US Pilot Labor Thread--ALL Pilot/Union Issues Discussed Here

[BoeingBoy]

No argument with any of that - just keep reading the same "misspeak" on occasion so thought I'd correct the misunderstand that apparently more than one person has.

Jim

 

[wopr21]

I keep seeing variations of this....

USAPA is required to represent every pilot on the property in contract matters - members, agency fee payers, those on the way to termination for not paying anything. From negotiation, through administration, all the way to enforcement, the price USAPA pays for becoming CBA is the obligation to represent every pilot when it comes to contract matters.

Jim

That is correct, However it is obvious with evidence from the PHX USAPA meeting that if you do not pay dues you do not get the privilege to participate in a union meeting. Your voice will not be heard.

A union starts from the bottom up, not from the leadership down.

wopr

 

[V1cut]

'Twas the same way with ALPA too....can't imagine why those guys thought they could attend....except that few of them have taken USAPA seriously to date...

Obviously, thats all gonna change shortly.

 

[V1cut]

No argument with any of that - just keep reading the same "misspeak" on occasion so thought I'd correct the misunderstand that apparently more than one person has.

Jim

I understand.

I think Wopr has elaborated and better makes his point...

In fact, upon re-reading it, well said, Wopr.

The only roadblock to that end is the west perception that they are being unfairly treated by keeping exactly what they had pre-merger as far as USAPA is concerned...

The company furloughs notwithstanding, (blame them, not USAPA)
the C&R's leave every west pilot as they were pre-merger, save for the unfortunate furloughs...USAPA doesn't furlough pilots, the company does.

While I don't mean to instigate a night-long battle over this, I fail to see how the west pilots can object to the C&R's as they suffer no "harm" as a result of USAPA's list. Again, furloughs nothwithstanding, (and being completely out of ANY unions direct control...) I fail to see the issue.

Now, if there was a winfall realized by the Nic, and those lofty visions of 330's and 76's in the future begin causing some to dream heavily of the big iron... or a move into the revenue-generating side of the house...Now I would get the caustic behavior.

History will be the judge, but it seems obvious to me exactly what is going on here.

And lets not forget that for all intents and purposes, the west pilot group inherits the whole farm in 5-10 years anyway.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I think the issue USAPA's representation/participation breaks down to this:

There are:

A. Members in Good Standing, who are represented by USAPA and enjoy full voting/participatory privileges.

B. Agency fee payers who are not members of USAPA and are only entitled to representation in matters involving the contract.

C. Members in Bad Standing who are, though still entitled to representation in matters involving the contract, face making a choice in the near term with three options:

1. make dues payments (or arrangements) to become a Member in Good Standing,
2. become an Agency fee payer and bring their account to date,
3. start looking for a new job.

D. Non-members who are still entitled to representation in matters involving the contract, but are also faced with the same three options as C: (above.)

This pretty much covers ALL pilots covered by the US and AWA pilot contracts, and note that ALL are entitled to representation from USAPA until the day they are no longer covered by either of those contracts (as they are then no longer employed by USAirways.) But only category A: is entitled to voting/participatory privileges.

 

[BoeingBoy]

This pretty much covers ALL pilots covered by the US and AWA pilot contracts, and note that ALL are entitled to representation from USAPA until the day they are no longer covered by either of those contracts (as they are then no longer employed by USAirways.) But only category A: is entitled to voting/participatory privileges.

Succinctly put. Some have spelling as their pet peeve, others grammar, for yet others it's misuse of words (i.e., lose vs loose). With me it's facts, like the "No representation of non-members" in this case.

Jim

 

[tazz]

And they are, as the 2 current grievances illustrate. And the disciplinary hearings for one or more west pilots who have enjoyed the benefit of representation in those matters.

I don't think any west pilot has voluntarily accepted usapa's help in disciplinary hearings. Some I know of requested former alpa reps but usapa would not allow that. The usapa reps bullied their way into said hearings but weren't allowed to speak for the pilot.

 

[EastUS]

I don't think any west pilot has voluntarily accepted usapa's help in disciplinary hearings.

Seems a wee bit short-sighted to me..but hey..whatever trips your triggers out there. Speaking of triggers...and given that pride preventeth any vile association with any legitimate union representation; Does the "Army" of Leonidas at least issue sidearms for those in difficulty, so as to simply and directly shoot themselves in the foot?..or is it expected that any pilot facing difficulties provide their own?

 

[nycbusdriver]

I don't think any west pilot has voluntarily accepted usapa's help in disciplinary hearings. Some I know of requested former alpa reps but usapa would not allow that. The usapa reps bullied their way into said hearings but weren't allowed to speak for the pilot.

I believe the contracts have a very specific process for disciplinary hearings. The CBA is part of that process, but I don't think it allows for any other outsiders. And former ALPA reps are outsiders to the process. Fact of life; time to get over it.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

Once usapa figures out or is forced to admit that this little item is not fair to the West, you will see many more members joining/paying dues:

D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.

The Section 29 appeal/arbitration process, using a 3rd party neutral, will most likely negate any usapa attempt to fire people. This one item itself is damning enough to give any official entity enough wiggle room to support to pilot's need over the association's. Remember also, that there never has been a pilot fired because of dues non-payment.

Furthermore, many of us have strong reservations against paying money to someone who then uses a portion of that money to sue our bretheren. And that is exactly what usapa is doing.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I believe the contracts have a very specific process for disciplinary hearings. The CBA is part of that process, but I don't think it allows for any other outsiders. And former ALPA reps are outsiders to the process. Fact of life; time to get over it.

The process is spelled out in the NMB representation handbook, which you can get on their website. You are correct in that the CBA is the agent of representation, not lawyers, friends, or any other union. AFTER you face the music you are free to get legal representation to attempt to get your job back, if you wish to try.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

The Section 29 appeal/arbitration process, using a 3rd party neutral, will most likely negate any usapa attempt to fire people. This one item itself is damning enough to give any official entity enough wiggle room to support to pilot's need over the association's. Remember also, that there never has been a pilot fired because of dues non-payment.

Since this is a part of virtually ALL union contracts, and is spelled out in unambiguous language, don't count on it.

Furthermore, many of us have strong reservations against paying money to someone who then uses a portion of that money to sue our bretheren. And that is exactly what usapa is doing.

Have all the reservations you want. Then either pay or be fired. It's that simple. Even Doug said as much (as did the VP of Labor Relations). But please, don't pay just to keep your job. If you don't want to be sued, then don't give anyone a reason to sue you. What? You don't expect USAPA to defend themselves? The current lawsuit was filed against them AND the company by the AOL guys, remember?

 

[V1cut]

Once usapa figures out or is forced to admit that this little item is not fair to the West, you will see many more members joining/paying dues:

D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.

The Section 29 appeal/arbitration process, using a 3rd party neutral, will most likely negate any usapa attempt to fire people. This one item itself is damning enough to give any official entity enough wiggle room to support to pilot's need over the association's. Remember also, that there never has been a pilot fired because of dues non-payment.

Furthermore, many of us have strong reservations against paying money to someone who then uses a portion of that money to sue our bretheren. And that is exactly what usapa is doing.

Ummmm, not sure what to say to such a stupid post. I guess I missed that particular passage in the RLA...that whenever you don't agree with your union's C&BL's...that you get a pass on the required dues....maybe you'd be good enough to reference that passage for all us idiots out here.

Anyway, moving along...after all you have witnessed from AH or DP on this matter, I kinda hope you lead the charge in your grand experiment.

( I have to admit...I'm a little stunned by what I keep hearing from some of you guys...really)

 

[EastUS]

Can't argue with that.

I do wish, though, that the westwhiners would stop making fools of themselves at these base meetings. Do they really think Doug is their mommy? It used to be funny to watch, but month after month of the same useless crying is getting pathetic. They obviously don't have a clue as to how the company has to deal with the issues legally. Doug's not going to kiss your boo-boo, slap on a Batman Band-Aid, dry your tears and offer you gentle hug. Stop asking him to do that.

Amen...There's no kinder verbage at all appropriate herein....It truly is ntohing short of just plain pathetic...

 

[V1cut]

I don't think any west pilot has voluntarily accepted usapa's help in disciplinary hearings. Some I know of requested former alpa reps but usapa would not allow that. The usapa reps bullied their way into said hearings but weren't allowed to speak for the pilot.

The fiduciary responsibility inherent in this union/pilot group is already established by definition...the fact that some west pilot is "uncomfortable off the nipple" is academic....the representation was there, it is lawful, and in strict adherance with all applicable laws.

The fact that it was rejected is irrelevent...USAPA fulfilled it's proper responsibility under the law.

EDIT: Actually, the rejecting of USAPA's representation is absolutely relevent as it relates to your loser DFR case...they were there, they were there to represent the pilot, and he wanted his "momma" there instead of USAPA...
CASE CLOSED...YOU LOSE.

Accordingly, the next time you or yours is tempted to spout out that USAPA doesn't "represent the west pilots"...remember this discussion and your responses therein.

Your "DFR" case gets weaker by the minute...by the way. This exchange is a perfect example.