US Pilots Labor Discussion

[oldiebutgoody]

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."


Couldn't agree more.

Bear, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG about there not having to be agreements. It's all over the RLA, look it up yourself. And, before the company gets to impose anything it has to be approved by the NMB. But before that even happens, the NMB can impose it's own agreement. That's collective bargaining in the US. If it were as you said, all companies would just fail to agree and impose their will. Once a labor group is represented by a CBA, it can't. At least not without approval of the NMB.

A lot of those agreements were abrogated under chapter 11, which puts some other laws into play. Some have the effect of bypassing the RLA, but only with court approval, and nobody is in chapter 11 at this time.

You really don't understand the RLA. You may think you do, but from your posts it's obvious that you don't. You should call your legal rep for a refresher.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

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.

If it weren't a windfall, the disagreement wouldn't be so divided. If everyone were equally "PO'd" at the deal, it would not be a windfall. The fact that it divided the groups is the best way to demonstrate that it IS, INDEED, a windfall.

In the long term, DOH style seniority is good for both sides. It works everywhere else, in all fields and professions. The only thing that doesn't work is overly creative solutions that rely on complex formulas and something called a "career expectation" which changes at least annually for everyone in this screwed up industry.

 

[Code Name V]

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.

Hey 4,

After you take another hit off that Bong, you should know that comet Nic is in the galaxy. All you need do is drink that special brew and you can join the others on board..Until then sorry to tell you that you're stuck here on planet USAPA and have to live by their rules.

V

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

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.

Well NIC4 you have YOUR list YOUR Attrition And closeness is not an issue. What if, What if, get over it, If your unhappy quit, other than that the only whining goin on here is you , suck it up, it is what it is,you obviously are complaining about your own unresolved personal self fufillment, get used to it it probably will get worse, us EASTHOLES only know to well! MM!

 

[Bear96]

Bear, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG about there not having to be agreements. It's all over the RLA, look it up yourself.

Actually, I did reread the RLA before making these posts to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything.

Perhaps you can point out what it was I missed? It must have been a lot somehow because, you know, it is "all over the RLA."

And, before the company gets to impose anything it has to be approved by the NMB. But before that even happens, the NMB can impose it's own agreement.

Now I really have no idea what you are talking about. Can you cite something that says the NMB has to approve or can impose terms? I see nothing like that in my reading or understanding of labor law.

If it were as you said, all companies would just fail to agree and impose their will.

?? I don't think you read my post very carefully. I stated that most of the time companies WILL try to reach an agreement and will not impose terms unilaterally because doing otherwise is usually not in their ultimate economic interests. However, once the process under the NLRA or the RLA has been exhausted, a company certainly has the legal right to impose its terms (and the union has the right to strike).

A lot of those agreements were abrogated under chapter 11, which puts some other laws into play. Some have the effect of bypassing the RLA, but only with court approval, and nobody is in chapter 11 at this time.

Correct, in bankruptcy another law comes into play, 11 U.S.C. Sect. 1113. But that still does not require the company to agree to terms with its unions. In fact, quite the opposite. So again I am missing your point.

You really don't understand the RLA. You may think you do, but from your posts it's obvious that you don't. You should call your legal rep for a refresher.

Um, OK. I'll look into that.

But I am already a practicing labor attorney (and also teach labor law), so I am not sure what good a "legal rep" would do me.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Actually, I did reread the RLA before making these posts to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything.

Perhaps you can point out what it was I missed? It must have been a lot somehow because, you know, it is "all over the RLA."



Now I really have no idea what you are talking about. Can you cite something that says the NMB has to approve or can impose terms? I see nothing like that in my reading or understanding of labor law.


?? I don't think you read my post very carefully. I stated that most of the time companies WILL try to reach an agreement and will not impose terms unilaterally because doing otherwise is usually not in their ultimate economic interests. However, once the process under the NLRA or the RLA has been exhausted, a company certainly has the legal right to impose its terms (and the union has the right to strike).



Correct, in bankruptcy another law comes into play, 11 U.S.C. Sect. 1113. But that still does not require the company to agree to terms with its unions. In fact, quite the opposite. So again I am missing your point.



Um, OK. I'll look into that.

But I am already a practicing labor attorney (and also teach labor law), so I am not sure what good a "legal rep" would do me.

Glad I didn't take YOUR class, because you don't get it.

You changed your second post to include that, but not your earlier one. You said that it was not a requirement to have an agreement. It absolutely IS. That doesn't have ANYTHING to do with whether the two sides agree on anything. Never has. But, there has to be an underlying agreement spelling out pay, benefits, working conditions, etc. That is in the RLA more times than I care to count.

By the way, "practicing attorneys" are wrong all the time, at least half lose everyday.

 

[Bear96]

You said that it was not a requirement to have an agreement. It absolutely IS. . . . That is in the RLA more times than I care to count.

Then it should be easy to point out just one of those examples, no?

Here, I'll help you get started:

Text of RLA

 

[Pi brat]

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.

None of what you have listed has anything to do with what we were talking about. I think this has to be one of the stupidest lines of thinking I've seen. Your original premise was that east pilots that returned from furlough stole west jobs. When I show you why you are wrong, you go off on tangents instead of admitting that you are wrong.

Bottom line: The TA calls for SEPARATE OPS until we have a JOINT CONTRACT. Period. You can blame all you want, and there is plenty of blame to go around, but the bottom line is we don't have one, so separate ops and for the most part separate lists.

When you guys run your mouths about b.s stuff like stolen jobs you just make things worse.

 

[cleardirect]

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.

Selective quotation. What you always fail to understand and state.

D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.

A pilot of furlough un merged had a career expectation of coming back to the bottom of a list. Not coming back senior to 1500-1700 pilots. That furloughed pilot did not have an un merged expectation of coming back senior to captains.

The C&R do not preserve your un merged career expectations. The C&R are useless. They violate your own constitution.

 

[cleardirect]

If it weren't a windfall, the disagreement wouldn't be so divided. If everyone were equally "PO'd" at the deal, it would not be a windfall. The fact that it divided the groups is the best way to demonstrate that it IS, INDEED, a windfall.

In the long term, DOH style seniority is good for both sides. It works everywhere else, in all fields and professions. The only thing that doesn't work is overly creative solutions that rely on complex formulas and something called a "career expectation" which changes at least annually for everyone in this screwed up industry.

Than I guess you had better call your rep and have him change the usapa C&BL.

D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.

Now what is it that usapa is trying to sell the west? Oh that's right overly creative solutions and complex formulas to try and make DOH something other than a complete theft of the west's right.

Thanks for making the west point perfectly.

Now if you were to actually read the Nicolau award. There are no complex formulas or overly creative solutions. A simple ratio and no C&R. Elegant! Can we now count on you to follow through with your desire for a solution and accept the Nicolau since it complies with your stated wishes?

 

[No Land Green]

that you were exactly two weeks from a permanent furlough.

You know this for a fact? Could you please back this statement up with financial statements and expert testimony.

Did AWA ever furlough? If so please tell the audience how many times and when. Thank you.

 

[boeingplt]

A pilot of furlough un merged had a career expectation of coming back to the bottom of a list. Not coming back senior to 1500-1700 pilots. That furloughed pilot did not have an un merged expectation of coming back senior to captains.

A pilot on a list, whether on furlough or not, has a career expectation to occupy vacancies, present and future, associated with that list per his order on that list (ie. attrition) ahead of anyone not on that list

 

[700UW]

The NMB does not approve terms when a company imposes a new cba during self-help.

You are totally wrong, and there is nothing in the RLA that states they have to reach an agreement, that is why self-help exists.

You guys are totally ignorant.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You said that it was not a requirement to have an agreement. It absolutely IS.

So it is illegal for employees to be "at will" with no contract (or agreement)?

During normal negotiations, with union representation of an employee "class and craft", I agree with much of what you say except you don't go far enough. BOTH sides have an obligation to bargain in good faith, not just the company. Plus, if the NMB gets involved in settling a sticking point centered on section 22 they'll put a lot of weight on the side of the Nic. After all, arbitration as a means of settling disputes is "all over" the RLA as well.

Jim

 

[No Land Green]

Plus, if the NMB gets involved in settling a sticking point centered on section 22 they'll put a lot of weight on the side of the Nic. .

Jim

Opinion, correct?