nycbusdriver
Veteran
She said "a fair result." Not the ONLY fair result.
As always, fair is in the eye of the beholder.
OCT/NOV 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
She said "a fair result." Not the ONLY fair result.
As always, fair is in the eye of the beholder.
flyingskier
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 212
Unlike the snap shot in time theory, the above proves that every west pilot using their DOH with C & R's will benefit greatly from the East attrition! Let's get a contract with a DOH list and move forward as one group! Nic died when ALPA left, enough stagnation in PHX. All west pilots using their DOH will benefit from the movement we are seeing on the East.
Skier
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
I am just baffled at "snippets" that are removed from the TOTAL ORDER.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS:
"But being “bound” by the Transition Agreement has very little meaning in the context of the present case. It is undisputed that the Transition Agreement can be modified at any time “by written agreement of [USAPA] and the [US Airways].” (Doc. 156-3 at 38). Moreover, USAPA and US Airways are now engaged in negotiations for an entirely new collective bargaining agreement and there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish. As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” Hass v. Darigold Dairy Products Co., 751 F.2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985). And a union “may renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.” Id."
WHAT IS DICTUM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum
What IS confusing is in FACT what Judge Silver put in the order and is taken out of context. In fact, lets look at the dangers in the use of "dictum":
"Obiter dicta can be influential. One example in United States Supreme Court history is the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. A passing remark from Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, recorded by the court reporter before oral argument, now forms the basis for the doctrine that juristic persons are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether or not Chief Justice Waite's remark constitutes binding precedent is arguable, but subsequent rulings treat it as such."
In short corporations now have the same access to fundamental rights just like you and I do. No wonder small individual business a failing in the country.
However, Judge Silver is NOT a Supreme Court Justice. All her rulings are reviewed by higher authority. That is also the law.
Judge Silver then continues:
"In the end, the Court cannot provide as much guidance as it had hoped it could. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's decision, any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation will not be ripe until a collective bargaining agreement is finalized. Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass'n, 606 F.3d 1174, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2010).
In this case, that means even though an integrated seniority regime is an incredibly important issue, and USAPA appears totally committed to a particular seniority regime, it is not possible to determine the viability of any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation until a particular seniority regime is ratified.
When the collective bargaining agreement is finalized, individuals will be able to determine whether USAPA's abandonment of the Nicolau Award was permissible, i.e. supported by a legitimate union purpose. Thus, the best “declaratory judgment” the Court can offer is that USAPA's seniority proposal does not automatically breach its duty of fair representation.3
This conclusion places US Airways in a difficult position. At the present time, it is not possible to predict what will result from the collective bargaining negotiations. Thus, the Court cannot grant US Airways prospective immunity from any legal action by the West Pilots.
But based on the representation at oral argument that the seniority list is unlike other matters addressed in collective bargaining, it is unlikely the West Pilots could successfully allege claims against US Airways merely for not insisting that USAPA continue to advocate for the Nicolau Award. See Davenport v. Int'l Broth. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 166 F.3d 356, 361-62 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (addressing, without deciding, “the proper standard for determining whether an employer can be implicated in a union's breach of duty”)."
JUDGEMENT:
"IT IS ORDERED Counts I and III of the complaint are dismissed and judgment is entered in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint. US Airline Pilots Association's seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose."
In short, USAPA CLEARLY PREVAILED.
SOLUTION: I believe (it is my opinion, which doesn't carry any weight with USAPA because they operate on their own anyway) that Pat should file an 11(c)(2) motion for sanctions with the court on US Airways for 11(B) violations.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 5,045
You are correct on the 190 s. There is a massive attack on scope at all airlines, all contracts. It revolves around the smaller jets. Good reading at OPERATION ORANGE. There are already lots of orders for the E-175 s and E -190 class. They need a place to put them. The latest headline about airline pilot shortages are smokescreens to create the perception of shortage so the FAA will delay the rest rules. There is massive subterfuge concerning the piloting profession. We all need to understand what the CEO's are doing for their future and against ours. It is what they do. Hopefully we have learned how to counter them.
Congrats to all on the bid awards. I also understand another big one is next.
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 897
I don't remember fish, but recall the rattlesnake was quite the delicacy, along with a portion of dandelion soup. MMMMM good.
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
D.E., your reasoning and conclusions totally defy the facts, the law and logic.
Getting a "better" contract requires the negotiations between the Company and the LEGAL bargaining representative to come to terms. What I believe YOU believe is that IF we all accept the Nicolau award we will have the leverage necessary to GET a contract.
The Ninth said it best when answering the dissent:
"1The dissent asserts that ªnothing would be gained by postponing a decision, and the parties' interest would be well served by a prompt resolution of the West Pilots' claim.º Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations, quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties' interest would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse, in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots' claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members Ð both East and West Ð in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified."
The "pain" the court refers to is the pain we ALL feel if and when it ever gets TO the point of the possible DFR II. But the ODDS of them prevailing in court then are even more remote as time moves forward. Time is NOBODY'S friend except the lawyers.
That ship has sailed a long time ago. The ONLY leverage any of us collectively have at this juncture is to apply pressure on capital hill and maybe the court of public opinion do anything and everything we can to get legislative support for a NATIONAL FEDERAL STATUTORY solution to airline pilot integrations.
As far as "mutually agreed upon arbitration process" I won't waste my time explaining it because THE LAW DOES NOT AND HAS NEVER SUPPORTED YOUR FLAWED LOGIC and that is a FACT. USAPA prevailed. That is a fact.
If YOU want an improved contract it is time for you to support JUDGE SILVERS ORDER AND JUDGMENT and advise all of you who believe, yes I said BELIEVE, the way you do is to ADMIT you are flat out WRONG, the law prevailed in favor of USAPA and we press the company on that point.
Calling ANYONE who works for a living a lier and a cheat (and a scab, for that matter) ESPECIALLY when everyone knows who you are carries SIGNIFICANT repercussions. Remember the web boards and what you post can and will be used against you in any court. You MAY be innocent but the costs still add up. I am not threatening anyone myself, I'm simply admonishing that "you reap what you sow".
And no, it doesn't fall under the category of free speech if those who work with you feel threatened and/or intimidated to work with you. It's certainly appropriate to disagree but when you engage in the Mike "we hate you guys" ______ kind of talk all I can think of is Doug saying "that's not productive".
prechilill
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,544
- Reaction score
- 3,406
Do you even listen to your own "advice"? Or are you that obtuse that you just don't want to?
You just made a powerful endorsement for Silver's findings supporting arbitrations and neutral review.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
I really don't have a big problem with arbitrations. Often, they are necessary and a huge timesaver.
I expect that, if there is another merger in our future, that a McCaskill-Bond arbitration is likely....but maybe not.
And here it is for the umpteenth time on this forum: Nicolau provided a windfall for the west pilots which went specifically against ALPA merger policy. It would have been obvious 5 years ago had Congress not halted retirements at the time. With the March, 2013 east bid, it is blatantly obvious that the west would have been taking many, if not most, of these upgrades we are seeing. These upgrades are 100% the result of east attrition. The west attrition is so meager that Parker has told the west that no furloughs will be recalled in 2013.
The Nicolau arbitration was unfair when taken in context of the ALPA merger policy, and that is why we are where we are. In light of the March, 2013 bid, that would be obvious to anyone with an IQ north of 50. My guess is that the west won't see it, though. And you're at the front of the line.
prechilill
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,544
- Reaction score
- 3,406
There you go again...
Declaring what is fair and not fair while stating above fairness is in the eye of the beholder. And Nicolau followed the ALPA merger policy in every respect. Or did you forget "Date of Hire" was not a tenant in the policy for ALPA?
EDIT: Great website on your post btw.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
I assume you mean tenet, not tenant.
I didn't say the problem was a lack of a DOH award, I said the problem was the windfall (obvious to anyone with some functioning gray matter) to the west. I am totally aware that ALPA took DOH out of the policy years before. They did not take the tenet to avoid windfalls for either side.
I know how difficult it can be for you, but try to keep up.
prechilill
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,544
- Reaction score
- 3,406
So, if DOH is not a part of merger policy how did the arbitrator not follow ALPA merger policy by not using Date of Hire? You contradict yourself at every turn.
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
That's for the web site Padre. Im joining today.
Let's keep it basic and real here:
What can you curently bid or hold in PHX? Now then; what could your insanely inflated nic number allow you to hold out east? How many more years worked than yourself does the person placed just below you on the nic obscenity have? Are you truly that "special" a person that you somehow, magically "deserve" to be ahead of that person? If so; what, in your honest estimation, makes you all that "special" and "deserving"? If the only answer you can give here is some petulant variation on "But, but..St. Nic thought I'm cute!"...we've nothing more to discuss.
You want personally undeserved, insanely and artifically enhanced advancement over others in the same class and craft who've worked far longer than yourself...period! It's really just that simple.
Are we done with the "fairness" BS now? 😉
nycbusdriver
Veteran
You are incredibly dense! Or, you must be an impostor. Certainly anyone who cannot follow a few simple lines of a post without totally missing the point (windfall) cannot possibly pass an ATP written or even an interview for McDonalds.
I'm sure there's tax-payer assisted help out there for your lack of communication skills. Meantime, perhaps a well-supervised group home would be best for you.
I would get a lot further on a better pay scale, but thanks to you scabs that ain't going to happen.
So, what I am going to do is call this younger captain who has his Christmas trip on the trade board, and offer to fly it for him so he can have Christmas morning off with his young kids.
Just my crazy way of moving on and flipping off you east scabs.
Enjoy the holidays!
- Status
