US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/2- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Well said BS. Keep shedding the light!
[What really is funny is how the WEST will HONOR ITS AGREEMENT TO PAY HARPER! Talk about honor now that is clear and direct! MM! Or will they DISMISS IT!

 

[Phoenix]

Invoice Summary
Current Professional Services $1,678,300.50
Current Disbursements 142,929.37

Total Current Invoice $1,821,229.87

In the context of a new CBA, that is chump change.. sorta. It ought to be included as a olive branch from the company in the contract negotiations. USAPA could demand it be one of the conditions and restrictions. Just sayin.

 

[boeingplt]

Phoenix-
Are you at all familiar with USAPA's track record for either negotiating with the company (by torpedoing any merger possibility and antagonizing management with silly newspaper ads) or giving a rats --- about the interests of the west? USAPA is a microcosm of the current US Govenment: disregard the welfare or the opinion of the electorate and do what you want, all the while alienating your allies. That strategy will only lead to their ouster at election time.

Hey, as it applies to USAPA, that's hope we can all believe in!


DUMP USAPA

Crack is a very dangerous drug

 

[Freebird]

Crack is a very dangerous drug

Usapa, designed by thieves, for thieves. No Honor. No Integrity. We dont live by our agreements. Usapa.

 

[autofixer]

Usapa, designed by thieves, for thieves. No Honor. No Integrity. We dont live by our agreements. Usapa.

Grow up! Everything in life is negotiable.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Usapa, designed by thieves, for thieves. No Honor. No Integrity. We dont live by our agreements. Usapa.

Freebird you're actually referring to ALPA.

Later,
Eye

 

[oldiebutgoody]

In the context of a new CBA, that is chump change.. sorta. It ought to be included as a olive branch from the company in the contract negotiations. USAPA could demand it be one of the conditions and restrictions. Just sayin.

How about USAPA picking this up, under the conditions that there is a stipulation by ALL sides that the NIC will NEVER be addressed in any form again? Then we could get on with getting an INDUSTRY LEADING (not just INDUSTRY STANDARD) contract for ALL pilots.

 

[luvthe9]

Phoenix-
Are you at all familiar with USAPA's track record for either negotiating with the company (by torpedoing any merger possibility
DUMP USAPA

Yes we are, and if I were a westie I would be very worried about the upcoming transaction, we are working with the company very nicely, you guys should be concerned about your futures, wow Ferguson led you suckers down the wrong path, I don't know whether you guys will be around here much longer, don't expect any help from Parker!!!!! he just wants his money. USAPA ROCKS!!!!!! By the way junior let me clue you in ALPA SUCKS!!

 

[usabusdriver]

Actually, the 9th acknowledged the union's duty to fairly represent the pilots.

The Nic was an internal union attempt that failed as is. The court acknowledged that ALPA was free to abandon Nic and that USAPA is equally free. The duty to fairly represent remains, but is not embodied in an ALPA policy or process. It is clear that any future possible court case on a USAPA breach of DFR will not be held to the standards of ALPA policies. ALPA, USAPA, or any other union's compliance with their Duty of Fair Representation is judged by standards superior to their own or other union policies.

Actually Jim, though I respect your opinion, The ruling did specifically state that DFR wouldn't be determined until such time a CBA is voted in, and then it would be determined by what is contained within that CBA, and just simply the absence of the NIC would not necessarily constitute a DFR....

Actually I believe they did mention that their duty was not to debate the fairness or unfairness of the NIC, just that simply the exclusion of the NIC is not cause for DFR. ... That in addition to that, the simple fact of NOT having put out a CBA to vote, is not grounds of DFR either. And if you look a little closer, I believe they are hinting, that making the union include the NIC into any CBA, could in essence be a greater DFR to it's membership, as it would continue the stalemate that both unions have found themselves in.

As discussion point 5 states:

[5] We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the
accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA. Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal
will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new
single CBA. Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.

...
3We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-
nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the
Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA,
is binding on USAPA.

What's note 3 mean to you!??!?!?!

I think that thses are the core of the issues being debated.

The interpretation that the union can negotiate anything it desires without regard to the west pilot’s interests as long as a CBA gets membership ratification is, in my opinion, misguided.

Please recall that the District Court stated the union has a right to negotiate away from the Nic as long as it was for “a legitimate union objective”. I believe that is the same logic behind the phrase that “that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA.” This follows from the Rakestraw decision, (UAL seniority dispute), that implicitly defined a union’s fundamental right to freely negotiate seniority, even if it is discriminatory, (by definition seniority is a zero sum issue – someone’s gain is another’s loss) as long as the action benefits the bargaining group as a whole.

The whole ALPA v USAPA policy or procedures argument is, I think, misplaced because the TA, (read amended CBA) describes the process.

I believe that the most important part of this decision comes from paragraph 5 of the majority's opinion:

At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA.

Meaning, what will the company accept? Will the company defer to the union for the current proposal they have submitted, or because of fear of legal liability insist on the Nic? Remember uncle Al testified by deposition at the trial that the company has never entertained anything other than the Nic for Section 22. The company has not been eager for a contract, (they have been very miserly, and opposed the NMB mediator), and unless another transaction or event occurs to change their outlook, I believe they will continue to delay. The above snippet gives the company the opportunity to frustrate the negotiation process under cover of the 9th Circuit’s opinion by insisting on the Nic.

Just trying to provoke thought and not rhetoric.

 

[Ct3f]

Its really quite simple.
USAPA puts out the newly negotiated contract WITH nic for a vote.
The new contract is voted down.
Then, USAPA puts out the IDENTICAL contract, LESS Nic for a vote and voila! it passes easily.
Guess what the rank and file have spoken. Not USAPA.
NO dfr violation.

We will all be living together under one contract. Whatever that winds up looking like.

I think that thses are the core of the issues being debated.

The interpretation that the union can negotiate anything it desires without regard to the west pilot’s interests as long as a CBA gets membership ratification is, in my opinion, misguided.

Please recall that the District Court stated the union has a right to negotiate away from the Nic as long as it was for “a legitimate union objective”. I believe that is the same logic behind the phrase that “that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA.” This follows from the Rakestraw decision, (UAL seniority dispute), that implicitly defined a union’s fundamental right to freely negotiate seniority, even if it is discriminatory, (by definition seniority is a zero sum issue – someone’s gain is another’s loss) as long as the action benefits the bargaining group as a whole.

The whole ALPA v USAPA policy or procedures argument is, I think, misplaced because the TA, (read amended CBA) describes the process.

I believe that the most important part of this decision comes from paragraph 5 of the majority's opinion:

At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA.

Meaning, what will the company accept? Will the company defer to the union for the current proposal they have submitted, or because of fear of legal liability insist on the Nic? Remember uncle Al testified by deposition at the trial that the company has never entertained anything other than the Nic for Section 22. The company has not been eager for a contract, (they have been very miserly, and opposed the NMB mediator), and unless another transaction or event occurs to change their outlook, I believe they will continue to delay. The above snippet gives the company the opportunity to frustrate the negotiation process under cover of the 9th Circuit’s opinion by insisting on the Nic.

Just trying to provoke thought and not rhetoric.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I think that thses are the core of the issues being debated...


...Just trying to provoke thought and not rhetoric.

Missed it by THAT much... (quote from Maxwell Smart).

The company is not now, and has NEVER been bound to include the NIC in ANY contract. That was only a requirement of ALPA. The company, in fact, specifically stated that as long as the list met certain conditions, it would accept whatever was presented by the CBA. When the NIC list was passed, the company ONLY stated that it appeared to meet all of these conditions. It NEVER said it was going to be THE SENIORITY LIST or even a proposal included in a new contract.

 

[Schultz]

Nic is dead----- Here's why!

The 9th said the CBA does not need to include the Nic, as long as whatever our union comes up with is not unfair to the West.

If our union were to include the Nic in the CBA, the MDA pilots would again file another DFR, this time against USAPA, for using a flawed list, (which they are in the process of proving).

Nic is DEAD, or at least on its death bed.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Its really quite simple.
USAPA puts out the newly negotiated contract WITH nic for a vote.
The new contract is voted down.
Then, USAPA puts out the IDENTICAL contract, LESS Nic for a vote and voila! it passes easily.
Guess what the rank and file have spoken. Not USAPA.
NO dfr violation.

There is case law that says you're wrong - merely having a contract approved by the majority does not relieve the union of it's DFR responsibility when negotiating that contract. The short and sweet is that the union has to negotiate for everyone equally and can't discriminate against members of a group merely because they're members of that group, nor can the majority use the union to advance it's position relative to members of that group.

Jim

 

[luvn737s]

Yes we are, and if I were a westie I would be very worried about the upcoming transaction, we are working with the company very nicely, you guys should be concerned about your futures, wow Ferguson led you suckers down the wrong path, I don't know whether you guys will be around here much longer, don't expect any help from Parker!!!!! he just wants his money. USAPA ROCKS!!!!!! By the way junior let me clue you in ALPA SUCKS!!

Aw, jeez some drunk on the internet has me worried about the future of the west operation. Will I get any sleep tonight?

Junior? I haven't been called that in many, many years. And even then the person was sober, so this is a first.

Gotta love this unmoderated board!!

 

[Schultz]

Jim, thanks for proving my point. AKA MDA.

There is case law that says you're wrong - merely having a contract approved by the majority does not relieve the union of it's DFR responsibility when negotiating that contract. The short and sweet is that the union has to negotiate for everyone equally and can't discriminate against members of a group merely because they're members of that group, nor can the majority use the union to advance it's position relative to members of that group.

Jim