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

[Bear96]

You got it right. USAPA is not party to the "Transition Agreement".

Oh dear. Still having trouble with that pesky "a successor union is bound by the agreements of its predecessor" concept of Labor Law 101, I see.

Or have you found authority which states otherwise?

 

[CactusFlyr]

Seeing as the east refuses to abide by the TA, I propose this: 1) lawsuit against usapa- now, 2) open a new base within a base at say CLT, PHL, etc. they could be CTL and PLH. Release all the east pilots as west pilots come in and take-over capacity, I would just love the new bases. Sorry for the personal attack but you guys don't listen to reason. Time to cut the losses.

 

[end_of_alpa]

As poor as your writing skills are, I think I see what you are trying to say. However, you consistently seem to "forget" the fact that East indeed agreed to be bound to the arbitrated seniority list. That agreement happened pre-arbitration. Otherwise the arbitrator would not have had jurisdiction over the dispute in the first place, which even USAPA is not arguing (to my knowledge).




As usual, NO. I am saying the Nicolau list is binding on later CB agents, period. Not because "the current CB agent utilizes an 'in union' arbitrative process." But because that is the seniority list (or at least will be, once a few more technical details are completed), arrived at in a valid manner. You are saying that Nic disappears and USAPA can ignore Nic right off the bat? How should the seniority list be structured the day USAPA is voted in (assuming it is voted in)? Why DOH? Why not alphabetically? Why not by birth date? By skin tone, darkest -> lightest (or vice versa)?

Now, try something for me - listen. I am going to repeat something I have said before, but which you may have missed because you have identified me as "anti-East" and "biased" and thus think everything I say is an attempt to screw the East position: I have never said USAPA cannot attempt to change the seniority list IN THE FUTURE. I have consistently stated the opposite. I can distinctly remember, relatively recently, stating in response to a poster who said something to the effect that seniority cannot be negotiated, that indeed seniority CAN be negotiated. I know you may find this hard to believe, because in your black/white good/bad world I am the devil. Maybe this point has gotten lost in your vitriol and bile. I disagree with those who are saying that once USAPA is elected, *POOF* Nic automatically disappears.




I am not sure what cutting and pasting cases from a legal research database will do to enlighten you. But OK, if that is your idea of fun, I'll let you be the first one to brief: Brief Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947). I won't bother taking up space posting the whole case.






I can think of few things in this world that matter less to me than whether you believe I am an attorney or not.

Hey Folks...I was right! Bear96 skirts the issue and ducks the challenge! Instead, she supplies a case, which I will post here shortly, that...as far as I can tell...has no bearing on our present situation except maybe to prove she can find SOME case law! But I'll let you, the learned jury, be the judge and see if you can read "her" case and explain it's pertinence to OUR situation.

Back to you, Bear (I'm having a lot of fun now!!!!)

The "East" MEC (the political subentity of ALPA) did agree to be bound by the arbitrators list....under ALPA. Only ALPA negotiating members (the JNC, East and West MEC) can negotiate.

The ONLY "jurisdiction" as you call it, is ALPA merger policy. Not "federal", not "state", not NMB, not FAA (Federal Arbitration Act)...ALPA. In short, as long as ALPA submits and supports the award...yes, I agree with you.

Ah, so NOW we have a RETRACTION! You said "I have never said USAPA cannot attempt to change the seniority list IN THE FUTURE."

But you just said in the prior sentence that "I am saying the Nicolau list is binding on later CB agents, period."

So, am I to conclude that USAPA can always TRY to negotiate a CB agreement, but every section EXCEPT Section 22 Seniority is renegotiable? Are saying that Section 22 is settled forever? Are you saying that the majority vote is "bound" by the minority wishes?

The "last" case I posted, in its entirety, proved you otherwise. (Don't worry, everyone else here can read.)

So is the "future" you contemplate AFTER a new CB agreement if USAPA negotiates it? Do we have to vote down a CB agreement that ALPA proposes first? If the "award" is changed, even in the slightest..it's no longer the Nicolau award now is it. What you seem to allude to is on the one hand USAPA can negotiate anything EXCEPT seniority if they are voted in. I will agree with you if you say USAPA can negotiate seniority JUST LIKE ALPA. What I will NOT agree with you is "final and binding" because, again, let me repeat it...seniority is a function of negotiation and therefore in collective bargaining; ANY SECTION subject to revision. That ma'am, has ALWAYS been the law. It's not for me OR you to decide (nor the courts, for that matter). I'll repeat it again..the majority ultimately decides.

What form of seniority that takes place if USAPA gets voted in I can NOT say for sure because...and listen carefully here..I am simply one of over 5000+ pilots. It's not up to me to decide individually...it's whether my vote matches the MAJORITY and that will decide the matter. And if the majority decides Nicolau, than I am bound to that agreement with Nicolau in it JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS. NO?

However, as far as "poof" Nicolau doesn't disappear. It is simply a "list" that USAPA does not have to apply. ALPA is bound to it, not USAPA. It's not a matter of "disappearance"..it is a matter of applicablity. And that is between the company and the CURRENT CB Agent which, at this time, is ALPA. Nicolau applies IF and WHEN ALPA proposes a CB agreement and the majority ratifies it. NO?

Now, about Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947). If you can explain to me the reason this case is pertinent to our present discussion regarding the applicability to seniority in our present situation, I would be happy to. Before I do, however, I need your "professional" guidance. What can I derive from this case that we can apply to support either side of OUR situation? (I don't expect to get an answer here either.)

 

[end_of_alpa]

I am not sure what cutting and pasting cases from a legal research database will do to enlighten you. But OK, if that is your idea of fun, I'll let you be the first one to brief: Brief Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947). I won't bother taking up space posting the whole case.



I can think of few things in this world that matter less to me than whether you believe I am an attorney or not.

Your right! I don't. I'm satified that I was able to expose you for the HACK you really are. Reread my prior posts on YOU! Now about that case you wanted but were afraid to post. (Personally, I think you grabbed something you thought LOOKED like a case that "looked" important and pertinent...however, you have to READ IT past the NAME before you can brief it or cite it.)

HELP ME OUT, JURY! Can anyone here explain to me what THIS case has to do with the issues before us here?

Bueller....Bueller....Anyone......Bueller?


U.S. Supreme Court
WALLING v. PORTLAND TERMINAL CO., 330 U.S. 148 (1947)
330 U.S. 148

WALLING, Adm'r, Wage & Hour Div., U.S. Department of Labor,
v.
PORTLAND TERMINAL CO.
No. 336.

Argued Jan. 17, 1947.
Decided Feb. 17, 1947.


[330 U.S. 148, 149] Mr. William S. Tyson of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. E. Spencer Miller, of Portland, Mc., for respondent.


Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action brought by petitioner against respondent in a Federal District Court to enjoin an alleged violation of 15(a)(2) and 15(a)(5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Stat. 1060, 1068, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., 215(a)(2), (5), 29 U.S.C.A. 201 et seq., 215(a)(2, 5), which requires as to the employees covered by the Act the maintenance of records concerning their wages and the payment to them of minimum wages. The District Court denied the injunction on the ground that the articular persons involved were not employees, 61 F.Supp. 345, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on the same ground, one judge dissenting. 1 Cir., 155 F.2d 215. See also Walling v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 768. Certiorari was granted because of the importance of the questions involved to the administration of the Act. 329 U.S. 696 , 67 S.Ct. 85. The findings of fact by the District Court, approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals, and not challenged here, show:

For many years the respondent railroad has given a course of practical training to prospective yard brakemen. This training is a necessary requisite to entrusting them with the important work brakemen must do. An applicant for such jobs is never accepted until he has had this preliminary training, the average length of which is seven or eight days. If accepted for the training course, an applicant is turned over to a yard crew for instruction. Under this supervision, he first learns the routine activities by observation, and is then gradually permitted to do actual work under close scrutiny. His activities do [330 U.S. 148, 150] not displace any of the regular employees, who do most of the work themselves, and must stand immediately by to supervise whatever the trainees do. The applicant's work does not expedite the company business, but may, and sometimes does, actually impede and retard it. If these trainees complete their course of instruction satisfactorily and are certified as competent, their names are included in a list from which the company can draw when their services are needed. Unless they complete the training and are certified as competent, they are not placed on the list. Those who are certified and not immediately put to work constitute a pool of qualified workmen available to the railroad when needed. Trainees received no pay or allowance of any kind prior to October 1, 1943. At that time, however, the respondent and the collective bargaining agent, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, agreed that, for the war period, men who proved their competency and were thereafter listed as accepted and available for work as brakemen, should be given a retroactive allowance of $ 4 per day for their training period. The findings do not indicate that the railroad ever undertook to pay, or the trainees ever expected to receive, any remuneration for the training period other than the contingent allowance.

The Fair Labor Standards Act fixes the minimum wage that employers must pay all employees who work in activities covered by the Act. There is no question but that these trainees do work in the kind of activities covered by the Act. Consequently, if they are employees within the Act's meaning, their employment is governed by the minimum wage provisions. But in determining who are 'employees' under the Act, common law meployee categories or employer-employee classifications under other statutes are not of controlling significance. See N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111, 128 , 129 S., 64 S.Ct. 851, 859. This Act contains its own definitions, comprehensive enough to require its application to many persons and working rela- [330 U.S. 148, 151] tionships, which prior to this Act, were not deemed to fall within an employer-employee category. See United States v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 362 , 363 S., 65 S.Ct. 295, 296.

Without doubt the Act covers trainees, beginners, apprentices, or learners if they are employed to work for an employer for compensation. This is shown by s 14 of the Act which empowers the Administrator to grant special certificates for the employment of learners, apprentices and handicapped persons at less than the general minimum wage. 1 The language of this section and its legislative history reveal its purpose. Many persons suffer from such physical handicaps, and many others have so little experience in particular vocations that they are unable to get and hold jobs at standard wages. Consequently, to impose a minimum wage as to them might deprive them of all opportunity to secure work, thereby defeating one of the Act's purposes, which was to increase opportunities for gainful employment. On the other hand, to have written a blanket exemption of all of them from the Act's provisions might have left open a way for wholesale evasions. Flexibility of wage rates for them was therefore provided under the safeguard of administrative permits. This section plainly means that employers who hire beginners, learners, or handicapped persons, [330 U.S. 148, 152] expressly or impliedly agree to pay them compensation, must pay them the prescribed minimum wage, unless a permit not to pay such minimum has been obtained from the Administrator. On the other hand, the section carries no implication that all instructors must either get a permit or pay minimum wages to all learners; the section only relates to learners who are in 'employment.' And the meaning of that term is found in other sections of the Act.

Section 3(g) of the Act defines 'employ' as including 'to suffer or permit to work' and 3(e) defines 'employee' as 'any individual employed by an employer.' The definition 'suffer or permit to work' was obviously not intended to stamp all persons as employees who, without any express or implied compensation agreement, might work for their own advantage on the premises of another. Otherwise, all students would be employees of the school or college they attended, and as such entitled to receive minimum wages. So also, such a construction would sweep under the Act each person who, without promise or expectation of compensation, but solely for his personal purpose or pleasure, worked in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit. But there is no indication from the legislation now before us that Congress intended to outlaw such relationships as these. The Act's purpose as to wages was to insure that every person whose employment contemplated compensation should not be compelled to sell his services for less than the prescribed minimum wage. The definitions of 'employ' and 'employee' are broad enough to accomplish this. But, broad as they are, they cannot be interpreted so as to make a person whose work serves only his own interest an employee of another person who gives him aid and instruction. Had these trainees taken courses in railroading in a public or private vocational school, wholly [330 U.S. 148, 153] disassociated from the railroad, it could not reasonably be suggested that they were employees of the school within the meaning of the Act. Nor could they, in that situation, have been considered as employees of the railroad merely because the school's graduates would constitute a labor pool from which the railroad could later draw its employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not intended to penalize railroads for providing, free of charge, the same kind of instruction at a place and in a manner which would most greatly benefit the trainees.

Accepting the unchallenged findings here that the railroads receive no 'immediate advantage' from any work done by the trainees, we hold that they are not employees within the Act's meaning. We have not ignored the argu ent that such a holding may open up a way for evasion of the law. But there are neither findings nor charges here that these arrangements were either conceived or carried out in such a way as to violate either the letter or the spirit of the minimum wage law. We therefore have no case before us in which an employer has evasively accepted the services of beginners at pay less than the legal minimum without having obtained permits from the administrator. It will be time enough to pass upon such evasions when it is contended that they have occurred.

AFFIRMED.


Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, concurring.

In this case, as well as in the companion case, Walling & Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis R., 330 U.S. 158 , 67 S.Ct. 644, No. 335, we have a judgment of two courts based on findings with ample evidence to warrant such findings. It was solely on this ground that I agreed to affirmance in Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local, 321 U.S. 590 , 64 S.Ct. 698, 152 A.L.R. 1014, and on this basis alone I think the judgments in both these cases, Nos. 335 and 336, should be affirmed. [330 U.S. 148, 154]

Mr. Justice JACKSON, concurring.

I, too, would affirm this judgment. But my reason is not that stated in the Court's opinion.

I have never understood that the Fair Labor Standards Act was intended or fitted to regulate labor relations, except to substitute its own minimum wage rate for any that was substandard and an overtime rate for hours above the number it set. It, of course, like other statutes, can and should be applied to strike down sham and artifice invented to evade its commands.

But the complex labor relations of this country, which vary from locality to locality, from industry to industry, and perhaps even from unit to unit of the same industry, were left to be regulated by collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 151 et seq. It would be easy to demonstrate from the Act's legislative history that such was the intention of Congress and that it had good grounds to believe this the tenor of the legislation. Organized employees on one side, free of employer domination or coercion, and employers on the other side best know the needs and customs of their trades; they know something of the strain their industry can stand; and after all, it is they who feel the effects. Given thus the machinery to change customs that had outlived their time or, in the alternative, to adjust wage rates to take account of those customs, it was, I think, our duty to pay at least some deference to the customs and contracts of an industry and not to apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to put industry and labor in a legal strait jacket of our own design.

From the beginning it was apparent that there were but two ways of giving real force and meaning to this Act without throwing all industry and labor into strife and litigation. One was to give decisiveness and integrity in borderline cases to collective bargaining. Cf. J. I. Case Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 332 , 64 S.Ct. 576; Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342 , 64 S.Ct. 582. [330 U.S. 148, 155] The other was to give strength and where possible decisiveness in doubtful cases to the studied rulings of the Administrator, as the Court also at moments seemed inclined to do. Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 , 65 S. Ct. 165; Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 , 65 S.Ct. 161. Both of these considerations as bases for decision were thrown to the four winds in Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local No. 6167, United Mine Workers, 325 U.S. 161 , 65 S.Ct. 1063

This Court has foreclosed every means by which any claim, however dubious, under this statute or under the Court's elastic and somewhat unpredictable interpretations of it, can safely or finally be settled, except by litigation to final judgment. We have held the individual employee incompetent to compromise or release any part of whatever claim h may have. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697 , 65 S.Ct. 895; cf. D. A. Schulte, Inc., v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108 , 66 S.Ct. 925. Then we refused to follow the terms of agreements collectively bargained. Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local No. 6167, United Mine Workers, 325 U.S. 161 , 65 S.Ct. 1063. No kind of agreement between the parties in interest settling borderline cases in a way satisfactory to themselves, however fairly arrived at, is today worth the paper it is written on. Interminable litigation, stimulated by a contingent reward to attorneys, is necessitated by the present state of the Court's decisions.

In the view that the judicial function should pay some deference to findings of fact as to customs of industry in applying this Act, I favored affirmance of the award to miners in the case of Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 , 64 S.Ct. 698, 152 A.L.R. 1014, because two lower courts had made findings of fact that under the contracts and conditions in those particular iron mines the employees were entitled to have counted as working time certain periods spent in travel. The judgment was supported, too, by the rulings of the Administrator. Those reasons were rejected by a majority of the Court which went on to lay down rules of decision which take no account of contract or custom. [330 U.S. 148, 156] Then came the case of Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local No. 6167, United Mine Workers, 325 U.S. 161 , 65 S.Ct. 1063, in which the relationships were fixed by a deep rooted custom in the industry of which both parties took account and embodied in collective bargaining agreements and which was reflected in the Administrator's rulings made at the request of the very union that was repudiating them. But a majority of the Court again rejected the contention that this Act was not intended to interfere with long-established customs which entered into collective wage agreements, and it reaffirmed a flat declaration as follows:

'But in any event it is immaterial that there may have been a prior custom or contract not to consider certain work within the compass of the workweek or not to compensate employees for certain portions of their work. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not designed to codify or perpetuate those customs and contracts which allow an employer to claim all of an employee's time while compensating him for only a part of it. Congress intended, instead, to achieve a uniform national policy of guaranteeing compensation for all work or employment engaged in by employees covered by the Act. Any custom or contract falling short of that basic policy, like an agreement to pay less than the minimum wage requirements, cannot be utilized to deprive employees of their statutory rights.' 325 U.S. at page 167, 65 S.Ct. at page 1066; Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 602 , 64 S.Ct. 698, 705, 152 A.L.R. 1014.
The same doctrine was then pressed into other fields of industry by the decision in Anderson v. Mount Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 , 66 S. Ct. 1187, which declared certain time spent on the premises of the Pottery Company must be compensated 'regardless of contrary custom or contract.' 66 S.Ct. 1194. [330 U.S. 148, 157] The Court evidently stands upon and reiterates the basic doctrine that the Act is one to regulate industry labor relations, for it says: 'This Act contains its own definitions, comprehensive enough to require its application to many persons and working relationships, which prior to this Act, were not deemed to fall within an employer-employee category.' 1


The claimants now before us ask to participate in the judicial largess. They believe that they are entitled to be paid for the time that they spent on the railroad's premises, under the railroad's direction, performing railroad labor, in order to learn to qualify for railroad jobs when the railroad might need them. The Court does not even attempt to distinguish the foregoing cases on which their claim is based.

This case again requires us to make a choice between grounds of decision similar to the choice that was open to us in the cited cases and I think it is timely for the Court to reconsider its approach to cases under this Act. We may purport to find grounds for denying these claims in an interpretation of the Act, although Congress never intended to regulate the subject at all. Or we can use as valid ground for denying these claims the concurrent findings by two lower courts of a good faith understanding of the parties, following a long-established custom of an industry whose labor relations have long been subject to collective bargaining. I concur only on the latter ground.

Footnotes
[ Footnote 1 ] 'The Administrator to the extent necessary in order to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulations or by orders provide for (1) the employment of learners, of apprentices, and of messengers employed exclusively in delivering letters and messages, under special certificates issued pursuant to regulations of the Administrator, at such wages lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 6 and subject to such limitations as to time, number, proportion, and length of service as the Administrator shall prescribe ....' 14(1) Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Stat. 1060, 1068, 29 U.S.C. 214(1), 29 U.S.C.A. 214( 1). See also 13(a)(7). 14(2) provides that handicapped persons may be employed at less than minimum wages where the Administrator permits. 52 Stat. 1060, 1068, 29 U.S.C. 214(2), 29 U.S.C.A. 214(2).


[ Footnote 1 ] I did not understand when I concurred in United States v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360 , 65 S.Ct. 295, that it so held. It applied the Act to piecework employees. Piecework employment is a well- known form of employment that has existed perhaps as long as employment at a fixed hourly or daily wage. I understood, and still understand, the Rosenwasser case to hold only that this form of employment is not excluded from the terms of the Act.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer Copyright © 1994-2007 FindLaw

 

[Bear96]

Now, about Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947). If you can explain to me the reason this case is pertinent to our present discussion regarding the applicability to seniority in our present situation, I would be happy to. Before I do, however, I need your "professional" guidance. What can I derive from this case that we can apply to support either side of OUR situation? (I don't expect to get an answer here either.)

Nothing, as far as I can tell. (But it is gratifying to know I can control you so easily and make you waste your time looking up and reading a case that has nothing to do with anything. Really, they let people fly with an emotional state as fragile as yours?)

Now, explain the reason the Selective Training and Service Act is pertinent to our present discussion.

 

[AWA320]

Exactly WHAT and WHO'S "grand scheme of things" are you supporting here?...An even better limo for Prater?....

I am not speaking on the compensation packages for the president and vice presidents. Most of the time they and their families are not from DC however they have to be there and DC is expensive. I don't know about a limo but I do know that they get an auto allowance.

If one actually looks at the figures; it's observable that an in-house union would indeed be very capable of providing for the issues you've addressed via dues from it's own membership. Examine just how little of your dues money actually goes to serving any purpose within the pilot group under Alpo. Alpo's medical's a contracted service btw, and is available without Alpo. As for grievance issues? Note the folllowing from an above post regarding Alpo's "selective" help with such: "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.

Because ALPA takes charge of them, sure you have a committee and a chairman to address these but you also have the resources of attorneys as well! We in the west could never ever support an organization whose sole purpose is to do an end run around an arbitration that they fully agreed to and supported throughout the entire process. We could never ever pay dues to such an orginazation as our duty would be to first bring suit. The atty BTW as already been selected and hired. Now in the mean time the company big wigs have already set themselves up with golden parachutes in anticipation of theses actions which will no doubt plunge this carrier back into bankruptcy. No LOL there as it's no longer a funny matter, we are all going to be unemployed soon YOU TOO!!!

ALPA National then chose to do the most beautiful thing they could have ever done. They refused to sign the grievance."

Which grievance are you refering to?

Just maybe, perhaps/etc...it'd be of greater benefit to have actual representation for our pilots, rather than be held hostage to Alpoid agendas?..and their "grand scheme of things"?

And if your sole purpose wasn't what it was then maybe it would have stood a chance however the entire world sees it for what it really is, and end run to something you fully agreed to. Now given your past how could you ever expect trust and buy in from us? You can't!! Law suits and more loses are in our combined future with the ultimate ending being bankruptcy, furlough then ch7 end of usair for good!!

"I may not like alpa" Yeah...right...ummm..when did this happen? 😉 AWA320 11 OCT: "Don't decertify ALPA" in huge font, and was attatched to some typically "cute" theme song....which anyone can click on your "name" here and see. You further evince child-like wonder, or at least implied faith in Alpo's presumed "grand scheme of things".....Keep shoveling away. The Alpo BS's not really expected to reach critical mass for awhile yet.

If you paid attention you would have noticed that I have always said that alpa is the lessor of two evils. I am willing to take my chances with alpa over a startup again whose sole mission is to end run and agreed upon arbitration process. This is all really unnecessary now as law suits and BK are in our future yet you fail to read the signs. I give it one year before fate is made right...

 

[sharktooth]

And your point is again??? We all know how much ALPA takes in and how much it spends. We can further debate and maybe even agree that many expenses are unnecessary. Maybe to you and I they are but in the grand scheme of things they may not be!! I know for a fact that if I get into to trouble with the FAA ALPA will be there and has the resources to protect me, can USAPA make that claim? I know for a fact if I have a medical issues ( I have before) and need help getting back to work ALPA has the resources in place (ALPA medical) to help me. Does usapa have that?? I know for a fact that if I have a grievence ALPA has the resources in place to aid me with that, does usapa have those same resources?? Last year alone on the east you had in excess of 1000 of them and they cost mega dollars, does usapa have the money to fight them?? ALPA does.

I may not like alpa but when it comes to resources that I need I trust ALPA over a startup that will be in law suits for years to come.

Glad you brought a major misunderstanding on your part up.

For instance, ALPA medical is actually a group of medical personnel that contract with ALPA for services. They are not beholden to ALPA and can (and will) contract with anyone willing to pay - a hazard associated with out-sourcing.

I know for a fact that several of the (ALPA?) experts at two of the other "services" would be willing to "privatize" their services.

So, if the USAPA pilots want their services, they will have full access to them. There is, for all intents and purposes, no exclusivity exercised on the part of ALPA for those services.

Bury that canard right here.

 

[sharktooth]

[quote name='EastUS' post='557024' date='Dec 30 2007, 11:01 PM'][quote name='luvn737s' date='Dec 30 2007, 11:48 PM' post='557022'
Seriously though, he cites McIlvennas letter which calls the submission of the nic list was an administrative hurdle. That's true in the context of the transition agreement and ALPA merger policy. However, if U-SAPs feels it can disregard the binding arbitration, then why should they be bound by the transition agreement and ALPA policy, the only two things that tie the list to a mutually agreed upon CBA? Is U-SAPs in the unique position to pick and choose which agreements it wants to be bound by?[/quote]


Any agreement in accordance with USAPA Constitution and Bylaws is subject to adoption. Present agreements will continue until renegotiated, or, in the case of a merger agreement, until negotiated and approved by the membership.

Not complicated at all.

 

[AWA320]

Glad you brought a major misunderstanding on your part up.

For instance, ALPA medical is actually a group of medical personnel that contract with ALPA for services. They are not beholden to ALPA and can (and will) contract with anyone willing to pay - a hazard associated with out-sourcing.

I know for a fact that several of the (ALPA?) experts at two of the other "services" would be willing to "privatize" their services.

So, if the USAPA pilots want their services, they will have full access to them. There is, for all intents and purposes, no exclusivity exercised on the part of ALPA for those services.

Bury that canard right here.

I never said anything at all about these experts being unwilling to offer their services what I did say is can usapa afford it!!! 1800 west members will not honor or pay usapa dues regardless of being in bad standing with usapa. Most of us will cross any picket line you try to erect in order to finally get your contract. This is the bad blood that the east along with usapa have set in motion. Next we will see p jumpseats denied pilots missing trips to and from work and for what? I am embarrased to even wear the usair Id! When jumpseat on other carriers I proudly tell them AmericaWest and I'm informed how they view the east and their childish antics. This will all be over soon and usair will finally be no more. Thanks for destroying all.

 

[P51Pilot]

I never said anything at all about these experts being unwilling to offer their services what I did say is can usapa afford it!!! 1800 west members will not honor or pay usapa dues regardless of being in bad standing with usapa. Most of us will cross any picket line you try to erect in order to finally get your contract. This is the bad blood that the east along with usapa have set in motion. Next we will see p jumpseats denied pilots missing trips to and from work and for what? I am embarrased to even wear the usair Id! When jumpseat on other carriers I proudly tell them AmericaWest and I'm informed how they view the east and their childish antics. This will all be over soon and usair will finally be no more. Thanks for destroying all.

1800 non payers/strike breakers vs 3200 non payers/strike breakers. hmmm............ pick your poison, i guess.

 

[AWA320]

1800 non payers/strike breakers vs 3200 non payers/strike breakers. hmmm............ pick your poison, i guess.

Bad scene isn't it?? Solution, chapter 7 liquidation and we all go our seperate ways... Fate finally correcting what it should have done in 05 usair gone for good. Good luck in the new year...

 

[end_of_alpa]

I never said anything at all about these experts being unwilling to offer their services what I did say is can usapa afford it!!! 1800 west members will not honor or pay usapa dues regardless of being in bad standing with usapa. Most of us will cross any picket line you try to erect in order to finally get your contract. This is the bad blood that the east along with usapa have set in motion. Next we will see p jumpseats denied pilots missing trips to and from work and for what? I am embarrased to even wear the usair Id! When jumpseat on other carriers I proudly tell them AmericaWest and I'm informed how they view the east and their childish antics. This will all be over soon and usair will finally be no more. Thanks for destroying all.

Don't you worry, now...USAPA can and will afford it.

Don't pay agency shop fees and see where that gets you. If you don't think you'll get terminated..think again.

Scab labor?? Don't worry...I guess this is why we'll need to hire new blood on the East, I suppose. The company would LOVE to pay new hire wages to 1,800 new pilots. What a great way to save money next year.

Blame USAPA?? We travel too! That's not what WE'RE hearing from the other carriers! Maybe ALPA carriers???... then that wouldn't surprize me.

US Airways...still posting sizeable profits, by the way!

By the way, you got it backwards. It's the EAST pilots standing up that started in HERNDON back in MAY and USAPA was set in motion.

USAPA didn't form the 3,100+, FYI.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

 

[end_of_alpa]

If you paid attention you would have noticed that I have always said that alpa is the lessor of two evils. I am willing to take my chances with alpa over a startup again whose sole mission is to end run and agreed upon arbitration process. This is all really unnecessary now as law suits and BK are in our future yet you fail to read the signs. I give it one year before fate is made right...

I'll take your wager? Care to bet?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Nothing, as far as I can tell. (But it is gratifying to know I can control you so easily and make you waste your time looking up and reading a case that has nothing to do with anything. Really, they let people fly with an emotional state as fragile as yours?)

Now, explain the reason the Selective Training and Service Act is pertinent to our present discussion.

Thanks for the "Girl who cries wolf" story. Proves my point. Don't fret, it took me little time to brief that case.

Fragile emotional state??? Are you a shrink now? Where did you attend school or did you...oh, I know...you learned FIRST HAND by attending a local mental health facility in your area! Right up your alley. Lady, I can trade barbs with you until the cows come home and STILL brief case law at the same time.

No matter, I will answer this question soon because I just got back from running.

However, while I was running and thinking about this, it dawned on me who you are! You are an ALPA shill, Lady! You either work for ALPA/AFL-CIO as a para-legal (and a poor one at that) of some kind or you are a "hired" gun (too bad you can't hit the broad side of a barn!). Your job is to pulse the forums and glean information. You are a "deceptive" little minxx that probably gets paid by the "piecework". This could be the ONLY reason that someone, like you, who "seems" to pull case law (and a stupid yet revealing trick regarding this "Walling v Portland Terminal Co." it was, by the way) out of thin air, does "research" here. And evidently your back door "polling" data will reveal what the Wilson poll already does. ALPA is in severe trouble at US Airways. So go back to ALPA and report THAT!

I can think of no PLAUSABLE reason why anyone of your "caliber" would want to jump on this forum and spend your time getting your "toukass" kicked by me everytime you post your illogical and inane riposts!

Conspiracy theory? Nope. It took me a little while to flesh you out. You and ALPA are one slick pair of harpies!!

Well folks, FYI....ALPA, ACPC nor USAPA has a lock on the law. But what this chick says in this branch of the forum is VERY revealing.

East or West, guys, I'm sure we'll all, ultimately, make decisions for ourselves but THIS chick thinks she's Mata Hari! If the spy work doesn't get to her first, I'm sure the "heat" will!

I'm looking forward to revealing you to all the pilots out there and the deceptive tricks you seem to enjoy using here! They'll get a good laugh out of it!

HAPPY NEW YEAR NATASHA!!! GIVE MY REGARDS TO BORIS!!

 

[AWA320]

Don't you worry, now...USAPA can and will afford it.

Don't pay agency shop fees and see where that gets you. If you don't think you'll get terminated..think again.

I will bet you a years salary that you won't get a single AWA pilot terminated for non payment of dues to your faction not one!!!

Scab labor?? Don't worry...I guess this is why we'll need to hire new blood on the East, I suppose. The company would LOVE to pay new hire wages to 1,800 new pilots. What a great way to save money next year.

I wouldn't count on that either! That years salary still stands partner!!

Blame USAPA?? We travel too! That's not what WE'RE hearing from the other carriers! Maybe ALPA carriers???... then that wouldn't surprize me.

Who??? APA?? Not Southwest and not UPS so who??? Yeah right you keep believing that, year's salary!!!!

US Airways...still posting sizeable profits, by the way!

By the way, you got it backwards. It's the EAST pilots standing up that started in HERNDON back in MAY and USAPA was set in motion.

USAPA didn't form the 3,100+, FYI.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Can't wait to see the vote and if you fail then what??? More of the same dishonest tactics that you've displayed thus far?? Unemployment is in both our futures at usair unemployment and law suits. If you trust nothing else trust that...