US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[aquagreen73s]

No - justice, morality and integrity are not situational. They are the same for all time and for all people. It's the moral law of the Universe which was established at creation. C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity demonstrated the existence of this law that has been recognized by all civilizations throughout history. The court system often fails to provide for true justice primarily when it ignores the moral law and tries to make matters situational.
Interestingly "final and binding" means connotatively exactly the same thing as it means denotatively. Does anyone really expect an impartial court of justice to come to a different conclusion on such a simple concept?

Very well stated Callaway. God help us all if the answer to your last question is yes, they do come to a different conclusion. The damage wouldn't be contained to just the litigants, and Judge Graber's hypothetical addressed this very danger.

It's easy to come up with a million hypotheticals to see the damage of a Seham victory, but I challenge anyone to come up with any hypothetical example where it would be better for a binding arbitration to not be binding, that a majority can overpower a minority and cram down the majority's version of fairness, and then have a ripeness rule that prohibits the minority from seeking a judicial remedy until a CBA is signed. How on Earth would that be "good" law?

 

[nic4us]

Oh Please, The Patriotic analogy is too much.

Seham's points are either right or they are not. That is what the
judges will decide, and in either case one of us will deem it just and the other unjust.




"gets it right" is in the eye of the 'getter'.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. If usapa prevails, and the court system finds in their favor, I will consider that a just conclusion to our disagreement.

Aquagreen's patriotic analogy is right on target. I give thanks that this system of justice is available to us. Just as I was prepared to accept and uphold any result of the Nicolau arbitration, I am equally as prepared to accept the results of this litigation. It will be just, no matter the outcome, that you believe differently is telling.

But be prepared, because, if usapa does not prevail, although you may deem that unjust, it will not keep you from paying, in dollars, an award of damages in the future.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Eagerly awaiting the legal update from the USAPA spin machine. More" supreme confidence", perhaps?

Apparently Cleary, Mowery and Seham left the courthouse skipping. Same thing happened after the closing arguments at the trial. Mowery and Seham were reported to be "shadow boxing" and high fiving each other in the men's room after their "slam dunk" case presentation at the trial court.

What in the world is up with these guys? What planet are they on?

 

[nic4us]

Apparently Cleary, Mowery and Seham left the courthouse skipping. Same thing happened after the closing arguments at the trial. Mowery and Seham were reported to be "shadow boxing" and high fiving each other in the men's room after their "slam dunk" case presentation at the trial court.

What in the world is up with these guys? What planet are they on?

They are on planet,,,,,, "How long can we delay implementaion of the Nic award",,,,,, located in the star system,,,,,, "3 and a half years and counting",,,,,,, found in the galaxy,,,,,,"seniority is like crew meals",,,,,,orbiting the supermassive black hole,,,,,"it is going to cost them lots and lots of money!"

 

[Best_Guess]

No - justice, morality and integrity are not situational. They are the same for all time and for all people.

True. But your assumption is that you are right when I am right. Get it yet?

It's the moral law of the Universe which was established at creation. C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity demonstrated the existence of this law that has been recognized by all civilizations throughout history. The court system often fails to provide for true justice primarily when it ignores the moral law and tries to make matters situational.

Ahhh, The court system doesn’t always get it right. Ok I’ll buy that.

Interestingly "final and binding" means connotatively exactly the same thing as it means denotatively. Does anyone really expect an impartial court of justice to come to a different conclusion on such a simple concept?

Final and binding……I guess the award was ok because a majority of Easties did not vote out ALPA and their merger policy before the arbitration therefore we “agreed“. Hmmmm majority. Then again, the majority voted in a union with a DOH constitution. I’d say that is binding until it is constitutionally changed or USAPA is decertified.


C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, p18: “ Quarrelling means trying to show the other man is in the wrong, And the would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

 

[Best_Guess]

Let me make myself perfectly clear. If usapa prevails, and the court system finds in their favor, I will consider that a just conclusion to our disagreement.

Aquagreen's patriotic analogy is right on target. I give thanks that this system of justice is available to us. Just as I was prepared to accept and uphold any result of the Nicolau arbitration, I am equally as prepared to accept the results of this litigation. It will be just, no matter the outcome, that you believe differently is telling.

But be prepared, because, if usapa does not prevail, although you may deem that unjust, it will not keep you from paying, in dollars, an award of damages in the future.

Interesting.

I also give thanks that this system of justice is available to us.

To be fair, I’d have to say that if the court finds in USAPA’s favor, that makes USAPA the winner, but that in itself does not give them the moral high ground, or make you wrong.



And that is why the appeals process exists. Sometime the courts get it wrong.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I guess the award was ok because a majority of Easties did not vote out ALPA and their merger policy before the arbitration therefore we “agreed“.

Nope. "You" (the East) agreed when you entered merger negotiations under ALPA's merger policy without objection about that process. "You" agreed when "you" decided that negotiations weren't going to be successful and decided that arbitration was needed, again without objecting to the process. "You" agreed when "you" used the alternate strike method to choose an arbitrator, once more without objecting to the process. "You" agreed when "you" presented "your" case to the arbitrator, still without objecting to the process. So, by accepting every step in the process without complaint, "you" agreed to the process.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

To be fair, I’d have to say that if the court finds in USAPA’s favor, that makes USAPA the winner, but that in itself does not give them the moral high ground, or make you wrong.

Nor, does it make the decision unjust. Regardless if I am right or wrong.

 

[Best_Guess]

Nope. "You" (the East) agreed when you entered merger negotiations under ALPA's merger policy without objection about that process. "You" agreed when "you" decided that negotiations weren't going to be successful and decided that arbitration was needed, again without objecting to the process. "You" agreed when "you" used the alternate strike method to choose an arbitrator, once more without objecting to the process. "You" agreed when "you" presented "your" case to the arbitrator, still without objecting to the process. So, by accepting every step in the process without complaint, "you" agreed to the process.

Jim

Who didn’t complain?

I complained.

Others complained.

I personally spent hours on the phone with our merger committee early in the process.

True, the majority didn’t mobilize to decertify ALPA.

Oh there’s that ‘majority’ word again.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I complained.

Others complained.

That's why I put "you" in quotes - not necessarily referring to you or any other individual personally but the East as a group. I guess it was inconceivable that "you" (that majority...) wouldn't get the DOH you wanted at the end of the process. Of course, after the Nic list came out, it was presumably equally inconceivable that "you" (that majority again...) couldn't do anything "you" wanted. It's seeming like that "majority" thing doesn't carry as much weight as "you" thought.

Jim

 

[OTTER574]

Who didn’t complain?

I complained.

Others complained.

I personally spent hours on the phone with our merger committee early in the process.

True, the majority didn’t mobilize to decertify ALPA.

Oh there’s that ‘majority’ word again.

funny..................very funny.

and who's to blame for what you just said, not I. your usair list provided to a neutral arbitrator and 22-25 years in the FO seat (most of which where on furlough) and than try and leap frog jump over a awa captain is...........................how should I say this..............simply a scab

 

[aquagreen73s]

and who's to blame for what you just said, not I. your usair list provided to a neutral arbitrator and 22-25 years in the FO seat (most of which where on furlough) and than try and leap frog jump over a awa captain is...........................how should I say this..............simply a scab

We don't need this kind of language. It solves nothing.

The conclusion to this seniority dispute is just about over. We're gong to need to move on - together.

 

[Best_Guess]

That's why I put "you" in quotes - not necessarily referring to you or any other individual personally but the East as a group. I guess it was inconceivable that "you" (that majority...) wouldn't get the DOH you wanted at the end of the process. Of course, after the Nic list came out, it was presumably equally inconceivable that "you" (that majority again...) couldn't do anything "you" wanted. It's seeming like that "majority" thing doesn't carry as much weight as "you" thought.

Jim

Well we don’t know yet.



Most of this has been eloquently beaten to death by you and others here.
I have to admit that if I was a West pilot, I would be pissed.
Just not as much as an East pilot losing 16 ½ years.

“but you agreedâ€￾ doesn’t hold much weight when you didn’t agree.

My original contention here, is that those on both sides believe they have the moral high ground. The courts will render decisions, this does not define justice. (either way)

 

[aquagreen73s]

My original contention here, is that those on both sides believe they have the moral high ground. The courts will render decisions, this does not define justice. (either way)

Perhaps, but I can certainly tell you what "injustice" is, and it's called the tyranny of the majority.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Just not as much as an East pilot losing 16 ½ years.

Losing 16-1/2 years....

Is that pilot at TOS for the equip/seat being flown? There's that "missing" 16.5 years.

Is that pilot getting max vacation (such as it is)? There's that "missing" 16.5 years.

Is that pilot ahead of a 16 year employee in the same boarding priority when competing for non-rev seats? There's that "missing" 16.5 years.

In other words, that 16.5 year pilot gets what he/she has always gotten for time put in.

Jim