ALPA Thread 12/30 to 1/6--ALL ALPA/USAPA discussed here

[pilot]

http://usairlinepilots.org/fences.htm

USAPA position on the seniority issues we face. Hopefully it will help the West figure out some things. It is precisely the position ALPA stood by until the selfishness and lack of union unity crept into the process.

 

[Elevation]

There is no "figuring", There is only the Nic Decision.

 

[Richard]

The topic here is related to labor and specifically the ALPA/USAPA issue, therefore we will make this the ALPA/USAPA thread for the new week.

As a reminder, only moderators can start new labor threads--PLEASE remember that, and post all items like this in the existing threads.

Thank you.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Really? I didn't know that either.

So you are saying part of the ALPA merger policy states that in the event a seniority dispute goes to arbitration, and the arbitrator has issued a decision, there is still the requirement of membership ratification before it becomes binding? Could you post that part of the merger policy? (Or if I misunderstood you, could you please clarify?)

I am learning so much today!




That is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read on USAviation.

I had better make room for Nostradamus now. I am sensing he suddenly had the urge to cut and paste something irrelevant into this thread.

Ah, Bear96. I was wondering when your intelligent and sage "legal" advice was going to enter, "All hail the return of the prodigal "jurist"! All hail Bear, who will you quote today? It is called the "transition agreement", your Majesty, but that is not important nor really relevent to you now, is it? How much legal "citation" can the para-legal provide today or is she just too tired to do her homework. Tell me, how is your AWA pilot boyfriend fairing these days or can't he speak for himself without your "input"???

You and I have been through this before, so therefore I have no additional need to rehash your unintelligent and illogical legal positions.

Tell me....what VESTED interest to you really have on this forum, if you really do not have a dog in this fight? I will debate you personally ANYTIME...except you can be seen for what you are...hiding behind the trapesties of a forum that generally is sadly wasted by the likes of "your" kind....devoid of facts without verification. I'll bet you haven't even been to the USAPA website? I'll tell you what...if you could make ONE iota of intelligent discussion regarding the cases and documents on THAT website...I would be MORE than happy to engage you in "delightful" banter.

By the way, I think that the AWA pilots can take up their own mantra quite succinctly without your "learned" hand. If this should not be the case, however, then I pity the West for having someone like you take up their cause.

No matter, you should attempt to pass the bar for the umpteenth time before you even claim you know anything about law. Say, maybe that lawyer you work for could help you with some of these posts. I'm sure your cousin "Vinny" would even grant you legal license to allow you to use the company letterhead and you could even get "him" to weight in on your "expert" opinion. NO?

Good luck with that! For what it's worth (and I know that from me it will apparently be NOTHING) there is no message from this point forward that you carry credibility with anyone here. You would do well with a course of unionism 101 as well, along with a few episodes of Judge Judy thrown in for good measure.

I'll tell you what Bear96....we'll just watch the events play out and let the chips fall where they may. Shall we???

I am looking forward to your "playful" retort!! GET READY EVERYONE....IT OUGHT TO BE A DOOZY!

 

[EastUS]

Ah, Bear96. I was wondering when your intelligent and sage "legal" advice was going to enter, "All hail the return of the prodigal "jurist"! All hail Bear, who will you quote today? It is called the "transition agreement", your Majesty, but that is not important nor really relevent to you now, is it? How much legal "citation" can the para-legal provide today or is she just too tired to do her homework. Tell me, how is your AWA pilot boyfriend fairing these days or can't he speak for himself without your "input"???

I am looking forward to your "playful" retort!! GET READY EVERYONE....IT OUGHT TO BE A DOOZY!

Elevation: "There is no "figuring", There is only the Nic Decision."

I'm seeing a consistently "logical" pattern of "fact-based" presentations in west responses/sales pitches/etc that recalls the late John Belushi's great speech opener in Animal House = "Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?...NOOoooo!!!"..."The Germans?".."Forget it...he's rolling" 😉 Emotions are high. Events will unfold regardless.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Bear 96 said:

I didn't know this, and I thought I knew labor law pretty well.

Could you please point me to "the LAW" which states a successor union is not bound by the agreements of its predecessor?

Thanks in advance.

The Nicolau "award" is the position ALPA has taken to simply "finalize" section 22 Seniority as far as they are concerned. Section 22 is simply what laymen called "tentatively agreed to". If the majority does not vote for an agreement with the award, it is not part of the CB agreement. Not that you would know, but here is MY legal support.

John McIlvenna said that, whom I quote:

"...., I would like to focus on the presentation of the list and what that means.

First of all, I would caution anyone who thinks this is the end of the road. In fact, it means very little, other than the completion of an administrative hurdle. Management cannot use or implement the Nicolau Award until BOTH MECs AND PILOT GROUPS RATIFY a joint agreement that contains the terms and conditions on how to implement the award and significant economic gains in many other areas.

As you will recall, almost all the administrative sections in the JNC process have been TA’d for well over a year. There are a few open issues in the operational and administrative sections, which our negotiators believe can be completed fairly quickly. That leaves scope, pay rates, and retirement contributions, which based on all the work already done, we think can also be completed in a fairly quick manner."

http://www.concernedpilots.org/DesktopModu...&Tabid=2912

Once a seniority system is in place, many employees come to think of their position in the pecking order as a form of property. Higher seniority means more desirable assignments and greater security of employment. Preventing jolts to these expectations is an objective the legal system shares with the parties. Yet seniority does not "belong" to an employee, any more than he "owns" the prospect of receiving a given wage next year or flying the St. Louis-Paris route rather than the leg from Minneapolis to Duluth. Seniority is a creation of collective bargaining agreements and equivalent contracts between unions and employers. When these expire, employers are free to use other criteria, such as merit, to assign jobs and decide who will be let go in hard times. Like wages and fringe benefits, seniority is a legitimate subject of discussion and compromise in collective bargaining.

"A rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger, treating service at either firm as of equal weight, without quotas or other preferences for either group of employees, serves the interests of labor as a whole. Seniority lists sometimes are endtailed. That is, the employees of the smaller firm are given seniority only from the date of the acquisition, effectively added at the end of the larger firm's seniority roster. Contentions that endtailing violates the union's duty have been unsuccessful."

http://usairlinepilots.org/Seham_seniority...tion_issues.htm

There....I showed you mine...you show me yours!! BRING IT ON, WOMAN! Your talk is CHEAP!

 

[Phoenix]

QUOTE (end_of_alpa @ Dec 30 2007, 12:30 PM)
Let me say this ONE MORE TIME....the list becomes part of a CBA IF, AND ONLY IF, THE MAJORITY OF PILOTS VOTE FOR IT UNDER ALPA.

QUOTE: Bear

Really? I didn't know that either.

So you are saying part of the ALPA merger policy states that in the event a seniority dispute goes to arbitration, and the arbitrator has issued a decision, there is still the requirement of membership ratification before it becomes binding? Could you post that part of the merger policy? (Or if I misunderstood you, could you please clarify?)

A signature of authority means everything (notwithstanding the little regard many have for it).

Recently ALPA National gave USAPA and all of us an excellent example (an object lesson you might say) of what an authoritative signature (especially the absence of it) means. The AAA MEC filed (signed) a grievance on behalf of all the AAA pilots when PIT was closed. The facts are simple. The company violated some of their obligations to the pilots. The AAA MEC rightfully acknowledged the rules or issues that were obviously violations, therefore wrote out the issues as a grievance, and signed the list of grievances. However, since ALPA National must sign all grievances to be delivered to the company then the AAA MEC had to seek the authoritative signature of ALPA National in order to have the grievance legally addressed.

ALPA National then chose to do the most beautiful thing they could have ever done. They refused to sign the grievance. That is their prerogative! They are the authoritative Collective Bargaining Agent. Does the grievance still exist as signed by the AAA MEC? Yes! Have the facts of the case changed? No! Are there still issues to be resolved? Technically the issues have not changed but legally there exist no grievances on the matter because ALPA National simply chose not to sign the list of grievances. Only certain individuals have authority to sign grievances within the CBA and they decide which issues are a grievance and which are not. Anyone that doesn't like it can run for office or attempt to sue.

ALPA has attested that the Nic list will be included in a future joint contract as the authoritative list of seniority. Good for them. USAPA is not obligated to sign on to ALPA's self-imposed obligations concerning a portion of the next contract. If USAPA becomes the CBA then it will be their obligation to sign whatever the majority votes on.

Nic will live on in infamy.. with ALPA's signature on it.. a testament to their legal stand of what the seniority must be for the next ALPA contract at USAir.. ever lacking an authoritative signature to give it life within a USAPA contract.

John should be proud of his students. I know they are grateful to him for the lesson.

 

[end_of_alpa]

A signature of authority means everything (notwithstanding the little regard many have for it).

Recently ALPA National gave USAPA and all of us an excellent example (an object lesson you might say) of what an authoritative signature (especially the absence of it) means. The AAA MEC filed (signed) a grievance on behalf of all the AAA pilots when PIT was closed. The facts are simple. The company violated some of their obligations to the pilots. The AAA MEC rightfully acknowledged the rules or issues that were obviously violations, therefore wrote out the issues as a grievance, and signed the list of grievances. However, since ALPA National must sign all grievances to be delivered to the company then the AAA MEC had to seek the authoritative signature of ALPA National in order to have the grievance legally addressed.

ALPA National then chose to do the most beautiful thing they could have ever done. They refused to sign the grievance. That is their prerogative! They are the authoritative Collective Bargaining Agent. Does the grievance still exist as signed by the AAA MEC? Yes! Have the facts of the case changed? No! Are there still issues to be resolved? Technically the issues have not changed but legally there exist no grievances on the matter because ALPA National simply chose not to sign the list of grievances. Only certain individuals have authority to sign grievances within the CBA and they decide which issues are a grievance and which are not. Anyone that doesn't like it can run for office or attempt to sue.

ALPA has attested that the Nic list will be included in a future joint contract as the authoritative list of seniority. Good for them. USAPA is not obligated to sign on to ALPA's self-imposed obligations concerning a portion of the next contract. If USAPA becomes the CBA then it will be their obligation to sign whatever the majority votes on.

Nic will live on in infamy.. with ALPA's signature on it.. a testament to their legal stand of what the seniority must be for the next ALPA contract at USAir.. ever lacking an authoritative signature to give it life within a USAPA contract.

John should be proud of his students. I know they are grateful to him for the lesson.

This is EXACTLY correct.

 

[Bear96]

There....I showed you mine...you show me yours!! BRING IT ON, WOMAN! Your talk is CHEAP!

Sorry, but you were not responsive to the question.

Let's review.

You said USAPA, a successor union (assuming it wins the election), would not have to honor the agreements of ALPA, its predecessor, because "that is the LAW."

I asked you for the authority which states a successor union does not have to honor the agreements of its predecessor.

Your response does not address that issue.

 

[Bear96]

Tell me....what VESTED interest to you really have on this forum, if you really do not have a dog in this fight?

I am not sure what you mean by "vested" interest, but (1) I suspect I do not have a "vested" interest in this issue based on your definition (as I have explained before, my interest in the topic is more academic and professional rather than personal), and (2) one does not need a "vested" interest based on your definition to be able to post here. So I will continue to post on the topic when the mood strikes me. Don't you have a East-pilot-only private forum / echo chamber where you can preach to the choir and mutually masturbate each other with how right you are and how wrong the rest of the world is?

I will debate you personally ANYTIME...

Well, I tried to start a debate by asking you to justify your assertion that a successor union is not obligated to follow the agreements of its predecessor. (Remember, you are the one who said "that is the LAW!") But you disappointed me with your non-response, so I take it you are not much of a debater.

except you can be seen for what you are...hiding behind the trapesties of a forum[. . .]

This is funny, coming from someone posting anonymously as "end_of_alpa." But I suspect you don't see the irony or hypocrisy in your statement since you are so blinded by self-righteousness and groupthink.

No matter, you should attempt to pass the bar for the umpteenth time before you even claim you know anything about law.

Funny, I have taken bar exams in multiple states and never failed any of them. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. How many bar exams have you taken, and what were the results?

I'll tell you what Bear96....we'll just watch the events play out and let the chips fall where they may. Shall we???

Does this mean you won't be posting any more on the topic?

 

[Elevation]

Weather 6 months from now or 6 years from now the Nic decision will be the end result. You think you can change that by getting a new contract by using USAPA? The company would have to agree to disregarding a legally arbitrated decision or agree to long fences both of which they won't do, so USAPA's wish is DOA. Oh, and the transition agreement would still be in effect all that goes with it. In the end, the East will sit there with stagnation (due to change in age 60) making joke money with lame work rules until LOA93 becomes amendable, see you in 2009.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I am not sure what you mean by "vested" interest, but (1) I suspect I do not have a "vested" interest in this issue based on your definition (as I have explained before, my interest in the topic is more academic and professional rather than personal), and (2) one does not need a "vested" interest based on your definition to be able to post here. So I will continue to post on the topic when the mood strikes me. Don't you have a East-pilot-only private forum / echo chamber where you can preach to the choir and mutually masturbate each other with how right you are and how wrong the rest of the world is?




Well, I tried to start a debate by asking you to justify your assertion that a successor union is not obligated to follow the agreements of its predecessor. (Remember, you are the one who said "that is the LAW!") But you disappointed me with your non-response, so I take it you are not much of a debater.




This is funny, coming from someone posting anonymously as "end_of_alpa." But I suspect you don't see the irony or hypocrisy in your statement since you are so blinded by self-righteousness and groupthink.




Funny, I have taken bar exams in multiple states and never failed any of them. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. How many bar exams have you taken, and what were the results?




Does this mean you won't be posting any more on the topic?

Vested meaning as in "Law Settled, fixed, or absolute; being without contingency: a vested right." or alternatively "To place (authority, property, or rights, for example) in the control of a person or group, especially to give someone an immediate right to present or future possession or enjoyment of...)

The point here is MOTIVE!!! You're NOT an impartial observer as research USUALLY entails...you WANT something!

I KNOW YOUR TYPE...I"VE SEEN IT BEFORE IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION (if you can truly PROVE that you ARE in the legal profession.)

Woman, you are DANGEROUS! Not in your physical form...but from the trappings of LAW you so eagarly claim you have but conversely so niggardly revealed only to shroud your REAL PURPOSE!

So you said "my interest in the topic is more academic and professional rather than personal." Does this count as "credit" towards your continuing legal education or are we just "guinea pigs" in your research? Who pays YOU on the forum? Wouldn't you say you learn more by "practicing" labor law (and getting paid) rather than spending your time arguing and debating with someone that continues to kick your "toukas" with legal citation and the best you can come up with is (edited)? How trite "coming" from a "learned scholar" such as yourself! Where did you learn THAT word, law school or was it part of your 30 hours of yearly continuing legal education required by state law? Oh, I seem to remember that you have somehow confused "labor" law with being in "labor". I suspect you're having a tough time with that, considering your "subliminal" and childish (or childless) comment.

Are you aware that "unorganized" labor organizations do NOT require lawyers to argue before the bar in Federal Court? Oh, sorry, they didn't teach you that in lawyer school did they? Practicing RLA before the FEDERAL bench for the labor organization doesn't generally require a lawyer because the FEDS don't license the legal profession...only the states do. (Of course I would NEVER advocate arguing RLA law before the Feds without the appropriate legal counsel...of which you are obviously not nor ever WILL be.) Therefore you should go hawk your wares elsewhere. I do NOT recommend you place on your resume that you debate the "uninitiated" minions on this forum...like myself.

You just might get a JOB! NOT!! Oh, and then you would have to do some REAL legal work like keyciting and filing briefs. Oh, that's right...you don't know what that is! I don't see ANY of your material! What's the matter, your lawyer friends cut off your research time from Lexis? I SEEM to keep posting CITATIONS and Briefs but somehow you continue to OVERLOOK THEM! That may be because you focus too much on your legal definition of "mas-----te". (Class...lady you have real CLASS!!!)

So..you've "taken the bar exam" in multiple states and never failed any of them. Which ones? When? Oh, don't tell me you wish to HIDE your "professional" status. If you ARE a true professional and legal jurist...how about your business card so we can refer you?

So you took the bar...in which states?

Have you been admitted to practice before the bar and if so, in which state or states? Pro Hac DOESN'T COUNT!

Maybe the REAL question I should be asking is when were you disbarred?

You haven't YET addressed MY previous LEGAL citations from the prior post.

Masturbate? The best you can come up with? I'm still in stitches LAUGHING!!!

Try THIS one:

trite –adjective, trit·er, trit·est.

1. lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale: the trite phrases in her forum post.

2. characterized by hackneyed expressions, ideas, etc.: Her forum post was trite and endlessly lacking in any substantive information.

3. Archaic. rubbed or worn by use. Her archaic and trite comment. Refer to your newly learned word for the day from above.

Now that's FUNNY right thar'!!

 

[EastUS]

Does this mean you won't be posting any more on the topic?

Layman's observation: Not one single word within you're "I'm great" blithering in that had the slightest thing to do with advancing or defending your position or views on "the topic", much less provided any legal insight. You've earlier stated that you're "neutral" and would continue to pretend to be merely academically amused, but you let a continual stream of absurdities from the west go without the tiniest of "legal" conversational challenges ever. Evidently they're all equally well established and knowledgable attorneys out there......

I think it best that the east keep our own "counsel".

Elevation: "Weather 6 months from now or 6 years from now the Nic decision will be the end result." That's "whether" btw, and I'll merely ask what wagers you're offering...? You're postings reflect emotional notions and little else imho. You're forwarding assumptions that have no basis in reality. Aw heck..I'll just go with your "weather";..What's it going to be like a month from today?...Six months?....Six years?.

 

[pilot]

Weather 6 months from now or 6 years from now the Nic decision will be the end result. You think you can change that by getting a new contract by using USAPA? The company would have to agree to disregarding a legally arbitrated decision or agree to long fences both of which they won't do, so USAPA's wish is DOA. Oh, and the transition agreement would still be in effect all that goes with it. In the end, the East will sit there with stagnation (due to change in age 60) making joke money with lame work rules until LOA93 becomes amendable, see you in 2009.

That's pretty amazing. Knowing what the company won't do.

Frankly, we don't give a rats ass what the company won't or will do. 2009? No problemo Shorty.

But if you're selling those crystal balls that give you such insight why don't you send some to Herndon. So they can figure out which pilot group is next in pulling out of ALPA.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Weather 6 months from now or 6 years from now the Nic decision will be the end result. You think you can change that by getting a new contract by using USAPA? The company would have to agree to disregarding a legally arbitrated decision or agree to long fences both of which they won't do, so USAPA's wish is DOA. Oh, and the transition agreement would still be in effect all that goes with it. In the end, the East will sit there with stagnation (due to change in age 60) making joke money with lame work rules until LOA93 becomes amendable, see you in 2009.

You need to go sidle up with Bear96. Between the two of you, you can then make your OWN laws!!!

This comment..again...has NO LEGAL BASIS! Your opinion only. Maybe YOU can come up with some legal citations. You seem to stand more of a chance of producing something than Bear96.

Maybe you two should get together and smoke something illegal... two "wrongs" just might make a "right" in your cases!