US Pilots Labor Discussion

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Bear96, I have a degree in Labor Relations, and your post above is more accurate and succinct than most of my professors in college could manage. Great post!

BEAR take that DELTA PILOT complement and frame it man! MM!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Ok they dont get it. Got one taking out his arse about breach of contract being a minor dispute. Time to let these clowns argue among themselves.

AWA320

MDA JUDGE OPENED THE BARN DOOR ON LAWSUITS AGAINST ALPA!
next reply quote

Subject: MDA JUDGE OPENED THE BARN DOOR ON LAWSUITS AGAINST ALPA!

Date: 03 Apr 2008 05:48 PM

Give me a call "sweet pee"

480 2xx-xxxx

 

[nic4us]

There you have it folks!!!!!!!!!!! This post sums up the west mentality better than a hundred combined!!!!!!!!!

You overlook the fact that the TA spells out separate ops until a joint contract has been reached in order to come to YOUR desired conclusion. You have been told the facts and said you would look into them, only to once again ignore them and stick to your faulty conclusions, because the facts prove your "stolen" accusations are WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amazing. You guys wouldn't know integrity if it bit you in the..............

Perhaps you could point me in the right direction and quote the TA language that would allow a seniority integration using anything other than ALPA merger policy.

Or, perhaps you could quote the TA and show me where it allows the company to violate West min block to save jobs on the east.

Or, perhaps you could point out to the viewing audience where in the TA it addresses a review of profit sharing, once the distribution method has been deteremined.

Or, maybe you could even go out on a limb, and show me where in the TA it excuses the east from negotiating and allows them to walk from the table while they have their meltdown to form a new union.

Better yet, show me in the TA where exactly it says future deliveries will not be shared, but put on the east, and we will have to fight over them in arbitration, only to get an IOU that usapa is more than happy to ignore, because east pilots are employed while West pilots get furlough notices.

The TA spells out a lot about seperate operations. All of which usapa is happy to ignore, in their seniority and job theft scandal.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG83596C_GY Wow has anyone seen his avatar! Or know any of his aviation family members? MM!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

[/quote]
I agree " BECOME A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING AND VOTE" it's usairways pilot's union! MM!

 

[Freighterguynow]

It absolutely infuriates me that those pilots were allowed to transfer to the east when they were furloughed from the West, while no such accomodation was afforded any other West pilot,

They have East seniority numbers - you do not.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Perhaps you could point me in the right direction and quote the TA language that would allow a seniority integration using anything other than ALPA merger policy.

Or, perhaps you could quote the TA and show me where it allows the company to violate West min block to save jobs on the east.

Or, perhaps you could point out to the viewing audience where in the TA it addresses a review of profit sharing, once the distribution method has been deteremined.

Or, maybe you could even go out on a limb, and show me where in the TA it excuses the east from negotiating and allows them to walk from the table while they have their meltdown to form a new union.

Better yet, show me in the TA where exactly it says future deliveries will not be shared, but put on the east, and we will have to fight over them in arbitration, only to get an IOU that usapa is more than happy to ignore, because east pilots are employed while West pilots get furlough notices.

The TA spells out a lot about seperate operations. All of which usapa is happy to ignore, in their seniority and job theft scandal.

For all intents and purposes, you can just line-out the letters ALPA and replace them with USAPA now that USAPA is the CBA. That changes the agreement to reading "USAPA merger policy" which, in the C&BLs specifies DOH with conditions and restrictions.

EVERYTHING in the TA and underlying contracts is negotiable. that's the way this "collective bargaining" thing works. That means that it can be changed anytime, through agreement between the company and the pilots' collective bargaining agent, USAPA. Sorry, dude, that's the way it works.

 

[FL430]

Seeing as how it's a page from USAPA's playbook, that makes USAPA how desperate?

Jim

Exactly what page number is it Jim?

 

[Captain Underpants]

You are still not getting it. There is no requirement under the RLA (or the NLRA) for the parties to reach an agreement.

The closest the RLA comes to stating this principle can be seen in the power granted to the NMB and a PEB, or rather the powers not granted to them. The NMB can only "mediate" and recommend. Even a PEB only makes a "report" to the President. (RLA Section 10.) Nothing requires an actual agreement.

The NLRA addresses this more explicitly, and case law has shown that the RLA is analagous on this point. NLRA sections 8(a)(5), 8( b )(3) and 8(d) requires the parties to bargain in good faith. However, Section 8(d) further clarifies, "ut such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession."

Rather, an underlying principle of U.S. labor law is that at some point once negotiations are fruitless, the parties are free to use the economic weapons at their disposal to try to get what they want. The law purposefully tries to keep the government out of labor disputes as much as possible (the NLRA moreso than the RLA, but on this point they are the same) to let the parties work things out for themselves.


They can. The answer to your question is, Once impasse has been reached (under the NLRA) and, under the RLA, once the parties have been released to begin self-help. For example, the employer can impose terms and conditions of employment with no further bargaining, should it wish.


?? Did Eastern reach agreement with its mechanics in 1989? Did NWA reach agreement with its mechanics in 2005?

You are correct insofar as that almost always, the parties reach agreement. But this is as a result of the actual or perceived relative strength of their economic weapons and it would be economic suicide for one or both sides not to do so (i.e., EAL) - not because it is required by law.

But let's make this simple. Please cite the law that requires the parties to reach an agreement.

Sorry Bear but the RLA does absolutely require companies to make and maintain contract agreements with the unions....always. You are confusing temporary situations where the company can impose contract terms with the continuing requirement to reach a contract agreement with the union. The union or the company does not always get a favorable agreement depending on the leverage they have as you describe in the above examples but there is always an agreement. Eastern would have had to sign a new contract with it's mechanics except Eastern liquidated so there was no longer a airline party to negotiate with and the NWA mechanics did eventually sign a crawlback agreement with the company.

If a company could just impose contract terms and then walk away permanently from any further contract negotiations that would give the company the legal authority to just ignore the union and refuse to negotiate as if the union did not exist which as you should know is illegal.

The fact remains USAirways is legally required by the RLA to reach and sign a contract agreement with USAPA.

If unions would educate their members on the legal rights and responsibilities inherent in labor law it would prevent a lot of ridiculous expensive lawsuits as the means to educate about labor law.

underpants

 

[nic4us]

They have East seniority numbers - you do not.

You are correct, I never had an east seniority number. Thank god.

However, there were something to the tune of over 100 formerly east furloughees who found employment at AWA pre-merger, who did have east seniority numbers, who after the Nic was published had to make a decision over east recall.

Their decision was, your Nic number or your old furloughed un-employed east number. Obviously, because of protections in the TA, they excersied their Nic number, only to get screwed by usapa, and although they were senior to the pilots allowed to transfer back east, some found themselves furloughed once again. If you cannot see the what is wrong with that, then I must asume you support the usapa job theft.

The bright side is, these individual will end up with their Nic number, and so will all those who formerly had an east seniority number.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

AWA320 can speak for himself, and his avatar.

I do not need to analyze any east bids. All I have to do is look at the handling of who was furloughed prior to the merger, and who was employed, and see that former furloughed east pilots who were furloughed and got their jobs back because of the merger are still employed replacing West pilots who were employed yet are now furloughed because of the merger.

It is ever moreso aparent, when you consider that some of the furloughed West pilots are indeed former east furloughed pilots who gained employment at AWA pre-merger, only to get screwed over by usapa, who allowed pilots junior to them to be furloughed from the West and transfer to the east. Regardless of the fact that they would be junior no matter how you sliced it, usapa in its suicidal quest for a non reachable DOH list stole these pilots jobs.

It absolutely infuriates me that those pilots were allowed to transfer to the east when they were furloughed from the West, while no such accomodation was afforded any other West pilot, even though the furlough numbers themselves were extremely lopsided as proven by the TA-10 grievence, and the West min block was violated.

Plain and simple, east pilots have stolen West jobs. The eventual conclusion to this mess will address what usapa has done here, and restitution will be paid.

Well good for you if you READ TA-9 you might vent your anger at ALPA, I believe BLOCH does a great explanation in his summary! MM! BTW Good for them they know the NIC is dead and the value of attrition Conditions and restrictions when accompanied by DOH! MM!

 

[autofixer]

You are correct, I never had an east seniority number. Thank god.

However, there were something to the tune of over 100 formerly east furloughees who found employment at AWA pre-merger, who did have east seniority numbers, who after the Nic was published had to make a decision over east recall.

Their decision was, your Nic number or your old furloughed un-employed east number. Obviously, because of protections in the TA, they excersied their Nic number, only to get screwed by usapa, and although they were senior to the pilots allowed to transfer back east, some found themselves furloughed once again. If you cannot see the what is wrong with that, then I must asume you support the usapa job theft.

The bright side is, these individual will end up with their Nic number, and so will all those who formerly had an east seniority number.

Everything you say is from YOUR tainted perspective. Those individuals rolled the dice hoping to take advantage of a windfall and they lost. From my tainted perspective it is you westies who want to steal my job. I have never (not even close) been furloughed and would be junior to a pilot who was in middle school when I was taking my first Part 121 checkride at Piedmont. Just because you think something does not particularly make it right. That is why there are courts.

 

[nic4us]

For all intents and purposes, you can just line-out the letters ALPA and replace them with USAPA now that USAPA is the CBA. That changes the agreement to reading "USAPA merger policy" which, in the C&BLs specifies DOH with conditions and restrictions.

EVERYTHING in the TA and underlying contracts is negotiable. that's the way this "collective bargaining" thing works. That means that it can be changed anytime, through agreement between the company and the pilots' collective bargaining agent, USAPA. Sorry, dude, that's the way it works.

Yep, you are correct, that is the way it works, and had you voted in usapa prior to the Nic being published, we probably would have had to use usapa merger policy. However, since you you did not, just take that header on the Nic, scratch out Pilots of AWA represented by ALPA, and insert pilots of AWA represented by usapa.

Fail to represent those pilots "suffer pain of unquestionably ripe DFR". I would image by "pain" they are refering to large sums of money.

Oh, BTW, changing to usapa does not allow you to scratch out the other party to the contracts, USAirways or the airline parties. Gotten any inkling from USAirways that they are willing to even entertain the idea of letting usapa steal the West seniority, and breach their contract with the West pilots? I mean, they "accepted" the Nic. What have they done with DOH? Does not matter who represents the West pilots in their contract with the company, the West still has the contract, and the company is not reneging.

 

[Bear96]

Sorry Bear but the RLA does absolutely require companies to make and maintain contract agreements with the unions....always.

Cite please - I am curious what you are referring to. The RLA certainly wants unions and employers to "make and maintain" CBAs, sure. But you seem to be moving the goalposts from your prior assertion that the RLA "always requires the parties to reach agreement during negotiations."

If unions would educate their members on the legal rights and responsibilities inherent in labor law it would prevent a lot of ridiculous expensive lawsuits as the means to educate about labor law.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[nic4us]

Everything you say is from YOUR tainted perspective. Those individuals rolled the dice hoping to take advantage of a windfall and they lost. From my tainted perspective it is you westies who want to steal my job. I have never (not even close) been furloughed and would be junior to a pilot who was in middle school when I was taking my first Part 121 checkride at Piedmont. Just because you think something does not particularly make it right. That is why there are courts.

I will agree that my perspective is tainted. I have this tainted idea that one would actually live up to their agreements.

Here is a couple of things that are tainted in your above quote.

First, there was no windfall, and these pilots did not role the dice. They had an arbitrated award, ( something anybody other than a usapian would have honored) to base their decision on.

Second, you say you never came close to furlough, I say, Parker said, the industry knows, Nic understood, that you were exactly two weeks from a permanent furlough.

Third, I do not care if the guy senior to you was born on the day of your first 121 checkride at some former airline. That guy senior to you was not added to your list. He had his own seniority, that obviously was senior to yours, otherwise he would have ended up junior to you, and you could have ended up junior to a guy senior to him that was still in kidegarten when you took your first 121 checkride that nobody cares about.