US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[nic4us]

Even judge Wake said that something about this in his findings of facts.

Clear,

Was judge Wake physically present at the 9th yesterday. Was the man there?

 

[Pi brat]

Another thing. Should the arbitrator rule in USAPA's favor the company would likely use a bankruptcy to void it. No-win scenario.

I don't think so. I don't have the numbers, but this issue is just the pay rates, not the entire contract. The company has said that it is willing to negotiate a joint contract and bring the east pilots to parity. I might be wrong but I have a hard time believing these pay rates would equal the $125 mill the company said it was willing to pay. It would take, what $50,000 per pilot to equal that?

The west pilots need to accept that Parker does not want a joint contract. He is saving too much with the east. If he wanted one now is the perfect time to do it with a federal injunction hanging over USAPA's head. Have you seen any movement by the company? USAPA just made it easy for him.

Did anyone notice the comment by Parker in the last crew news session that they might not have done the merger if they thought the rates might snap back? Why? Did anyone think we would be operating on two separate contacts almost 5 years after the merger was announced?

 

[Poug Darker]

A fascinating argument, but for you to be right #2 in LOA 93 should have said "Reduce pay rates while frozen by 18%" instead of "as frozen". That one word could have been an error by "ALPA" as your say, or it could reflect the intent. An arbitrator will decide. Oh, wait...that great legal scholar Lee Seeham said arbitrator's ruling can't be "final and binding" because that term has no meaning. I guess the company can do whatever it wants since the ultimate end to the grievance process is unenforceable...

Jim

Apples and oranges. The issue before the 9th pertains to unions and their sovreignity over their issues. Not contract law. The language is what it is for whatever reason, but IMHO I think a reasonable man would come to the conclusion that the east pilot group no longer has a pay reduction as of 1/1/10. The intent was to give the company a break for 5 years. The pilot group has honored that. Now it's the company's turn to live up to the contract. Oh, wait! With 300 grievances, they don't do that, do they?
Here's looking forward to the future because the past has been too painful to remember.
Cheers.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Parker was very direct with his answer.

Parker doesn't get to decide. The arbitrator does.

Of course Parker is going to take the position he does. Who would expect anything different? Folks around here accuse the man of constantly lying through his teeth, but when he weighs in on LOA 93 pay rates, suddenly it's gospel.

 

[cleardirect]

Clear,

Was judge Wake physically present at the 9th yesterday. Was the man there?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[Poug Darker]

Parker doesn't get to decide. The arbitrator does.

Of course Parker is going to take the position he does. Who would expect anything different? Folks around here accuse the man of constantly lying through his teeth, but when he weighs in on LOA 93 pay rates, suddenly it's gospel.

The legal department has of course coached the CEO on what he can and cannot say, especially while being videotaped in front of potential litagants. Duh.
Circular logic does not convince me. Saying the negotiating committe has asked for less (when it is more) so that's the reason the contract doesn't hold up is just silly. The argument that he wouldn't have done the deal if he'd known about the pay reduction expiration is also just blather.
Pure hogwash.
I was amazed that the esteemed group of koolaid drinkers (who seem to show up for every CLT session) never even blinked.
Cheers.

 

[Best_Guess]

Disregarding the fact that the company would be out of business long before it reached only 2 pilots,

Sorry I didn’t make the sarcasm more obvious.

So your claim that every pilot would eventually reach "the top of the list" without the Nic award is not just false but absurd.

I’m still looking for “my claim†that every pilot would reach the top of the list. If I did say that, it would be absurd. I was responding about a particular individual, who’s situation is like many others (not all).



It seems to me that the significant position of most from the West is that:

1. You agreed to binding arbitration.

2. Now you are using your majority position to get out of your agreement.



The problem is that our agreeing is simply not being able to decertify prior to the merger. As I’m sure you know from your history, decertification is a high hurdle, largely because the different interests of different pilots i.e. age and seniority, not to mention apathy, and a general lack of understanding of ALPA’s merger policy. I would liken it to being Jewish in Hitler’s Germany. Didn’t vote for him, but stuck with the injustice.

So am I now having a problem with the majority correcting this injustice? No.

Of course the West doesn’t consider this an injustice, since it (justice) was defined by the arbitrator, (and oh it happens to favor the West). -On this point we will probably have to agree to disagree, because hey I can non-rev on my doh -please.


I think many can see how the “majority†and “agreed†cuts both ways. Agreed being defined by the majority, both now and previously. One could certainly make the argument that we agreed to certify a union with a date-of-hire constitution. You could certainly call that binding. (yes I understand the DFR lawsuit)

 

[nycbusdriver]

Nope. What the injunction says is that every contract presented will include the Nicolau. So if you are happy with the current contract and pay rates. Enjoy until retirement. Otherwise take the time to actually read the contract if usapa ever gets to one and decide. If you are a single issue voter your choice.

Even judge Wake said that something about this in his findings of facts.

Wow! I never thought I would agree with cleared about anything. But here it is.

That being said, there are a lot of moving parts to this entire scenario right now that have to stop moving before any rational guess as to the viability of a new contact can be made.

If the LOA 93 arbitrator rules in favor of the pilots, and the 9th upholds Wake, fully expect to live with your current contract until hell freezes over.

If the LOA 93 arbitrator rules in favor of the company, and the 9th upholds Wake, fully expect to spend years with your current contract as the company will not be bargaining in good faith anytime soon to get a new contract in place.

If a miracle happened and the company actually placed something decent on the table, and the 9th upholds Wake, then there is a reasonable possibility that a single contract may in fact pass a membership vote. But only a reasonable chance. It would be a good chance if the west pilots were members in good standing, but every non-member reduces that possibility.

 

[Best_Guess]

LOA93 is not a contract. It is an agreement modifying an underlying contract. Actually, it is a modification to a contact that was modified twice before, with the restructuring agreement and then LOA84.
Line one accomplishes two things: it defines a pay rate and freezes it for a specified time.
Line 2 simply reduces the frozen rate by a specified amount (18%). "as frozen" provides the link back to the Line 1 language. Implied is a simple 'If-Then' test: If the rates are not frozen, then they cannot be reduced, and the provision in Line 2 is nulled. Line 2 is just a modifier to the modifier in line 1.
As far as I know, points 3 and 4 are not in dispute, are they? I am in total agreement with you that this language should have been ironclad and not subject to interpretation. Let's all thank our ALPA friends for that.
The big argument here is what the 'status quo' should be. Mr. Parker states that status quo is the current rate.
USAPA says the status quo is the underlying agreement, as modified by the various LOAs. Guys, a specific end date on a specific term (Freeze until 12/31/09) means what is says. The freeze is over at the end of the year. Any reasonable person can understand that.
Lines 1 and 2 cease to exist on 1/1/10. If they don't exist, what is the defined rate of pay?
LOA84 - the underlying modifying agreement (which was not superceded or cancelled) - the rates are defined there in black and white.
The argument that USAPA has been negotiating for lower payrates is all hot air and blather - just a slick attempt to discredit and dismiss the issue. Everyone, including Mr. Parker, knows that other provisions in the contract, not just the pay rates, have a monetary value (Cost accounting 101: "Everything has a cost"). So, vacation, sick, reserve, min days, etc. improvements all have value and in aggregate with the pay rate in fact means we are asking for more, not less. Anyway, what is being negotiated for has no bearing on these contract provisions, it is just misdirection and subterfuge.
LOA84 1/1/10.
Happy New Year.

I think that pretty much says it all. Thank-you

 

[CallawayGolf]

Sorry I didn’t make the sarcasm more obvious.


I’m still looking for “my claim†that every pilot would reach the top of the list. If I did say that, it would be absurd. I was responding about a particular individual, who’s situation is like many others (not all).



It seems to me that the significant position of most from the West is that:

1. You agreed to binding arbitration.

2. Now you are using your majority position to get out of your agreement.



The problem is that our agreeing is simply not being able to decertify prior to the merger. As I’m sure you know from your history, decertification is a high hurdle, largely because the different interests of different pilots i.e. age and seniority, not to mention apathy, and a general lack of understanding of ALPA’s merger policy. I would liken it to being Jewish in Hitler’s Germany. Didn’t vote for him, but stuck with the injustice.

So am I now having a problem with the majority correcting this injustice? No.

Of course the West doesn’t consider this an injustice, since it (justice) was defined by the arbitrator, (and oh it happens to favor the West). -On this point we will probably have to agree to disagree, because hey I can non-rev on my doh -please.


I think many can see how the “majority†and “agreed†cuts both ways. Agreed being defined by the majority, both now and previously. One could certainly make the argument that we agreed to certify a union with a date-of-hire constitution. You could certainly call that binding. (yes I understand the DFR lawsuit)

Yes, the majority voted to certify a union that had a DOH constitution, but that didn't authorize the same to disregard the lawfully executed agreements that survived the previous bargaining agent. What if the majority of management or stockholders voted to disregard the existing pilot CBAs because the previous agent had been decertified? Justice is served when two parties abide by their agreements unless both jointly agree to modify them. In this case the two parties are the east and west pilot groups - not the agents they elected to represent them.

 

[nic4us]

Parker doesn't get to decide. The arbitrator does.

Yes, the arbitrator gets to decide, and deliver a judgement and/or an award. Then Parker gets to decide what he is going to do with that decision.

As I have said before, there are so many loopholes in the TA, that a ruling not in the company's favor will simply allow the company to continue the whipsaw, but now the east would be on the recieving end of the whip.

For instance, over the last 4 years, how many new or replacement aircraft has the east taken delivery of. Those a/c are not listed by tail number on the TA as being exclusively east aircraft.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Yes, the arbitrator gets to decide, and deliver a judgement and/or an award. Then Parker gets to decide what he is going to do with that decision.

As I have said before, there are so many loopholes in the TA, that a ruling not in the company's favor will simply allow the company to continue the whipsaw, but now the east would be on the recieving end of the whip.

For instance, over the last 4 years, how many new or replacement aircraft has the east taken delivery of. Those a/c are not listed by tail number on the TA as being exclusively east aircraft.

This has nothing to do with the TA. Nothing. Really. Nothing.

 

[nic4us]

If the LOA 93 arbitrator rules in favor of the pilots, and the 9th upholds Wake, fully expect to live with your current contract until hell freezes over.

As fewer and fewer east pilots retain employment in the east operation, hell would freeze relatively quickly. But look at the bright side, you will have gotten parity to the West contract by operating under it.

 

[Al Legheny]

Not to my knowledge.

It has been reported that V.P. Labor Al Hemenway, Beth Holdren, corporate counsel, Paul Jones and outside corporate counsel Robert Segal were present.

That's a lot of horse power. Why were all 4 of them there? They could read the transcripts and listen to the tapes just like us, why the major presence?

Anyone care to read the tea leaves?

 

[nic4us]

This has nothing to do with the TA. Nothing. Really. Nothing.

Okay then, on a completely different tack.

Remember that Hemenway letter that said the company had the right to impose the east contract on the West? What makes you think the company (after an unfavorable arbitration ruling) would hesitate to use the West contract as the surviving contract and impose it on the east. You do not get your snapback, and we have also completed pilot seniority integration, one list, one certificate, one contract. Sorry, you did not even get to vote on a TA to ratify the Nic, but thems the breaks. You will still get to vote on the next TA that has an injuction mandating use of the already established Nic.