US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

If it was so easy why did you not provide a link? And do explain how it affects the bargaining positions of either side. No apology required. 😛

idiots with injunction against them

There is your link. Read all about it!!

You have to find it in there yourself...sorry!

The way it effects the company's bargaining position is they walk into the court in NYC and say, hey look here judge, we been bargaining and these folks have been promoting illegal work actions to harm us.

usapa has no position to bargain from, so, it really does not effect them all that much. Nothin but losers.

 

[Pi brat]

idiots with injunction against them

There is your link. Read all about it!!

You have to find it in there yourself...sorry!

The way it effects the company's bargaining position is they walk into the court in NYC and say, hey look here judge, we been bargaining and these folks have been promoting illegal work actions to harm us.

usapa has no position to bargain from, so, it really does not effect them all that much. Nothin but losers.

I never have understood how the west saw the injunction as a win. Kinda takes the wind out of the company's "USAPA will strike us!" theory doesn't it?

 

[BoeingBoy]

FACTS SAY DIFFERENT!

FACTS are determined by a Judge once the judicial realm is entered. Do you have any facts from a judge's ruling in the Naugler case that say differently.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

I never have understood how the west saw the injunction as a win. Kinda takes the wind out of the company's "USAPA will strike us!" theory doesn't it?

Study the difference between an illegal job action and legal self-help. Then get back to us.

BTW, since you're a stickler for words the company's complaint for declatory relief does not contain the word "strike"...

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

Not wrong, just obviously implied by the context of the TA. If you say you're going to a store, do feel it necessary to add that you'll get in the car, drive to the store, get out of the car, go inside, do whatever you went there to do, go back outside, get back into your car, drive home, get out of the car and walk back inside? Or is that understood from your statement that you're going to the store? You're arguing about the presence or lack thereof on a single word when the premise of the TA is that a SLI will be implemented when the 3 criteria specified are met. Given the company's reluctance to negotiate seniority without a legal liability waiver, it seems that the contract might be the final criteria met, so implementing the SLI will likely come from passage of a joint contract.

Jim

Let's review, shall we? From my post #28036:

"I know the intent of the TA was that the seniority list would be implemented, but the TA does not say that."

For what, the third time, my point was that the esteemed lawyer and pied piper from California had his terms wrong, and the TA doesn't say that. Does it matter? Is that big enough, along with other things to do what USAPA wants to? Who knows, we'll see.

You know you do have the right to remain silent..............

 

[Pi brat]

Study the difference between an illegal job action and legal self-help. Then get back to us.

BTW, since you're a stickler for words the company's complaint for declatory relief does not contain the word "strike"...

Jim

Legal self help? With a third of our group on the other side of the lawsuit? Good one!

Oh, now you want the exact word. Glad I could show you the way.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Does it matter

Nope - the intent is enough to make it clear. As in all contracts, as long as the language OR the intent clearly defines what is to be done, which does that doesn't matter. Unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing?

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

I never have understood how the west saw the injunction as a win. Kinda takes the wind out of the company's "USAPA will strike us!" theory doesn't it?

The West (at least Nic4US) seems to think it automatically ensured he/she gets the Nic Lottery cashed in with a bazillion dollars of back-damages dating from the times of Homer during his Odyssey. Its an epic win.

 

[Pi brat]

Nope - the intent is enough to make it clear. As in all contracts, as long as the language OR the intent clearly defines what is to be done, which does that doesn't matter. Unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing?

Jim

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner.

Aquaman is second only to you in stating the "facts". He got it wrong and it's funny he hasn't addressed it, but chief-west-cheerleader-in-charge Jimbob did! Have you ever noticed how many times he doesn't address his mistakes? Naw, you're too busy showing us how smart you are.

Have you called up Judge Silver and told her how she is wasting her time?

Your tag line has a quote of hers. Did you find any others that were interesting? I did.

 

[Pi brat]

The West (at least Nic4US) seems to think it automatically ensured he/she gets the Nic Lottery cashed in with a bazillion dollars of back-damages dating from the times of Homer during his Odyssey. Its an epic win.

Well duh Phoenix! $$$$$$$$$

 

[Keroseneuser]

How is that Naugler case going? The one that is trying to get commuter pilots that were furloughed from mainline better seniority. Would some of those 800 be included in that dead law suit?

You see it has already been tried and killed. Those 800 have not case. All the judge has to ask is what was the PID.

Case closed.

Some of the pilots in the MDA case would be part of the 800. The commuter pilots you refer to fall under the CEL list. So i guess it remains to be seen if they would fall into the catagory of those employed prior to the merger. They were on mainline property at the beginning of USAPA.

Last I saw the ruling on the MDA case has yet to come out. Have not looked it up recently. However since MDA 170's flew on the same certificate as mainline 737's 320' and 330's and were only different from mainline in the fact that they worked under a different contract.....exactly as the east and west are doing now. Seems like they have a good case, unless neither east or west is mainline either.

If there is indeed a final ruling on the MDA case I am sure somebody here will jump right up and tell us all about it.

 

[nic4us]

I never have understood how the west saw the injunction as a win. Kinda takes the wind out of the company's "USAPA will strike us!" theory doesn't it?

I never considered this injunction as a win. I do however see it as a loss for usapa and the entire pilot group. It was a stupid ploy, by a stupid union, nuff said.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Really asked CLEARDIRECT, he said it was "TRIED AND KILLED" NAUGHLER, Like you DHD, PROOF JUST PROOF! Since facts are judicial realm oh enlighten us DHD of the EAST!

Nope, you're the one that said

FACTS SAY DIFFERENT!

So show us the facts that say different. Any recent filings, motions, rulings, anything??? After all, you're the one that was begging for an update recently so I'm not too sure you're really keeping up with the Naugler case or know a FACT from a fizzle.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

Let's review, shall we? From my post #28036:

"I know the intent of the TA was that the seniority list would be implemented, but the TA does not say that."

For what, the third time, my point was that the esteemed lawyer and pied piper from California had his terms wrong, and the TA doesn't say that. Does it matter? Is that big enough, along with other things to do what USAPA wants to? Who knows, we'll see.

You know you do have the right to remain silent..............

"Under the TA, the carriers agreed not to object to ALPA's seniority integration proposal, provided it did not result in certain additional costs. The seniority integration proposal could be implemented only as part of a single CBA. The single CBA would require approval by the East Master Executive Council, the West Master Executive Council, and a majority of each of the East and West pilot groups, effectively giving each side a veto.".... so says The 9th Circuit


Pi, some are quick to think the TA requires the company to only accept ALPA's seniority integration proposal, and there might even be some that think the company would be liable otherwise, but they fail to simply accept that the 9th removed the injunction. Besides, under the old ALPA scheme, what pray tell was the company to do if any group vetoed the proposal? Pray tell why the company wouldn't just "Accept a new seniority integration proposal from the Bargaining Agent, provided it does not result in the afformentioned certain additional costs."

 

[nic4us]

The West (at least Nic4US) seems to think it automatically ensured he/she gets the Nic Lottery cashed in with a bazillion dollars of back-damages dating from the times of Homer during his Odyssey. Its an epic win.

I think it automatically ensures no contract worth a damn as long as usapa is around, if a contract at all.

The fact that the Nic will be the seniority list of any contract at LCC is a foregone conclusion.

usapa's negotiating capital is Gone with the Wind!