a line holder for about 90% of my 20+ years here. Oh yeah, plus almost 3 years wearing a commuter uniform prior to all that. Lessee, that's 23 years in this business. That enough for ya? And by USAir standards, I'm a young'n!
Cheers

You (plural) may now resume the regularly scheduled legal wrangling.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Here is the fact pattern from Trailmobile v. Whirls, an NLRB controlling case before the Supreme Court of the US where seniority WAS reordered to what the majority in the union wanted.

You may want to read that one again......and maybe review what Whirls argued that the Selective Service Act entitled him to vs what the court ruled. You'll find it is a very narrow case revolving how long a WWII veteran received special employee benefits under the SSA.

Jim

 

[dariencc]

Welcome back USA320.

Ditto!
This was one of the biggest travesties we have ever seen on this property.


To review company standards:

Vent on a web board. Bad.
Get pulled over leaving a company function, refuse breathalyzer, get third career DUI. No problema. :down:

 

[end_of_alpa]

Heard some USAPA card sharks were at the CLT training center stumping away this week - and that they were shown the door.

Too funny to see the desperate acts going on, since not enough legitimate cards were sent in.

Reminds me of a Journey song: "When the lights go out in the city.........."

You really don't know what you are talking about. It was discovered that when the cards were put in the SPECIALLY MADE BOX FOR AN HISTORIC EVENT, the tops of some or many of the downloadable cards were inadvertantly "trimmed" off to fit the conformity of the printed cards, which the box was designed to accomodate.

The downloadable cards were considerably larger so when they were put in the box alphabetically they got mixed in with the pre-printed cards which made them difficult for sorting.

THE CARDS WERE LEGITIMATE, THEY SIMPLY HAD SOME OF THE STATEMENT TRIMMED OFF THE TOP. AN UNFORTUNATE CLERICAL ERROR WITH NO ILL INTENT OR MALICE. THAT IS ALL.

NO SIGNATURES WERE FORGED AND NO CARD WAS FILLED OUT BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON ASKED TO FILL THEM OUT!

The problem with this board is that they don't allow personal attacks, but they DO allow flat out libel and slander to profusely proliferate in the ALPA board forum. (See the 5050 discussion)

Let the elections begin.

 

[end_of_alpa]

You may want to read that one again......and maybe review what Whirls argued that the Selective Service Act entitled him to vs what the court ruled. You'll find it is a very narrow case revolving how long a WWII veteran received special employee benefits under the SSA.

Jim

You are correct, but the purpose of the case is to demonstrate that "narrowness" went against Mr. Whirls, who tried to recover his seniority back THROUGH the Selective Service Act after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against him and his group (minority). This case is a "sister" case to Fishgold. Fishgold showed how the SSA was to be applied and Whirls was the exception.

If Whirls had succeeded in the Supreme Court, they couldn't just apply "super seniority" to Whirls and not to the other "non-military" employees in the same affected minority class. They would have had to overturn the Ohio Supreme Court ruling and "rejigger" the list back to the way the minority wanted it to be before the union change. That is why the dissenting opinion is so revealing.

The point, in any case, is that this is just ONE case where the "seniority" was changed back to what the majority thought it should be with the change in a CB agent. That is the essential point.

In any case, were going to find out the answer to this here very soon anyway. Thanks for making the effort to read the case Jim. REFRESHING, for a change!!

 

[end_of_alpa]

USAPA's law firm:

Through a series of articles in the coming weeks, the ACPC will introduce you to Seham, Seham, Meltz, & Petersen, LLP, the law firm that USAPA has hired for legal advice and counsel. This series will outline the firm's track record to help you make an informed business decision as to whether its selection as counsel is a reason to choose USAPA as your collective bargaining agent. We'll lay it out for you—from the firm's areas of expertise to its experience representing both management and independent unions—so that you can decide.

USAPA Legal Representation

On its USAPA Legal Representation web page, USAPA asserts:

"We have selected the law firm of Seham, Seham, Meltz and Petersen to represent us. This is the same firm that represented the American pilots in their successful bid to break away from ALPA and form their own independent union, the APA."

The web page also lists the résumé of Lee Seham, the lead attorney for USAPA, and his deceased father, Martin Seham, to further establish the firm's credibility.

While it is true that Martin "Marty" Seham represented the American pilots when they established the Allied Pilots Association (APA) back in 1963, and Lee Seham later served as general counsel, neither the Sehams nor their firm has represented APA since Nov. 11, 1992. Quite the opposite: The Seham firm is now counsel to a group of pilots who, like USAPA, are attempting to displace the APA as the collective bargaining representative of their carrier's pilots.

Over 15 years ago, then APA President Richard LaVoy sent a letter to his membership detailing the many factors that went into replacing the Seham firm as general counsel.

In that letter, LaVoy wrote:

"Most importantly, I have a moral, philosophical and practical disagreement in the manner in which the Seham firm has chosen to conduct it's [its] law practice. From my point of view, it is unwise and not in the best interest of APA's pilots to continue it's [its] relationship with a law firm that has amassed such a record."

The letter went on to say that the Seham firm usually represents management in disputes between employers and employees and has a long history of what can only be considered anti-union and anti-employee activities.

"It is just common sense that Ralph Nader will not work for General Motors and Frank Lorenzo will not work for unions," LaVoy wrote. "While management and pilots both want a strong, secure and prosperous company, they can differ on how those goals should be achieved."

As if that weren't enough, the letter went on to state:

"The lawyer's standard permitted Seham to represent management in proceedings which attempted to dismantle the union representing El Al's U.S. employees, and permitted him to represent SAS when it went to court to stop Eastern's unions from picketing the airline in an attempt to get SAS to stop sending tens of millions in aid to Frank Lorenzo during the strike. At the same time our General Counsel was assisting Lorenzo's financial backers, APA's pilots were contributing over $200,000 to Eastern's pilots to help stave off Lorenzo. These are not hypothetical examples, but actual cases where Seham represented management against unionized employees!"

In an attachment that supports his letter, APA described in further detail how Seham represented both management and scabs in numerous legal proceedings in the federal courts and in administrative proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board.

As bad as this short overview may sound, it is just the beginning. The ACPC will explore the wrongs listed in LaVoy's letter and pose similar questions over the next few weeks, because we believe that the best business decisions are made when all the facts are on the table. Stay tuned for more information on Seham, Seham, Meltz, & Petersen, LLP. You can also read the entire series, as it rolls out, on the ACPC website.

This letter is a "classic" example of a red herring. ALPA retains inhouse legal counsel JUST LIKE MAJOR CORPORATIONS! When they need outside legal, they overwhelmingly go to Cohen, Weiss and Simon. A law firm who SPECIALIZES in labor law for labor unions only. With ALPA's deep pockets, they keep CWS on their books. Without ALPA, CWS would most likely be representing other clients on BOTH sides of the aisle.

APA had a conflict of interest with "old man" Seham in 1992. They had a conflict of interest with ALPA in 1962, 30 years prior! SO WHAT!

The inference here is tht SSM is anti-labor. SSM is not the cause of labors woes any more than CWS is. The cause is the structure of RLA unions as a "service" industry in relation to each other. As long as labor unions in-directly compete against each other in relationships to their employer...this battle will only get worst with future mergers. The unions success or failure is tied to the success or failure of their respective companies.

Pattern bargaining is a tactic Behneke agonized over when ALPA first started and that is what he chose. In a regulated environment after the CAA was passed in 1938 pattern bargaining may have worked just OK (it had limited success, some advances and some setbacks...American pilots withdraw from ALPA was one when Ruby refused to sign their contract over three vs. four man crews, F/E or pilot).

In todays current "non-regulated" environment (if you could really call it that) a strike now to improve wages and benefits among the broad "craft or class" of pilots (or any other craft or class, for that matter) could only work IF and ONLY IF, ALL PILOTS STRUCK TOGETHER, which would thereby PREVENT economic windfalls from occurring in favor of ANY airline. So in reality...being a part of ALPA is in conflict with each labor unions competitive interest with their own company.

And where is that getting us today?

 

[prechilill]

Besides, you said "To date, there is not a single example in the history of jurisprudence that has allowed an entity to accomplish what usapa says is possible." This case PROVES exactly that there IS a case out there where the SUPREME decisions made by the agent CAN be reversed with a change in that agent. I'm looking forward to the promise of lost MILLIONS USAPA will pay when you sue us. In fact, I'll give you $200 to sue us. If you win, keep it. If you lose, pay me back $500. Such a sure bet, HUH?

No matter how many cases I come up with you'll STILL argue with me. Same point with you is a broken record.

The Whirl case has little relevance, if any, to the USAPA case.


Hypothetically, if you were successful in rearranging a seniority list an inconsistency you (and I say that in the plural context) continue to ignore are the Shuttle pilots. Granted, it is a small group of pilots affected and you (again, plural) have shown an inclination for mob rule as your union template, but this small detail seems to be consistently glossed over by the ardent USAPA supporters on how they will be affected by USAPA.

 

[end_of_alpa]

The Whirl case has little relevance, if any, to the USAPA case.


Hypothetically, if you were successful in rearranging a seniority list an inconsistency you (and I say that in the plural context) continue to ignore are the Shuttle pilots. Granted, it is a small group of pilots affected and you (again, plural) have shown an inclination for mob rule as your union template, but this small detail seems to be consistently glossed over by the ardent USAPA supporters on how they will be affected by USAPA.

The Whirls case doesn't, the FACT part does! NLRA usually equals state, RLA Federal...BOTH are unions, whether state OR federal. Focus on the FACT pattern, NOT the ruling. This decision came out twenty years BEFORE the Supreme court defined the "duty of fair representation" standards outlined in Vaca v. Sipes. It is important to look at the fact pattern ONLY! It is TRUE that this is a Selective Service issue regarding seniorty but the point here is, if is was ONLY a SSA issue, why recall the fact pattern from the Ohio State Supreme Court. This case would, in essence, be an example of dictum in it's entirety. But lets not get distracted from the purpose.

The contract between Trailmobile and the CIO was ultimately not changed and that IS a fact.

This has nothing to do with the "Shuttle" pilots. Where talking US Airways/AWA at the snapshot time of their merger.

Period. They will NOT be affected with what they CURRENTLY HAVE!

Look, lets just wait for the election and find out. It's coming because I just got a call from the Wilson poll. I asked them if my answers were the same or different than everyone elses. They said OVERWHELMINGLY the same (I'm assuming their only polling East guys).

WERE HAVING AN ELECTION AND MOST LIKELY USAPA IS GOING TO GET TO BE THE CBA.

Attorney letters, lawsuits, scare tactics,"scorched earth", ACPC, US Aviation forums and all this other stuff doesn't affect the EDUCATED decisions they'll be making in the election. The East pilots decisions are our desire based on FACTS, your decision is fear based on the UNKNOWN! And that, sir, is the crux of the matter.

 

[Bear96]

Do you/any out west have any negotiable movement to suggest from Nic?

I think the "negotiable" part was tried for a couple of years. Unfortunately, East refused to budge from an unrealistic position, so the agreed-upon solution to the impasse was the Nicolau arbitration.