US pilot labor thread 6/28-7/4

[sharktooth]

You should have been around during the PSA/AAA merger. One Cap. received a (Rumor only) $1.50 paycheck for 2 months running. Finally filed a mechanics lien in all places, PHX.

No rumor about the lien. Pretty slick.

 

[exB717Flyer]

As much the West's fault as the East's, maybe more.

Ah, yes, your blame game again. Any old scapegoat will do. Very soon you'll see how ineffective USAPA is at delivering their promises. Whose fault will that be?

Now, they complain that they lost an "opportunity". Nobody's fault but your own.

I guess you're right. Had we decided binding arbitration was meaningless and given you the extorted concessions you wanted I guess we could have a contract already. Similarly, if your professional negotiator offers a 20% pay cut and productivity improvements to the company I'll bet they'll accept it. But why would he do that?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Ah, yes, your blame game again. Any old scapegoat will do. Very soon you'll see how ineffective USAPA is at delivering their promises. Whose fault will that be?I guess you're right. Had we decided binding arbitration was meaningless and given you the extorted concessions you wanted I guess we could have a contract already. Similarly, if your professional negotiator offers a 20% pay cut and productivity improvements to the company I'll bet they'll accept it. But why would he do that?

Still bitter about losing your lottery ticket, I see.

So far, I have been VERY IMPRESSED with USAPA. They couldn't possibly cost this pilot group as much as ALPA did.

USAPA is YOUR union as well as mine. GET OVER IT! If you decide to "onserve" rather than participate, then you get what you get.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

We could've had a new contract with improvements for all over a year ago while the company was nicely profitable. A terrible missed opportunity.

oldiebutgoody Posted Today, 01:55 PM
As much the West's fault as the East's, maybe more. They could have negotiated a way to combine the lists once it became evident that the Nic award was crap, but they refused.

Now, they complain that they lost an "opportunity". Nobody's fault but your own.

exB717Flyer Posted Today, 02:12 PM
Ah, yes, your blame game again. Any old scapegoat will do. Very soon you'll see how ineffective USAPA is at delivering their promises. Whose fault will that be?

Your initial post was a backhanded jab at placing the blame at the feet of the east. Oldie called you on it. Now you want to turn it around, again. (Your response)

The bottom line is the ALPA leadership from top to bottom, east, west, National are all to blame. Being unable / unwilling to come up with a solution or compromise, you now have a new bargaining agent. I can assure you of thing, the promise of breaking this stalemate will be solved by USAPA. We may not like the end result in the current economic environment, but we will begin to move forward one way or the other.

 

[sharktooth]

Had we decided binding arbitration was meaningless and given you the extorted concessions you wanted I guess we could have a contract already.

The "nic" will always be meaningless without separately ratified merger agreements.

Ever try to buy/sell a house and it falls through? Remember all the paperwork you filled out, all the conditions you wrote in, all the dreams about what you were going to do, now useless? The "nic" is just as meaningless as that.

I think you missed it, but we just (2.5 months ago) changed brokers and it is just as useless bringing up the "nic" as it would be to bring up that old paperwork to the new broker in front of the next buyer/seller. It just makes everyone think you are an idiot and likely would queer a potential deal beneficial to you.

Acknowledge the former union role in that abortion, learn from it and move on. Please.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Your initial post was a backhanded jab at placing the blame at the feet of the east.

It wasn't backhanded, it was quite up front.

Oldie called you on it.

Thanks for the chuckle. I hardly think the old playground "No, you're wrong and I'm right" chant constitutes me being "called on it".

The bottom line is the ALPA leadership from top to bottom, east, west, National are all to blame.

Don't forget how ALPA was on that grassy knoll in Dallas back in '63. The current high oil prices? You got it: ALPA is to blame.

Being unable / unwilling to come up with a solution or compromise, you now have a new bargaining agent.

True. We refused to give in to extortion and the result is USAPA. Sometimes there's a cost to doing what's right.

I can assure you of thing, the promise of breaking this stalemate will be solved by USAPA.

What stalemate? Your "tyranny of the majority" can now pass what ever contract you want that benefits the East. Get on with it already so the real fun can begin.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Acknowledge the former union role in that abortion, learn from it and move on. Please.

Very good advice. We should all learn from ALPA's mistakes.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Acknowledge the former union role in that abortion, learn from it and move on. Please.

If by "former union role" you mean John Prater and by "that abortion" you mean his indulging the East's tantrum for months then yes, I acknowlege that blame. A real leader in Herndon would've helped y'all understand that binding arbitration means no do-overs no matter who your collective bargaining agent is.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

It wasn't backhanded, it was quite up front.

Oh, OK. In that case accept some responsibility then.

Thanks for the chuckle. I hardly think the old playground "No, you're wrong and I'm right" chant constitutes me being "called on it".

Then it was just an observation of how you chose to respond to Oldie. So I guess it really is all about you! And this isn't a play ground, unless of course you think it is.

Don't forget how ALPA was on that grassy knoll in Dallas back in '63. The current high oil prices? You got it: ALPA is to blame.

Who else was running the show / negotiations? But grassy knoll? Oil? Too funny. Thanks!

True. We refused to give in to extortion and the result is USAPA. Sometimes there's a cost to doing what's right. What stalemate? Your "tyranny of the majority" can now pass what ever contract you want that benefits the East. Get on with it already so the real fun can begin.

Interesting choice of words. Extortion? Cost? In which you blame us for your doing what's right. I guess it all depends on which side your on. Tyranny? Your only problem is your lack of participation in its crafting / negotiations. But, thats how you want it played out I guess.

"Real Fun"?? As in lawsuit? I wouldn't be spending any of your "Fun" money settlement anytime soon if I were you.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

If by "former union role" you mean John Prater and by "that abortion" you mean his indulging the East's tantrum for months then yes, I acknowlege that blame. A real leader in Herndon would've helped y'all understand that binding arbitration means no do-overs no matter who your collective bargaining agent is.

Oh puleeeeeeeze. Prater is the perfect example of the Peter Principle. He 😛h34r: also sanctioned the distressed termination of the pilots' pension plan. He used a ton of USAir pilots' own money :angry: to fight against them in their attempt to toss ALPO off the property. In the duly monitored election........National Mediation Board........that was done and now Prater is as insignificant as a stale pretzel. <-----------sorry to bring up pretzels. You can see them in the Smithsonian. 😛

UU

 

[sharktooth]

If by "former union role" you mean John Prater and by "that abortion" you mean his indulging the East's tantrum for months then yes, I acknowlege that blame. A real leader in Herndon would've helped y'all understand that binding arbitration means no do-overs no matter who your collective bargaining agent is.

The Herndon role is to provide tools to resolve conflict. They did not.

The part Prater and Herndon played, to me, seemed to guarantee conflict. In fact, looking at the timeline, I can make a case (IANAL) that ALPA National wanted US out, and did everything to ensure that would occur.

You would be well served, if interested, to take classes in arbitration and mediation. The differences are profound, especially between the east and west coast. Then you might understand what "binding arbitration" really means. (It is a lot more complicated than you think)

 

[captain tom]

You would be well served, if interested, to take classes in arbitration and mediation. The differences are profound, especially between the east and west coast. Then you might understand what "binding arbitration" really means. (It is a lot more complicated than you think)

Hey, I'm a long time watcher of these boards. I'm a pilot at DAL, and majored in labor relations in college. I've had a lot of classes in arbitration and mediation, mostly taught by guys who were actually arbitrators and mediators. I've been watching your situation because my understanding of binding arbitration is that it is, in fact, binding.

Your MEC, I'm assuming, signed an agreement to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. USAPA inherited that deal from ALPA, and is still bound by it. While it's possible that anything can be set aside by a judge, I'm curious as to what argument your counsel will use.

I've been watching your situation not because I enjoy watching a train wreck, but because this situation has some relevance and lessons to be learned. Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Hey, I'm a long time watcher of these boards. I'm a pilot at DAL, and majored in labor relations in college. I've had a lot of classes in arbitration and mediation, mostly taught by guys who were actually arbitrators and mediators. I've been watching your situation because my understanding of binding arbitration is that it is, in fact, binding.

Your MEC, I'm assuming, signed an agreement to be bound by the arbitrator's decision. USAPA inherited that deal from ALPA, and is still bound by it. While it's possible that anything can be set aside by a judge, I'm curious as to what argument your counsel will use.

I've been watching your situation not because I enjoy watching a train wreck, but because this situation has some relevance and lessons to be learned. Thanks in advance for your reply.

That's interesting, especially since the lawyers for BOTH sides said that seniority is ALWAYS subject to negotiation. By your own ackowledgement you work for ALPA, and we know what their position is. Your position has been stated over and over again on this board, and it's ALWAYS been discredited. What USAPA inherited was two contracts and two TAs, none of which included the Nic award. If it had been included in a joint contract, it WOULD be binding.

While ALPA was likely bound to the arbitrator's decision, I doubt that USAPA is. We'll see, won't we?

 

[captain tom]

That's interesting, especially since the lawyers for BOTH sides said that seniority is ALWAYS subject to negotiation. By your own ackowledgement you work for ALPA, and we know what their position is. Your position has been stated over and over again on this board, and it's ALWAYS been discredited. What USAPA inherited was two contracts and two TAs, none of which included the Nic award. If it had been included in a joint contract, it WOULD be binding.

While ALPA was likely bound to the arbitrator's decision, I doubt that USAPA is. We'll see, won't we?

Maybe I didn't make my reason for asking clear enough. I ask because DAL and NWA may find themselves in a binding arbitration stuation, and I'd like to gain as much knowledge of the process as possible. I'm looking for answers, not rebuttals or diatribes.

While I do belong to ALPA, I don't work for them. Thanks for your (non) answer.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Maybe I didn't make my reason for asking clear enough. I ask because DAL and NWA may find themselves in a binding arbitration stuation, and I'd like to gain as much knowledge of the process as possible. I'm looking for answers, not rebuttals or diatribes.

While I do belong to ALPA, I don't work for them. Thanks for your (non) answer.

Sorry. I am just used to hearing the same argument over and over again from the same folks on here. It's been going on for what seems like forever.

Part of the issue now is the new federal law which appears to favor Date-of-hire over other methods of merging seniority lists. The kicker is, it only applies if both groups belong to DIFFERENT unions. ALPA's merger policy is really a non-policy. It basically mandates arbitration (it actually says it's a last resort, but no group will willingly give the other something it feels entitled to). We know what kind of stupidity arbitrators can come up with. IN our case, the Nic award didn't even consider pilots that were acknowledged to be part of the company by our own management, the ones flying the 170s in our ALPA negotiated "jet-4-jobs" deal.

Both TAs required that before a seniority list could be applied, it had to be part of a joint contract. Once the Nic was announced, it was obvious that the East (old US) guys would NEVER approve a contract which included it.

Then the ditch ALPA movement started for real. The NMB decided that we were really one group fro representation, largely due to the fact, I surmise, that both sides were represented by ALPA. Boom, in one vote, both ALPA MECs ceased to exist, and we are left with one group, USAPA to negotiate and vote on a combined contract. DOH is in USAPA's Consitution and Bylaws as the method to combine all mergers. AWA guys' jobs will be protected with fences and conditions, as will the exUS guys' jobs.

It's important to note that the movement to get rid of ALPA on the East side has been gaining steam for a long time, WAAY before any of this merger stuff. IN fact, the sentiment goes all the way back to the first time we went Chapter 11, when ALPA basically "gave away" our pensions in the middle of the night without a peep.

Anyway, as far as seniority goes, it's a catch-22. The Nic award can't be instituted without a joint contract containing it, and no joint contract will ever be approved by the majority which includes it.