US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

The 9th did not embroil itself in the bargaining process because they found it fruitless to speculate about the possible conclusions of the matter. Do you think we have a more accurate crystal ball than they do?

I find your answers fascinating (the 9th's opinion too). Let me see if I have this straight, these are facts:

1- The east demands doh in arbitration, doesn't get it

2- The east forms a union for the sole purpose of obtaining doh, the east Instills doh as the FIRST tenet of usapa constitution

3- Usapa serves management with a doh list.

So I think you know very well what seniority position usapa will take and accept. But why don't we play the hypothetical?

Let's say the court says the same thing the 9th said " negotiate under pain of ripe dfr" and gives the company immunity from the west. At this point the company will just accept whatever list usapa gives them(doh). Under this hypothetical scenario I gave you, what do you think the chances of usapa being found guilty of dfr are? Hypothetically of course

 

[mrbreeze]

Team

Did Tempe decide to walk out of negotiations to f over the negotiations process? Did Tempe violate the RLA, utilize illegal dual unionism practices, violate West pilots rights within the grievence process? Did Tempe file any frivolous lawsuit, seek terminations, falsly label anybody as felons? How many West pilots has Tempe tried get fired for speaking out against usapa, itself another violation of West LMRDA rights?

You are right about the "scab" rhetoric, these maggots are lower than simple picket crossing scabs and do not deserve to be held to the same standard, so I will stop.

Nic,

Team Tempe may not have done the things you ask about, but regardless of what is going on with all us peons, called pilots, they are responsible for changing things around to capture synergies from the merger. The same thing took place with the Piedmont/USAir merger.....they reshuffled the deck and some lost...some won. It's not a valid point to blame USAPA for the change....it was Team Tempe's actions.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Hey, MM.....you do realize it is possible to garnish Social Security, Pensions and Retirement Income....right?

Ah those threats, you truly are one funny , pathetic , moron! Did ya finish your happy meal?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Eastholes take notice.... Friends don't let friends post drunk (or on crack).

Ah the XBOX generation without education, isn't it great! MM!

 

[prechilill]

The 9th did not embroil itself in the bargaining process because they found it fruitless to speculate about the possible conclusions of the matter. Do you think we have a more accurate crystal ball than they do?

a total non-answer. God you are so transparent.

 

[prechilill]

Team

It's not a valid point to blame USAPA for the change....

But if it was ALPA... 😀

 

[end_of_alpa]

I find your answers fascinating (the 9th's opinion too). Let me see if I have this straight, these are facts:

1- The east demands doh in arbitration, doesn't get it

2- The east forms a union for the sole purpose of obtaining doh, the east Instills doh as the FIRST tenet of usapa constitution

3- Usapa serves management with a doh list.

So I think you know very well what seniority position usapa will take and accept. But why don't we play the hypothetical?

Let's say the court says the same thing the 9th said " negotiate under pain of ripe dfr" and gives the company immunity from the west. At this point the company will just accept whatever list usapa gives them(doh). Under this hypothetical scenario I gave you, what do you think the chances of usapa being found guilty of dfr are? Hypothetically of course

Slim to none.

 

[end_of_alpa]

YOU ARE A LIAR! The Supreme Court in Circuit City Stores vs. Adams:

"JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) excludes
from the Act’s coverage “contracts of employment of seamen,
railroad employees, or any other class of workers
engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U. S. C. §1.

All but one of the Courts of Appeals which have addressed
the issue interpret this provision as exempting contracts of
employment of transportation workers, but not other
employment contracts, from the FAA’s coverage. A different
interpretation has been adopted by the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which construes the exemption
so that all contracts of employment are beyond the FAA’s
reach, whether or not the worker is engaged in transportation.
It applied that rule to the instant case. We now
decide that the better interpretation is to construe the
statute, as most of the Courts of Appeals have done, to
confine the exemption to transportation workers."

Railway Labor Act employees are EXCLUDED from the act's coverage of employment at will contracts!

You're beloved Andy Jacobs tried to convince the appeals court of this "tripe" on the oral arguments! Only Judge Bybee bit off on that and ONLY because Bybee precided over one of the longest lasting court cases regarding arbitrations in the ninth, USA vs. Park Place.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT! I've attached both court cases....READ THEM YOURSELF!!!

Nic4us......am I right?

How about a straight forward answer?

 

[CactusPilot1]

Ah the XBOX generation without education, isn't it great! MM!

What's an XBOX, MM? My generation had Atari. They had some really cool games like Pong and Asteroids. 😉

 

[nevergiveup]

What's an XBOX, MM? My generation had Atari. They had some really cool games like Pong and Asteroids. 😉

I remember Doctari!

 

[john john]

😱

What's an XBOX, MM? My generation had Atari. They had some really cool games like Pong and Asteroids. 😉

Ask your F/O

 

[Ames]

Ah the XBOX generation without education, isn't it great! MM!

,

I wouldn't know an xbox if I saw one, but I know a dipshit when I see one and you are the original article.

 

[end_of_alpa]

You're right. It's not a lie. But it doesn't support YOUR legal theorem.

It supports the FACT that D-O-H has NEVER been found to violate the "wide range of reasonableness" and secondly the cases YOU are referring to are where the larger group wanted to change FROM AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED DOH LIST to entailing the minority group after the fact. Lastly, the last I have seen we're still separate contracts with NO ESTABLISHED SENIORITY LIST.

Big difference.
Those are the facts.

Where do you guys come up with this tripe?

Someone already said it best.....you can't fix stupid!

So Traitor Jak, answer the question: are the cases YOU refer to one where the majority wanted to impose an endtailing scheme AFTER a DOH list was already established?

Yes or no.

 

[snapthis]

So Traitor Jak, answer the question: are the cases YOU refer to one where the majority wanted to impose an endtailing scheme AFTER a DOH list was already established?

Yes or no.

Did you get DOH after 3 years of trying?

Yes or No?

Is the list accepted by the company DOH?

Yes or No?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Did you get DOH after 3 years of trying?

Yes or No?

Is the list accepted by the company DOH?

Yes or No?

First. No, not yet.

Second. Yes. So, what. Lawsuit still going on.