US Pilots Labor Discussion

[oldiebutgoody]

Don't you find it interesting that when two or more parties actually honor their contractual agreements that they don't have these issues either? The fault is not that of the process or the methodology; it has everything to do with people who refuse to accept responsibility for their agreements.

Okay then, live up to your requirement to abide by the USAPA merger policy.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I will ignore your stupidity. Go attack someone else.

You're not ignoring stupidity - you are fully embracing it as is evidenced by your “NIC is dead” posts.

So presenting undisputed facts and describing a scenario which shows that your own lead attorney is by no means as convinced as you are that the NIC is dead is somehow an attack?

I think you and I would at least agree on the observation that the world you are living in is very different from the one I am living in. Facts, logic and reason are all fully embraced in my world. I'm not sure (though I could guess) how those concepts are handled in yours.

 

[Bear96]

True enough. But if everyone feels equally cheated, it's been successful. There's no pleasing everybody in any endeavor.

It depends on why people feel cheated.

If people on one side feel cheated because they had unreasonable expectations and a basic misunderstanding of the process going in, and their leaders / advisors kept egging them on and telling them only what they wanted to hear, then of course they may feel more cheated by the outcome when things do not turn out the way they had hoped.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Okay then, live up to your requirement to abide by the USAPA merger policy.

Why don't we cross that bridge when two separate USAPA represented labor groups are involved in a future merger. A long shot I know, mostly in that USAPA will still be around and that any other group of pilots would elect them.

Until then, we need to deal with the HP/US merger which has the seniority integration terms defined by the ALPA merger policy which was the CBA in place when the TA was signed and the N/M/A process was agreed to by both pilot groups. That process must be fully completed before USAPA has any right to claim that their merger policy can or should be enforced.

 

[cleardirect]

Okay then, live up to your requirement to abide by the USAPA merger policy.

Excuse me Mr. DOH. But the ALPA merger policy and Nicolau arbitration were in place first. They have what is the word? SENIORITY!!!!!

usapa merger policy came along AFTER. so I tell you what you go ahead and honor your first agreement and abide by the Nicolau award.

The other problem with your illogic is that the other half of the requirement is for the company to abide by it. They have no requirement to abide by anything in usapa's C&BL.

 

[cleardirect]

You and your buds are delusional. There is absolutely ZERO chance that the Nic will be the list. That's right, ZERO.

The Nic is DEAD!

ALPA SUX!

Go USAPA! Best money EVER spent!

Talk about delusional. In your mind there may be a zero chance but for the rest of the world there is a very good chance that you will live under the Nicolau.

If the Nicolau is dead why did the company file their DJ? Do you also think that PBS is dead? The BPR said so does that make it true?

ALPA is gone let it go man, let it go.

I have said it before if usapa is the best money you ever spent I would hate to see you investment portfolio. Still on LOA93 wages and work rules. Still at the bottom of the industry in every way. Usapa is the laughing stock of the industry. Good investment right. Delusional!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You appear overly concerned about how much AOL has spent when your real concern should be how much you've given seham. Frankly he has produced nothing. Lost the original DFR that protects rights going fwd, lost twice on Rico and only given what amounts to a stay from the 9th circuit. He continues to embarrass himself with these rule 11 motions that keep getting tossed. I love watch the east grasp at each and ever tiny thing then try and claim a major victory. News flash, YOU"RE REALLY LOSING both battle and war...

AWA320

Oh Really, actually AOL is of no concern for ME, I didn't and never will condone anti-union behavior. Where is YOUR injunction, where is YOUR damages, and where is USAPA's assessment, Excuse me but wasn't it AOL that brought a lawsuit and we took it to the 9th's appellate process and had it booted, Okay we give, our last rule 11 motion has yet to be heard, My advice "ENJOY AND KEEP LUVIN! MM! SEHAM best money USAPA ever spent!

 

[cleardirect]

Oh Really, actually AOL is of no concern for ME, I didn't and never will condone anti-union behavior. Where is YOUR injunction, where is YOUR damages, and where is USAPA's assessment, Excuse me but wasn't it AOL that brought a lawsuit and we took it to the 9th's appellate process and had it booted, Okay we give, our last rule 11 motion has yet to be heard, My advice "ENJOY AND KEEP LUVIN! MM! SEHAM best money USAPA ever spent!

Did you sign the recall of Crimi the union buster for going to Freedom airlines? Or do you give him a pass on his anti-union behavior?

 

[nycbusdriver]

You might want to read the Federal Arbitration Act or google the Steelworkers Trilogy.

I did just that, and the is on you.

The Federal Arbitration Act had not one thing to do with the Nicolau process. It was not a federal arbitration. One key item missing that is required under the Federal Arbitration Act is that the arbitrator's award must be "confirmed" in a court of law. That never happened after Nicolau was finished. Why? It didn't fall under the Act.

And the Steelworkers' Trilogy Google turned up some interesting info.

In 1960, the Supreme Court issued its rulings in the "Steelworkers' Trilogy." United Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigating Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960; United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960). Through these cases, the Court established a presumption in favor of arbitration of disputes arising out of CBAs and affirmed the enforceability of an arbitrator's award unless the award fails to draw its essence from the CBA.

(Emphasis added.)

Thanks for making my point.

 

[Freighterguynow]

If Wake would have said not ripe, we would have saved money, but, usapa filed with the 9th before the trial, claiming lack of ripeness, and the 9th allowed the trial to proceed. So, all indications were the case was ready for adjudication. Further, if we had waited, both Wake and Bybee, felt it was ripe, so if a like minded judge would have heard the case at a later date, he or she may very well have dismissed due to SOL.

Also, had the 9th ruled in our favor, a lot of money would have been saved. Now both sides have to spend in the company's DJ.

If ... but ... if ... if .. had .

Sounds like AOL legal team Coulda, Woulda and Shoulda.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If the Nicolau is dead why did the company file their DJ?

The company's filing is clearly their admission that the Nicolau list may indeed be dead, but they want legal cover when they begin negotiating Section 22 without the Nicolau.

If the Nicolau abomination was truly the only thing the company would entertain, then there would be no reason at all for the filing.

 

[Pi brat]

I will go to my grave believing that Nicolau did our entire group a terrible disservice.

How much blame do you put on the east pilots and your MEC/MC? Did those groups also do this pilot group a disservice by not negotiating or looking for a compromise other than DOH/LOS before the award and not after?

I used to, but I went to one of the MC members and he said that popular notion was incorrect. He said the committee was given free reign and did come up with ideas other than DOH. He said that at first most of his time was spent on another proposal that had some real promise. He said that in the end the two groups were so far apart that it became evident that it would go to arbitration and they might as well go into that with what they felt was their best case, just like the west did.

You have to admit that ALPA merger policy almost guarantees arbitration. How many mergers have not gone that way? ALPA hired Nic to apply the merger policy in a neutral and fair way. You think he did, I think he didn't. One big difference between our views is that I point to the unfairness for you senior guys, you just say oh well.

 

[Bear96]

I did just that, and the is on you.

Not really. You are resorting to the usual East tactic of missing the point and instead creating irrelevant issues.

Let's start with The Point: I referred to the FAA and the Steelworkers Trilogy solely to point out that courts essentially like arbitration awards and take them very seriously, to counter the nycbusdriver's thought that the legal system will ignore an arbitration award.

But I'll play along for a moment and address your irrelevancies.

The Federal Arbitration Act had not one thing to do with the Nicolau process. It was not a federal arbitration.

What is "a federal arbitration"?

One key item missing that is required under the Federal Arbitration Act is that the arbitrator's award must be "confirmed" in a court of law. That never happened after Nicolau was finished.

Irrelevant (even assuming it is true, which I do not know). It only needs to be "confirmed" if a party is seeking judicial enforcement of the award in the federal courts, which is not what is going on here. You seem to be implying that it has to be confirmed in order to be somehow valid at all, which is not correct.

And the Steelworkers' Trilogy Google turned up some interesting info. [Quotation omitted.]

Are you saying the Nic award did not draw its essence from the ALPA meger policy?

You are probably fixated on the word "CBA" and will be unable to follow the logic to see that in this particular case it is appropriate to replace "CBA" with "agreement between the parties."

In which case are you suggesting that only with CBA disputes do courts respect the arbitration process?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Not really. You are resorting to the usual East tactic of missing the point and instead creating irrelevant issues.

Let's start with The Point: I referred to the FAA and the Steelworkers Trilogy solely to point out that courts essentially like arbitration awards and take them very seriously, to counter the nycbusdriver's thought that the legal system will ignore an arbitration award.

But I'll play along for a moment and address your irrelevancies.


What is "a federal arbitration"?


Irrelevant (even assuming it is true, which I do not know). It only needs to be "confirmed" if a party is seeking judicial enforcement of the award in the federal courts, which is not what is going on here. You seem to be implying that it has to be confirmed in order to be somehow valid at all, which is not correct.


Are you saying the Nic award did not draw its essence from the ALPA meger policy?

You are probably fixated on the word "CBA" and will be unable to follow the logic to see that in this particular case it is appropriate to replace "CBA" with "agreement between the parties."

In which case are you suggesting that only with CBA disputes do courts respect the arbitration process?

No, you are quite wrong. You keep trying to place properties on this that don't exist. Just like bad lawyers tend to do.

 

[cleardirect]

I used to, but I went to one of the MC members and he said that popular notion was incorrect. He said the committee was given free reign and did come up with ideas other than DOH. He said that at first most of his time was spent on another proposal that had some real promise. He said that in the end the two groups were so far apart that it became evident that it would go to arbitration and they might as well go into that with what they felt was their best case, just like the west did.

You have to admit that ALPA merger policy almost guarantees arbitration. How many mergers have not gone that way? ALPA hired Nic to apply the merger policy in a neutral and fair way. You think he did, I think he didn't. One big difference between our views is that I point to the unfairness for you senior guys, you just say oh well.

Let's define the terms just to be clear. ALPA national did not hire Nicolau. AAA ALPA and AWA ALPA hired Nicolau. That means that the guys that you elected were responsible for the decision. Ultimately the pilots from each group.

As far as if it was fair or not. Our opinion does not matter. We hired him to decide what was fair. It is fair in his opinion.

Arbitration has been explained this way and I think the clearest manner. The two parties in this case the pilots as represented both sign a blank piece of paper the becomes a contract. You make you best case the the arbitrator fills in the blanks. But you agree to the end product before the case begins. You guys tell us that you had all of this experience with mergers. You should have all known that.

Now going into arbitration with your best case. How did that work out? when Nicolau told you that your best case was rubbish most thinking people would then change their case. However now the east thinks that attrition and WB flying is the best case. Should have changed you position then not now. So who is to blame for your MC not changing your position then if they had free reign? How come we never heard you guys taking your MC to task?

Yes ALPA merger policy does almost guarantee arbitration because one side usually decides to stick with a losing position and not move. BTW what does the new Mckaskell/ Bond bill guarantee?