Pi;
Not too bad. We actually should have the numbers to attempt changes in the constitution without any help. That said, I have handed out a dozen or so petitions to east pilots and will continue to do so. One I know personally knows the Nicolau will be the seniority list. He took all three petitions and sent them in.
I have torn up the seniority petition in front of yellow lanyard wearers and asked "Are you truly pleased with USAPA and Mike Cleary's running said "union"?..."Are you OK with him doing ANYTHING that he deems necessary WITHOUT the specific approval of the BPR?"...etc. These pilots agreed to take the petitions and read the content.
I don't know when we will have enough, but the response is doing well and is steady. I'm not an ALPA fan myself, and I think that when the courts ultimately tell the parties what is legally required...I think we could be a very effective independent union. Right now the leader is in his office stating ....."I can't be out of money, I still have checks!". One of my biggest concerns is that we are NOT prepared for another merger (financially OR strategically). We have collectively spent over 15 Million dollars (both sides) to first get to the Nicolau Award, and now for you to try and dodge the Nicolau Award (while I and my group defend it). In the meantime we have all watched as the economic window to a much improved contract SLAM SHUT. If this keeps up, the window will open and shut again.
The west group will not lay down. At some point the courts will tell Doug that he either must use the Nicolau or face the possibility of a hybrid DFR lawsuit. Doug is simply looking for the courts to do his work for him....he walks in to a room in a light blue shirt and chinos and says..."Sorry guys...this is what the courts say I have to do...." Which way do you REALLY think the courts are going to ultimately lean? I don't think it's that tough of a guess.
The East Group will not lay down, either. At some point the courts will tell YOU that it is NOT RIPE until a CBA is ratified. It will also tell you that a "third" party like AOL does not have an "ex-officio" position in USAPA. For that matter, neither does the court. It will eventually get dismissed in Silvers court or ultimately in the ninth. Personally, I believe that if Silver doesn't dismiss it and it goes higher I see a Supreme Court review because to invoke a declaratory judgment in the midst of collective bargaining can only bring additional court interference in future CB negotiations at other companies.
Oh, and by the way, here is what conditions must be argued in a hybrid DFR 301 suit....read it carefully:
"Elements of a Hybrid § 301/DFR Claim"
To establish a hybrid § 301/DFR claim,
a plaintiff must prove both
(1) that the employer breached a collective bargaining agreement
and
(2) that the union breached its duty of fair representation vis-a-vis the union members(Addington).
See DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).
The plaintiff (which you were in DFR I) may sue the union or the employer, or both, but
must allege violations on the part of both. You STILL have to prove BOTH union and employer, even if your suiing just one. The declaratory judgement has NO PLACE in collective bargaining. We'll see.
As far as "reformusapa" or Army of Leonidas Lite, I don't believe that either Burman or Holmes are going to carry much weight getting endorsements from people like Tory Vaughan or the Caped Marauder, or "he who shall not be named". I disagree with your accessment of the numbers and all I can say is "show me". I'll believe it when I see it. Tory personally believes the nic will be it, but he is only ONE. Most everyone else overhere KNOWS that it's not the opinion, it's the VOTE.
I really hope you guys keep tilting at the windmills.
If you want some "lite" reading, I'll leave you with this case:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1363898.html
Read the discussion about DFR, etc. DFR II, if and when it comes, will be a hurdle that will prove to be insurmountable.
Good luck.