AWA320
Veteran
My Opinion
US Airline Pilots Association -- Labor Breaking An Agreement With Itself
Today’s greatest threat to organized labor is not management, but one of labor’s own threats to itself, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA). USAPA hopes to set a precedent in labor history as a union that arbitrarily chooses which binding agreements it will honor, regardless if such agreements were made with management, or its own members. If left unchecked, USAPA could jeopardize the integrity of any future arbitrated decisions (no matter with whom they are made), and create a divisional tactic within labor’s bargaining process where it will not be management, but the union who whipsaws labor against itself. Sadly, USAPA, who represents the pilots of US Airways, was created specifically to abrogate agreements, and intimidate its minority members into submission. Within such a union, there can be no unity, only tyranny. USAPA is a threat to the health of organized labor.
Before the creation of USAPA, a previous bargaining agent represented the pilots of US Airways. When a dispute arose between a majority and minority group of these pilots, both groups agreed to their then-bargaining agent’s policy of settling the dispute by use of an arbitrator. In a twist of irony, the majority had years ago co-authored the bargaining agent’s policy of using arbitration to settle such a dispute, yet it was only after the arbitrator rendered his decision that the majority complained of their own policy being “flawed.”
Only after they thought the arbitrator’s decision was unfair, and their own policy flawed did the majority attempt to renege on their binding agreement with the minority. When the previous bargaining agent overseeing the process insisted the majority honor its agreement, the majority sought another way to break its agreement. With greater-numbers of 2-to-1 being its only advantage, the majority called for a representational election, and easily voted-in USAPA in April 2008. The minority group was conscripted into USAPA, therefore denying them the oversight protections of their previous bargaining agent. Without any minority input, USAPA, operated only by the majority, drafted a constitution and by-laws that advantaged the majority at the expense of the minority. USAPA wrote its own solution to the previous dispute, a “proposal” that – if implemented – secured jobs for the minority, but had the potential to put out of work roughly 80% of the minority Phoenix-based US Airways pilots. Yessir, USAPA was a union born of the majority, by the majority, for the majority, and to heck with the minority who keeps its word.
USAPA’s secret agenda – as evidenced by a smoking-gun letter later submitted in a federal courtroom - was to abrogate the agreement the majority made with the minority. By voting-in USAPA, the majority pretended to feel justified in reneging because (get this) it was the previous bargaining agent, not USAPA, who facilitated their binding arbitration agreement with the minority. Yet USAPA still wanted to benefit from agreements made between the majority and others, even though the previous bargaining agent too, had facilitated those agreements. On one hand, the majority theorized they should no longer be held to previous agreements because they had changed their bargaining agent, yet on the other hand, the majority felt they should be entitled to the favorable results of other agreements despite the fact that they had changed their bargaining agent. In this way, USAPA hoped to live the best of two worlds by picking and choosing which agreements it would honor, depending on if the agreement was favorable, or unfavorable to the majority. Meantime, USAPA ignored the voices of its minority pilots… except when the minority spoke against USAPA.
Minority pilots who dared to opine unfavorable of USAPA were dealt with swiftly and seriously. Within its first two months, USAPA used it legal firm (Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP) to bring charges of RICO (usually reserved for mobsters or other organized crime) against 18 of its minority pilots. USAPA made a public display of the 18, hoping to squelch any further dissention by taking the defendants to court not once, but twice. In both instances the case against the 18 defendants were dismissed with prejudice, yet to this day USAPA refuses to drop the charges against these 18 pilots whose only “offense” was to speak out against USAPA. Perhaps as a result of this message I will become RICO defendant number 19.
With USAPA’s failure to acknowledge its agreement with the minority, the minority was left with no other choice but to pool together its resources and bring forth a federal case against USAPA alleging its violation of duty of fair representation (DFR). In its defense, USAPA called as star witnesses majority Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles, of the infamous Hudson River ditching of US Airways flight #1549. Prostituted by USAPA leadership, Sully and Skiles were coaxed into traded in their integrity for fifteen minutes of courtroom fame. Even though they knew a binding agreement – a promise - was being broken with their minority peers, both Sully and Skiles testified of their staunch support for USAPA, and its agenda. The jury was not impressed with USAPA, Sully or Skiles, else it might have deliberated more than four hours before finding USAPA in violation of DFR. Unfortunately, a federal court of appeals later agreed with USAPA that the claim for DFR was not yet ripe. The minority case against USAPA was dismissed, but not before the court of appeals warned USAPA that it would be found “…under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit” if USAPA continued to ignore its agreement with the minority. Oddly enough, USAPA never referenced in any of its legal updates to US Airways pilots the critical part of an “…unquestionably ripe DFR suit.” Responsible for censoring such critical information are majority pilots USAPA President Mike Cleary, Vice-Chairman Randy Mowrey, and Communications Chairman Scott Theuer. (Theuer, who was called by USAPA as a witness, urged the court to pronounce his last name like "sewer", except with a lisp). One aviation publication has dubbed this trio as recipients of its monthly “Real Men of Genius.”
Today, the majority and minority pilots are locked in a virtual stalemate. The majority USAPA is afraid to make a move that would make unquestionably ripe the case of DFR, and the minority is held hostage because they don’t have the votes to recall or otherwise re-direct USAPA leadership.
Other unions be warned, USAPA is a parasitic virus that hopes to disguise itself amongst those unions who are honorable and healthy. However, USAPA hopes actually to destroy these other unions by infecting the process of future arbitrations, or any other agreements that a majority can decide will feed only itself, if even at the expense of starving the minority.
Written by an America West pilot
US Airline Pilots Association -- Labor Breaking An Agreement With Itself
Today’s greatest threat to organized labor is not management, but one of labor’s own threats to itself, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA). USAPA hopes to set a precedent in labor history as a union that arbitrarily chooses which binding agreements it will honor, regardless if such agreements were made with management, or its own members. If left unchecked, USAPA could jeopardize the integrity of any future arbitrated decisions (no matter with whom they are made), and create a divisional tactic within labor’s bargaining process where it will not be management, but the union who whipsaws labor against itself. Sadly, USAPA, who represents the pilots of US Airways, was created specifically to abrogate agreements, and intimidate its minority members into submission. Within such a union, there can be no unity, only tyranny. USAPA is a threat to the health of organized labor.
Before the creation of USAPA, a previous bargaining agent represented the pilots of US Airways. When a dispute arose between a majority and minority group of these pilots, both groups agreed to their then-bargaining agent’s policy of settling the dispute by use of an arbitrator. In a twist of irony, the majority had years ago co-authored the bargaining agent’s policy of using arbitration to settle such a dispute, yet it was only after the arbitrator rendered his decision that the majority complained of their own policy being “flawed.”
Only after they thought the arbitrator’s decision was unfair, and their own policy flawed did the majority attempt to renege on their binding agreement with the minority. When the previous bargaining agent overseeing the process insisted the majority honor its agreement, the majority sought another way to break its agreement. With greater-numbers of 2-to-1 being its only advantage, the majority called for a representational election, and easily voted-in USAPA in April 2008. The minority group was conscripted into USAPA, therefore denying them the oversight protections of their previous bargaining agent. Without any minority input, USAPA, operated only by the majority, drafted a constitution and by-laws that advantaged the majority at the expense of the minority. USAPA wrote its own solution to the previous dispute, a “proposal” that – if implemented – secured jobs for the minority, but had the potential to put out of work roughly 80% of the minority Phoenix-based US Airways pilots. Yessir, USAPA was a union born of the majority, by the majority, for the majority, and to heck with the minority who keeps its word.
USAPA’s secret agenda – as evidenced by a smoking-gun letter later submitted in a federal courtroom - was to abrogate the agreement the majority made with the minority. By voting-in USAPA, the majority pretended to feel justified in reneging because (get this) it was the previous bargaining agent, not USAPA, who facilitated their binding arbitration agreement with the minority. Yet USAPA still wanted to benefit from agreements made between the majority and others, even though the previous bargaining agent too, had facilitated those agreements. On one hand, the majority theorized they should no longer be held to previous agreements because they had changed their bargaining agent, yet on the other hand, the majority felt they should be entitled to the favorable results of other agreements despite the fact that they had changed their bargaining agent. In this way, USAPA hoped to live the best of two worlds by picking and choosing which agreements it would honor, depending on if the agreement was favorable, or unfavorable to the majority. Meantime, USAPA ignored the voices of its minority pilots… except when the minority spoke against USAPA.
Minority pilots who dared to opine unfavorable of USAPA were dealt with swiftly and seriously. Within its first two months, USAPA used it legal firm (Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP) to bring charges of RICO (usually reserved for mobsters or other organized crime) against 18 of its minority pilots. USAPA made a public display of the 18, hoping to squelch any further dissention by taking the defendants to court not once, but twice. In both instances the case against the 18 defendants were dismissed with prejudice, yet to this day USAPA refuses to drop the charges against these 18 pilots whose only “offense” was to speak out against USAPA. Perhaps as a result of this message I will become RICO defendant number 19.
With USAPA’s failure to acknowledge its agreement with the minority, the minority was left with no other choice but to pool together its resources and bring forth a federal case against USAPA alleging its violation of duty of fair representation (DFR). In its defense, USAPA called as star witnesses majority Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles, of the infamous Hudson River ditching of US Airways flight #1549. Prostituted by USAPA leadership, Sully and Skiles were coaxed into traded in their integrity for fifteen minutes of courtroom fame. Even though they knew a binding agreement – a promise - was being broken with their minority peers, both Sully and Skiles testified of their staunch support for USAPA, and its agenda. The jury was not impressed with USAPA, Sully or Skiles, else it might have deliberated more than four hours before finding USAPA in violation of DFR. Unfortunately, a federal court of appeals later agreed with USAPA that the claim for DFR was not yet ripe. The minority case against USAPA was dismissed, but not before the court of appeals warned USAPA that it would be found “…under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit” if USAPA continued to ignore its agreement with the minority. Oddly enough, USAPA never referenced in any of its legal updates to US Airways pilots the critical part of an “…unquestionably ripe DFR suit.” Responsible for censoring such critical information are majority pilots USAPA President Mike Cleary, Vice-Chairman Randy Mowrey, and Communications Chairman Scott Theuer. (Theuer, who was called by USAPA as a witness, urged the court to pronounce his last name like "sewer", except with a lisp). One aviation publication has dubbed this trio as recipients of its monthly “Real Men of Genius.”
Today, the majority and minority pilots are locked in a virtual stalemate. The majority USAPA is afraid to make a move that would make unquestionably ripe the case of DFR, and the minority is held hostage because they don’t have the votes to recall or otherwise re-direct USAPA leadership.
Other unions be warned, USAPA is a parasitic virus that hopes to disguise itself amongst those unions who are honorable and healthy. However, USAPA hopes actually to destroy these other unions by infecting the process of future arbitrations, or any other agreements that a majority can decide will feed only itself, if even at the expense of starving the minority.
Written by an America West pilot
