OCT/NOV 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[usabusdriver]

So they will come in, become our CBA and submit a seniority list to M/B when a federal judge has said it can be renegotiated?

Pi,

You must clarify the arguments in this fight. They seem to get blurred in all of the back and forth. They are separate and have been clearly defined even though USAPA has been hard at work obfuscating.

The first is whether or not the TA, and by default the product of the process defined in the TA for determining an integrated seniority list is binding on USAPA. Both judge Wake and Silver have unquestionably stated that the TA and Nicolau award are, as a matter of law, binding on USAPA as the successor to ALPA.

The second question, now that we have determined that the Nicolau is intact as the accepted integrated system seniority list for LCC, is whether USAPA can negotiate for something other than the Nicolau. Yes they can. They can negotiate all aspects of the collective bargaining agreement. This is where a legitimate union purpose must be demonstrated as defined by Rakestraw. But it does not negate that the Nicolau award is binding on the union. If it were not binding then there would be no requirement to demonstrate a Legitimate Union Objective in bargaining for a SLI other than the Nicolau. And the Nicolau award would not be used as a measuring tool to evaluate an alternative proposal.

In a M/B arbitration scenario the company is a party to the negotiations. If there has not been a successful negotiation to modify the accepted integrated system seniority list for LCC (the Nicolau award), by what authority does the union advance a different seniority list since a ratified JCBA would be in place prior to a M/B arbitration and negotiations are over?

 

[EastUS1]

The Nic will be crammed down your throats by :

90% chance before end of Nov

99% chance before end of year.

I hate to be a stickler for petty details, but which year are you now suggesting? 😉

 

[Move2CLT]

Compared to what started AWA, hell yeah!

But scabs none the less, right Pi?

 

[Phoenix]

Pi,

You must clarify the arguments in this fight. They seem to get blurred in all of the back and forth. They are separate and have been clearly defined even though USAPA has been hard at work obfuscating.

The first is whether or not the TA, and by default the product of the process defined in the TA for determining an integrated seniority list is binding on USAPA. Both judge Wake and Silver have unquestionably stated that the TA and Nicolau award are, as a matter of law, binding on USAPA as the successor to ALPA.

The second question, now that we have determined that the Nicolau is intact as the accepted integrated system seniority list for LCC, is whether USAPA can negotiate for something other than the Nicolau. Yes they can. They can negotiate all aspects of the collective bargaining agreement. This is where a legitimate union purpose must be demonstrated as defined by Rakestraw. But it does not negate that the Nicolau award is binding on the union. If it were not binding then there would be no requirement to demonstrate a Legitimate Union Objective in bargaining for a SLI other than the Nicolau. And the Nicolau award would not be used as a measuring tool to evaluate an alternative proposal.

In a M/B arbitration scenario the company is a party to the negotiations. If there has not been a successful negotiation to modify the accepted integrated system seniority list for LCC (the Nicolau award), by what authority does the union advance a different seniority list since a ratified JCBA would be in place prior to a M/B arbitration and negotiations are over?

Confidence in pursuing a legitimate union purpose is the prerogative of the union.

Attempting a successful suit to the contrary is a prerogative of all members after a ratification.

 

[Move2CLT]

I hate to be a stickler for petty details; but which year are you now suggesting? 😉

Stay out of this boo. I don't want to read your god damn dissertations that would inevitably follow

 

[prechilill]

Pi,

You must clarify the arguments in this fight. They seem to get blurred in all of the back and forth. They are separate and have been clearly defined even though USAPA has been hard at work obfuscating.

The first is whether or not the TA, and by default the product of the process defined in the TA for determining an integrated seniority list is binding on USAPA. Both judge Wake and Silver have unquestionably stated that the TA and Nicolau award are, as a matter of law, binding on USAPA as the successor to ALPA.

The second question, now that we have determined that the Nicolau is intact as the accepted integrated system seniority list for LCC, is whether USAPA can negotiate for something other than the Nicolau. Yes they can. They can negotiate all aspects of the collective bargaining agreement. This is where a legitimate union purpose must be demonstrated as defined by Rakestraw. But it does not negate that the Nicolau award is binding on the union. If it were not binding then there would be no requirement to demonstrate a Legitimate Union Objective in bargaining for a SLI other than the Nicolau. And the Nicolau award would not be used as a measuring tool to evaluate an alternative proposal.

In a M/B arbitration scenario the company is a party to the negotiations. If there has not been a successful negotiation to modify the accepted integrated system seniority list for LCC (the Nicolau award), by what authority does the union advance a different seniority list since a ratified JCBA would be in place prior to a M/B arbitration and negotiations are over?

Someone around here finally demonstrates they understand things. Well said. PI, pay attention to the above post and read it a couple times to make sure it sinks in.
USAPA is basically checkmated. Just because you don't like an arbitration award does not give you a "legitimate union purpose". Game over. It's funny to see the regular clowns on here proclaim otherwise.

 

[EastUS1]

Game over. It's funny to see the regular clowns on here proclaim otherwise.

"Game over." No doubt. You first used that exact same word pairing here in 2007. "It's funny to see the regular clowns on here proclaim....."

 

[Phoenix]

Someone around here finally demonstrates they understand things. Well said. PI, pay attention to the above post and read it a couple times to make sure it sinks in.
USAPA is basically checkmated. Just because you don't like an arbitration award does not give you a "legitimate union purpose". Game over. It's funny to see the regular clowns on here proclaim otherwise.

Just because you don't like a course of action the union is pursuing doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate union purpose. And while you contemplate that, you may also benefit from considering that your observance of ubiquitous clowns should tell you something of your clarity of thought.

 

[EastUS1]

Stay out of this boo. I don't want to read your god damn dissertations that would inevitably follow

No worries there. That would first require the ability to actually read. 😉

 

[Move2CLT]

Someone around here finally demonstrates they understand things. Well said. PI, pay attention to the above post and read it a couple times to make sure it sinks in.
USAPA is basically checkmated. Just because you don't like an arbitration award does not give you a "legitimate union purpose". Game over. It's funny to see the regular clowns on here proclaim otherwise.

Chip has it figured out. Now if only the other easties would pull their heads out of their asses.

Pi? What say you?

 

[Move2CLT]

No worries there. That would first require the ability to actually read. 😉

Then get cracking. You ain't gonna learn to read here!

See east? That was as stupid as your reply. Lets both try harder.

 

[Pi brat]

Someone around here finally demonstrates they understand things. Well said. PI, pay attention to the above post and read it a couple times to make sure it sinks in.
USAPA is basically checkmated. Just because you don't like an arbitration award does not give you a "legitimate union purpose". Game over. It's funny to see the regular clowns on here proclaim otherwise.

"Jane, you ignorant slut" comes to mind. Old enough to remember that?

 

[Pi brat]

Chip has it figured out. Now if only the other easties would pull their heads out of their asses.

Pi? What say you?

To Chip or the ....?

 

[Move2CLT]

Just because you don't like a course of action the union is pursuing doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate union purpose. And while you contemplate that, you may also benefit from considering that your observance of ubiquitous clowns should tell you something of your clarity of thought.

Ya, that's it PHX.

You hang on to that.

 

[Move2CLT]

To Chip or the ....?

Take your pick Pi. Or both.

Whatever works for you.