US Pilots Labor Discussion

[traderjake]

You're fixated on this "hammers" thing. It appears the biggest one in the bag fell out onto your head.

Looks to me like one smashed your moral compass.

 

[nic4us]

Dude, step back, take a deep breath, and listen to what the 9th said.
There is no ripeness until you have a contract ratified.
Until that time, everything is negotiable...
When a contract is ratified, your issue of DFR may be ripe.
Will SCOTUS reverse what the 9th has ruled: "Not ripe yet".
....Ah, I don't think so.
And, yes, the issue IS will this case open up a can of worms and allow union members to sue over POTENTIAL outcomes (i.e., bargaining positions).
Happy Holidays.

Take an even bigger step back, and look at a practical summation of what has happened to date.

The Scotus is made up of 9 judges. So far 2 judges( Wake and Bybee) have agreed with Addington, and 2(Tashima and Graber) did not necesarily agree with usapa, just pointed out that the brightline test for ripeness is a ratified contract.

Will the SC hear our case? I do not know, but what I do know is that union members should be able to sue over and stop POTENTIAL outcomes, when as in our case, that POTENTIAl outcome is in direct conflict with an agreement reached through BINDING ARBITRATION.

There is no flood of future claims in finding for Addington. However, left unchecked, the floodgates of litigation will be opened if the courts allow union employees to disregard binding arbitration by merely changing their representation.

If the SC hears our case, it looks bad for usapa. 5 Reps to 4 Dems,(so far rulings have fallen along party lines) and a new untested federal law guaranteeing arbitration in airline mergers.

 

[AWA320]

Why are you so concerned about our lawyers getting paid? Are you afraid that you are going to get handed a bill for all of this?

What I find interesting is the west through donations have funded this law suit. On the other hand you east guys are forced through taxation to pay for your side along with us.Would you guys care to match us dollar for dollar on donations? Take the seniority fight away from general funds and make it a pay as you go deal? East pays for Seham, the west pays for Marty and Andy. We all get a dues reduction and we see exactly how much support each side has.

Of course they are worried which is why they want to draw attention to the monies being spent. When this thing finally does end and they look back and what they have done not only to themselves but to the profession as a whole it will finally hit home. There is lot of truth to what some of them say with regards to unions and the courts staying out it their politics. Usapa took a huge misstep in not honoring their agreements under the arbitration and it is there that they will ultimatly get burned. The courts have yet to rule on the true merits of the case between east and west and most usapa supporters tout the 9th as a major win when in reality its just one more step in the direction of finally answering the real question. The real question is can a majority disreagard its obligations and set aside a mutually agreed upon result for their benefit and bring harm to the minority? Thats the real question. I dont think usapa can win that one because doing so brings the arbitration process itself into question. Thats a can of worms we all need to pay very close attention to.

AWA320

 

[nic4us]

It really has been impressive you have been able to continue to employ the services of your legal counsel (although based on recent results they need to lower their rates.) There is a dynamic going on there I still don't understand.

So, despite my ranting....my point is there really is not an issue of what each side can afford. You seem to be doing just fine, and we have the untapped resources of both your increased dues and our own donations.

RR

I am not a named Addington litigant, nor am I an AOL officer, but I think part of the dynamic is that Marty Harper has been in front of the Supreme Court before, and I believe he won his case.

I also am not trying to speak for Clear, but the bigger point of all the expense in this ridiculous fiasco is that none of us should be paying. The West being forced to pay both sides is the greater travesty, and payback will be a #### when it comes to that.

 

[Bear96]

The real question is can a majority disreagard its obligations and set aside a mutually agreed upon result for their benefit and bring harm to the minority? Thats the real question. I dont think usapa can win that one because doing so brings the arbitration process itself into question. Thats a can of worms we all need to pay very close attention to.

AWA320

Precisely.

 

[PullUp]

Take an even bigger step back, and look at a practical summation of what has happened to date.

The Scotus is made up of 9 judges. So far 2 judges( Wake and Bybee) have agreed with Addington, and 2(Tashima and Graber) did not necesarily agree with usapa, just pointed out that the brightline test for ripeness is a ratified contract.

Will the SC hear our case? I do not know, but what I do know is that union members should be able to sue over and stop POTENTIAL outcomes, when as in our case, that POTENTIAl outcome is in direct conflict with an agreement reached through BINDING ARBITRATION.

There is no flood of future claims in finding for Addington. However, left unchecked, the floodgates of litigation will be opened if the courts allow union employees to disregard binding arbitration by merely changing their representation.

If the SC hears our case, it looks bad for usapa. 5 Reps to 4 Dems,(so far rulings have fallen along party lines) and a new untested federal law guaranteeing arbitration in airline mergers.

If union members "should be able to sue over and stop POTENTIAL outcomes", organized labor in this country is finished.
I don't believe the SCOTUS will dismantle organized labor, even if the majority of the justices are republican.
As for the untested law (McCaskill-Bond) - I believe that pertains to two dissimiliarly represented labor groups and was enacted in 2008, post-merger and post USAPA. It would be a stretch to have that provision apply to this conflict.
Cheers.
Oh, and another thought: the statement "merely changing their representation" might be simplifying it somewhat. In my opinion, changing union representatives is a huge undertaking, and does not tend to be done lightly or easily.

 

[Code Name V]

Take an even bigger step back, and look at a practical summation of what has happened to date.

The Scotus is made up of 9 judges. So far 2 judges( Wake and Bybee) have agreed with Addington, and 2(Tashima and Graber) did not necesarily agree with usapa, just pointed out that the brightline test for ripeness is a ratified contract.

Will the SC hear our case? I do not know, but what I do know is that union members should be able to sue over and stop POTENTIAL outcomes, when as in our case, that POTENTIAl outcome is in direct conflict with an agreement reached through BINDING ARBITRATION.

There is no flood of future claims in finding for Addington. However, left unchecked, the floodgates of litigation will be opened if the courts allow union employees to disregard binding arbitration by merely changing their representation.

If the SC hears our case, it looks bad for usapa. 5 Reps to 4 Dems,(so far rulings have fallen along party lines) and a new untested federal law guaranteeing arbitration in airline mergers.

And in the end, even IF the case is heard AND overturned; what has been gained? Absolutely nothing! The list can NEVER EVER be implemented without ratification of a combined contract which even Peter Parker has said over and over again, will NOT happen. You know it, we know it, and Parker knows it. So, go ahead and see if you can gin up the bucks to keep the fight going. It's your money. Spend it any way you want....In the meantime, we won't be losing any sleep over it.

V

 

[CallawayGolf]

And in the end, even IF the case is heard AND overturned; what has been gained? Absolutely nothing! The list can NEVER EVER be implemented without ratification of a combined contract which even Peter Parker has said over and over again, will NOT happen. You know it, we know it, and Parker knows it. So, go ahead and see if you can gin up the bucks to keep the fight going. It's your money. Spend it any way you want....In the meantime, we won't be losing any sleep over it.

V

I'm not one to attribute logical and rational thought to the east pilot who thinks that binding arbitration can be overturned because they don't like the result, but should a very strong statement come from the SCOTUS or even judge Silver stating that the only legal seniority list is the NIC, I would expect many would have a change of mind. At that point the only two options within the control of the east pilots would be LOA93 until retirement or a NIC-inclusive TA with whatever pay and work rule improvements USAPA might be able to accomplish. Short of that, a NMB cram-down would be the only other way off of LOA93 and that too would include the NIC. Will the east pilots ever take a rational step towards bettering their situation or will they always inflict self-harm because they cannot grasp reality? Time will tell.

 

[700UW]

And in the end, even IF the case is heard AND overturned; what has been gained? Absolutely nothing! The list can NEVER EVER be implemented without ratification of a combined contract which even Peter Parker has said over and over again, will NOT happen. You know it, we know it, and Parker knows it. So, go ahead and see if you can gin up the bucks to keep the fight going. It's your money. Spend it any way you want....In the meantime, we won't be losing any sleep over it.

V

It can be implemented without a ratification vote. Do you think the Company and the NMB will let you negotiate forever?

The point will come when you get self-help and the company will be free to impose its own CBA upon the pilot group.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

And in the end, even IF the case is heard AND overturned; what has been gained? Absolutely nothing! The list can NEVER EVER be implemented without ratification of a combined contract which even Peter Parker has said over and over again, will NOT happen. You know it, we know it, and Parker knows it. So, go ahead and see if you can gin up the bucks to keep the fight going. It's your money. Spend it any way you want....In the meantime, we won't be losing any sleep over it.

V

You know, that is actually fine by this west pilot. That's where it was immediately post nic. What bothered me most from that point on was the way the east went around addressing what it percieved as being wrong. I'm not hell bent on the nic just for the sake of the nic , but I would like the east to be told with finality that they can't just dream up a list they like and impose it on me.


Regarding the Supreme Court though, I'm not expecting anything, I'm well aware of the long odds.

 

[nic4us]

If union members "should be able to sue over and stop POTENTIAL outcomes", organized labor in this country is finished.
I don't believe the SCOTUS will dismantle organized labor, even if the majority of the justices are republican.
As for the untested law (McCaskill-Bond) - I believe that pertains to two dissimiliarly represented labor groups and was enacted in 2008, post-merger and post USAPA. It would be a stretch to have that provision apply to this conflict.
Cheers.
Oh, and another thought: the statement "merely changing their representation" might be simplifying it somewhat. In my opinion, changing union representatives is a huge undertaking, and does not tend to be done lightly or easily.

There is no threat to organized labor with a finding for Addington. Name a single case where a union has ever tried to pull a get out of binding arbitration scam in the history of the RLA.

The SCOTUS upholding Addington would merely force scumbag lawyers like Seham to go chase ambulances in medical malpractice suits, instead of fleecing disgruntled arbitration participants, who want to renege on their obligations.

McCaskill-Bond does not apply to our case because it was enacted after our merger. However, McCaskill-Bond most certainly applies to a scenario such as ours where companies merge with employees represented by the same union, in that it guarantees that the union merger process will apply. In our case that would mean ALPA merger process, that was followed to completion, that is all the east is ever going to get.

Changing union representation would be easy, and common place, if usapa wins this one. Every trucking firm, every garbage collector, every steel mill, auto factory, restuarant, hotel, you name it, any bussiness whose employees are unionized, will form new unions every time something happens that they do not like.

They get the greenlight to renege on arbitration. Don't like the contract terms the company comes up with, go to arbitration, don't like the arbitration results, form new union.

 

[LSS]

It can be implemented without a ratification vote. Do you think the Company and the NMB will let you negotiate forever?

The point will come when you get self-help and the company will be free to impose its own CBA upon the pilot group.

And just which contract do you think the company would impose? The higher West contract or the East LOA 93 contract? and since the company says... "it's up to you guys" having to do with the seniority integration... unless a court orders otherwise... I can tell you... the East will live with LOA 93 forever (hell they have been...) to avoid the damage which will be imposed if the NIC is implemented.

 

[Phoenix]

I'm not one to attribute logical and rational thought to the east pilot who thinks that binding arbitration can be overturned because they don't like the result, but should a very strong statement come from the SCOTUS or even judge Silver stating that the only legal seniority list is the NIC, I would expect many would have a change of mind. At that point the only two options within the control of the east pilots would be LOA93 until retirement or a NIC-inclusive TA with whatever pay and work rule improvements USAPA might be able to accomplish. Short of that, a NMB cram-down would be the only other way off of LOA93 and that too would include the NIC. Will the east pilots ever take a rational step towards bettering their situation or will they always inflict self-harm because they cannot grasp reality? Time will tell.

That's a long list of contingencies... internal union disputes usually have them.

P.S. Today is reality.

 

[BoeingBoy]

And just which contract do you think the company would impose? <snlip>. the East will live with LOA 93 forever (hell they have been...) to avoid the damage which will be imposed if the NIC is implemented.

Not that I expect it to come to a company imposed contract, but if it did you'd have no choice about the Nic - there is no ratification of a "self help" imposed contract. The company would be free to impose whatever it wanted.

Jim

 

[CallawayGolf]

That's a long list of contingencies... internal union disputes usually have them.

P.S. Today is reality.

Is an internal union dispute usually defined by a contractual agreement between two separate MECs and multiple Company entities? Unless of course "internal" means something other than "internal".