US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

The premise to the 9th's opinion was that the court could not fashion a remedy neither could they speculate if a union has breached its responsibilities to fairly represent all pilots of a union in the context of its bargaining rights/responsibilities, not while the bargaining process is still underway. Not until a CBA is ratified by the pilots can the court assess an alleged breach of DFF, according to the terms of the SCOTUS DFR threshold.

The 9th removed the injunction that impeded bargaining between the two parties. Do you believe Judge Silver will reinstate it?

I understand what you are saying, but you dont understand what a DJ is, look it up.

 

[CallawayGolf]

The premise to the 9th's opinion was that the court could not fashion a remedy neither could they speculate if a union has breached its responsibilities to fairly represent all pilots of a union in the context of its bargaining rights/responsibilities, not while the bargaining process is still underway. Not until a CBA is ratified by the pilots can the court assess an alleged breach of DFR and when they can they will do so according to the terms of the SCOTUS DFR threshold.

The 9th removed the injunction that impeded bargaining between the two parties. Do you believe Judge Silver will reinstate it?

I can’t predict what Silver will do. However, I was one of the only ones on either side of this debacle that claimed months ago that Silver would likely accept the case as ripe for adjudication. So, while I don’t know what will happen, I suspect that she will import the Addington DFR I court records and will do what the Ninth didn’t do which is to view the Nicolau Award in the context of the Transition Agreement. If she does, then I would expect an injunction against USAPA to use the NIC in negotiations which is their legally binding responsibility as the CBA. There are certainly other scenarios that could arise from this proceeding, but that would be my guess at this point. USAPA will no doubt appeal, but I like the chances of Silver being upheld far more than I do/did with Wake and Addington I since there is very little doubt that the DJ is ripe. Let’s see what happens when the merits are ruled upon (again).

 

[767jetz]

Negative. The fact is that DPA has received just over 2000 cards (from a pilot group numbering over 12,000) over the last 18 months.

Maybe you consider that a serious threat. I don't.

Try to remember the small thinking they are accustomed to. 2000 is a big number to them, and as usual they never see the big picture.

 

[mrbreeze]

Your contradicting yourself, there is only one accepted seniority list and that list is the nicolau. The companies attorneys testified to this fact in Adington and if you read the dj filing the company again says they have accepted the nicolau as required by the ta. Dougs comment was in the context that a new union now wants to change the contract. Please read the ta, the single seniority list portion of this merger was finished when lcc payed both mecs $300k and it only awaits a ratified contract to be in effect. Now usapa wants to renegotiate that completed portion of the ta but management is concerned because what usapa proposes is illegal. And btw it's illegal with case law to back it up, and as much as you guys wish it weren't so, the Nic. was complete and accepted in writing by lcc before usapa took over.

Addington and the NIC were both flawed. Wake didn't allow much of USAPA's testimony, and NIC was devised without properly including the MDA pilots.

 

[cleardirect]

USAir will never go back to ALPO. If there was ever another card drive on this property, there would be many other players trying for our dues money.

It is also quite hard to get rid of an incumbent. You just don't have the horsepower.

V

Really! MANY others! You say ALPA is not coming back so that leaves IBT and?.........

SWAPA going to come save us?

Gert real. usapa is failing and will continue to fail until the west is the majority and fixes your mess.

 

[mrbreeze]

Pick me. If you ever come across a 6'2", Catus t wearin, white boy introduce yourself. I'll have you shine my Justins.

Snapthis,

This comment I made refers to previous posts between fodase and I....he knows what I mean. It was not written as an in your face threat.

 

[mrbreeze]

For Aquagreen:



June 06, 2011




Gene therapy reverses type 1 diabetes in mice with 78% success rate


An experimental cure for Type 1 diabetes has a nearly 80 percent success rate in curing diabetic mice. The results, to be presented Saturday at The Endocrine Society's 93rd Annual Meeting in Boston, offer possible hope of curing a disease that affects 3 million Americans.

"With just one injection of this gene therapy, the mice remain diabetes-free long term and have a return of normal insulin levels in the body," said Vijay Yechoor, MD, the principal investigator and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.




Yechoor and his co-workers used their new gene therapy in a nonobese mouse model of Type 1 diabetes. The therapy attempts to counter the two defects that cause this autoimmune form of diabetes: autoimmune attack and destruction of the insulin-producing beta cells by T cells. First, the researchers genetically engineer the formation of new beta cells in the liver using neurogenin3. This gene defines the development of pancreatic islets, which are clusters of beta cells and other cells. Along with neurogenin3, they give an islet growth factor gene called betacellulin to stimulate growth of these new islets.

The second part of the therapy aims to prevent the mouse's immune system from killing the newly formed islets and beta cells. Previously the research team combined neurogenin3 with the gene for interleukin-10, which regulates the immune system. However, with that gene, they achieved only a 50 percent cure rate in diabetic mice, Yechoor said.

In the new study, the investigators added a gene called CD274 or PD-L1 (programmed cell death 1 ligand-1). It inhibits activity of the T cells only around the new islets in the liver and not in the rest of the body, he explained.

"We want the gene to inactivate T cells only when they come to the new islet cells. Otherwise, the whole body would become immunocompromised," Yechoor said.

This treatment reversed diabetes in 17 of 22 mice, or 78 percent. Diabetic mice that otherwise live only six to eight weeks were growing normally and were free of diabetes as long as 18 weeks after injection of the gene therapy, Yechoor said.

This treatment approach, he said, "has the potential to be a curative therapy for Type 1 diabetes."

The other mice reportedly responded to the gene therapy initially but then became diabetic again. There are two possibilities, according to Yechoor, why the therapy did not achieve a 100 percent cure rate.

"T cells are the predominant part of islet destruction, but other pathways, including beta cells could also contribute, meaning we would need to target those pathways as well," Yechoor said. "Or maybe the efficiency of this new protective gene is not sufficient, and we need to give a larger dose."

 

[CallawayGolf]

Addington and the NIC were both flawed. Wake didn't allow much of USAPA's testimony, and NIC was devised without properly including the MDA pilots.

Judge Wake allowed the relevant testimony to be presented in the trial. In fact, he let USAPA present far more than was required to determine that USAPA had violated their DFR to the west pilots. For all of his leniency and tolerance of the ever-whining $eham, he still gets derided for not conducting a fair trial. IMO he could have let $eham present 50% less and still been well in the “fair” and applicable range. $eham loves to rack up the bills with his irrelevant filings, but the outcome would still be the same no matter how many documents he filed. USAPA has a duty to represent all pilots fairly and they did not and still are not fulfilling their duty. I suspect any impartial judge or jury will make that same determination no matter how much smoke and mirrors $eham throws at the court.

Nicolau addressed the MDA pilots in his award. The certified list was provided by the east MEC and he made a legally-binding arbitration based on the facts. However, if you believe the award should be vacated on legal grounds, go for it. No wait, isn’t this already past the statute of limitations? Can you say, not ripe?

 

[fodase]

Addington and the NIC were both flawed. Wake didn't allow much of USAPA's testimony, and NIC was devised without properly including the MDA pilots.

Well if the Nic. wasn't devised with the correct east list, which was submitted by the east who's fault was that? BTW this bs of the unfairness of the nic. wasn't heard by the jury is pure fantasy. The fairness/unfairness of the Nic. as perceived by you will never mean anything as the Nic. will never be put on trial. I sat in Silver's courtroom when your boy seeham told her exactly the same thing, he wants her to see how unfair the Nic. is, and plans on bringing it up at trial, but guess what? This isn't about fairness, it's about whether doh advances the east at the expense of the west as compared to the legally and contractually mandated list accepted in writing and paid for by lcc.

 

[Phoenix]

I understand what you are saying, but you dont understand what a DJ is, look it up.

What, no "Hey Clown" or "Hey Jackass!"? 😛

I get it. The DJ is not expected to reestablish the injunction, per se.

The West hopes the DJ will declare the company to be liable for any bargaining positions that they accept from USAPA and thus will be culpable co-defendants in DFR II. That is problematic on at least two points.

First, the company has no obligation whatsoever in a bargaining process to faithfully represent the pilots which they are lawfully in contest with. How can the company freely bargain with their opponent to whom they are artificially constrained? One may counter, saying, "Two or more parties can agree to constrain themselves during negotiations." True, and ALPA and the Company did so in the TA. But even the TA asserted the fact that such artificial constraints are de facto (even de jure) part and parcel to each party's bargaining positions during the bargaining process. i.e. The TA declared that even the TA did not prevent the company and ALPA from changing their mind about any and all elements of the TA. The TA itself declared ALPA and the Company retained their right to negotiate all portions of the TA. ALPA and the company did bargain to constrain their bargaining process by the TA. Question: Did the West and East sign the TA in order to constrain the company, or did National sign it to constrain the company? In other words, were the signatures of East and West merely ALPA's mechanism to demonstrate the East and West agreed, and therefore exonerate itself of any DFR claims? East and West were powerless to bargain with the company and the company's obligation to them was only insomuch as finalized in a ratified CBA that ALPA national was attempting to secure for them. The company's obligation was merely to bargain with ALPA and then abide by the terms of a ratified contract, after the bargaining process had fully run its course (as now known certain, by precedent of the 9th). If ALPA and the Company had bargained a change to the TA, It would have been futile for the East to sue the Company for a DFR breach when we all signed an admission that even the TA was negotiable. Where is the Company's obligation to represent the pilots? How can a subset of pilots, who were impotent to bargain during the bargaining process, afterword at the completion of bargaining sue both their lawful representative and the opponent of their representative, at the same time for the same alleged offense? Such a conclusion would prevent the company from ever bargaining with the certain knowledge that the lawful representative is in fact the lawful representative. If the company has any obligation to a subset of pilots, it is not free to bargain with the representative of the pilots.

Second, if the company is legally constrained by a third party that is not its legal opponent in the bargaining process (even if it is the court), the bargaining process has been fouled. The company must be allowed to bargain freely to attempt to take advantage of the pilots to the maximum extent possible, knowing that the union has full legal responsibility to protect the legal interests of all its pilots.

 

[fodase]

What, no "Hey Clown" or "Hey Jackass!"? 😛

I get it. The DJ is not expected to reestablish the injunction, per se.

The West hopes the DJ will declare the company to be liable for any bargaining positions that they accept from USAPA and thus will be culpable co-defendants in DFR II. That is problematic on at least two points.

First, the company has no obligation whatsoever in a bargaining process to faithfully represent the pilots which they are lawfully in contest with. How can the company freely bargain with their opponent to whom they are artificially constrained? One may counter, saying, "Two or more parties can agree to constrain themselves during negotiations." True, and ALPA and the Company did so in the TA. But even the TA asserted the fact that such artificial constraints are de facto (even de jure) part and parcel to each party's bargaining positions during the bargaining process. i.e. The TA declared that even the TA did not prevent the company and ALPA from changing their mind about any and all elements of the TA. The TA itself declared ALPA and the Company retained their right to negotiate all portions of the TA. ALPA and the company did bargain to constrain their bargaining process by the TA. Question: Did the West and East sign the TA in order to constrain the company, or did National sign it to constrain the company? In other words, were the signatures of East and West merely ALPA's mechanism to demonstrate the East and West agreed, and therefore exonerate itself of any DFR claims? East and West were powerless to bargain with the company and the company's obligation to them was only insomuch as finalized in a ratified CBA that ALPA national was attempting to secure for them. The company's obligation was merely to bargain with ALPA and then abide by the terms of a ratified contract, after the bargaining process had fully run its course (as now known certain, by precedent of the 9th). If ALPA and the Company had bargained a change to the TA, It would have been futile for the East to sue the Company for a DFR breach when we all signed an admission that even the TA was negotiable. Where is the Company's obligation to represent the pilots? How can a subset of pilots, who were impotent to bargain during the bargaining process, afterword at the completion of bargaining sue both their lawful representative and the opponent of their representative, at the same time for the same alleged offense? Such a conclusion would prevent the company from ever bargaining with the certain knowledge that the lawful representative is in fact the lawful representative. If the company has any obligation to a subset of pilots, it is not free to bargain with the representative of the pilots.

Second, if the company is legally constrained by a third party that is not its legal opponent in the bargaining process (even if it is the court), the bargaining process has been fouled. The company must be allowed to bargain freely to attempt to take advantage of the pilots to the maximum extent possible, knowing that the union takes full legal responsibility to protect the legal interests of all its pilots.

You answer your own question several times. Usapa is free to bargain as alpa was, the company is free to bargain as well none of that is in question, what is in question are the parties responsibility to contracts they have signed. What usapa proposes is illegal, the company knows that it is illegal and wants protection from the court because there exists a mechanism
in labor law called "hybrid dfr", this mechanism holds the company liable if they agree to an illegal contract term. Please read the company's position in front of judge Silver, they tell the judge that usapa has been convicted of dfr for the same thing they are attempting to do again and because the company is well aware of that fact they know they will be colluding with usapa should they accept doh. The company wants to know their rights and liabilities so they can either accept doh or tell the nmb that usapa proposes an illegal list which they cannot accept.

 

[Phoenix]

You answer your own question several times. Usapa is free to bargain as alpa was, the company is free to bargain as well...

That is exactly what they said in the TA, though it wasn't really necessary to state the obvious. Neither ALPA nor the Company, the bargaining parties, can unalterably relinquish their right to freely change their mind about their bargaining positions throughout the whole process. The notion that the company must be in fear of liability, to any subgroup that has no direct power to bargain, while the bargaining proposals change at every whim, is obviously contrary to their right of both opponents to freely bargain. Each is liable to those they represent. Otherwise you suggest each bargaining rep is liable to the opponent's subgroups, which are simply a part of the collective group they hope to profit from. And this despite the fact that they have no legal ability to bargain with a subgroup, much less even a responsibility to bargain on their behalf. Being able to freely bargain necessarily includes the right of each bargaining opponent to advance its own interests at the expense of the other.

If you sue the company and the union for agreeing to a grievance settlement that you don't like (think PHX crew news), then it is pretty obvious the company would be quickly dismissed from the suit, sorta like what happened with Addington.

 

[nevergiveup]

You answer your own question several times. Usapa is free to bargain as alpa was, the company is free to bargain as well none of that is in question, what is in question are the parties responsibility to contracts they have signed. What usapa proposes is illegal, the company knows that it is illegal and wants protection from the court because there exists a mechanism
in labor law called "hybrid dfr", this mechanism holds the company liable if they agree to an illegal contract term. Please read the company's position in front of judge Silver, they tell the judge that usapa has been convicted of dfr for the same thing they are attempting to do again and because the company is well aware of that fact they know they will be colluding with usapa should they accept doh. The company wants to know their rights and liabilities so they can either accept doh or tell the nmb that usapa proposes an illegal list which they cannot accept.

If Judge Silver says the company can be sued, then the question is can they defend a lawsuit from the west. When it comes to lawsuits, whoever has the most money usually wins. (and the lawyers on both sides rejoice in victory!)

 

[fodase]

That is exactly what they said in the TA, though it wasn't really necessary to state the obvious. Neither ALPA nor the Company, the bargaining parties, can unalterably relinquish their right to freely change their mind about their bargaining positions throughout the whole process. The notion that the company must be in fear of liability, to any subgroup that has no direct power to bargain, while the bargaining proposals change at every whim, is obviously contrary to their right of both opponents to freely bargain. Each is liable to those they represent. Otherwise you suggest each bargaining rep is liable to the opponent's subgroups, which are simply a part of the collective group they hope to profit from. And this despite the fact that they have no legal ability to bargain with a subgroup, much less even a responsibility to bargain on their behalf. Being able to freely bargain necessarily includes the right of each bargaining opponent to advance its own interests at the expense of the other.

If you sue the company and the union for agreeing to a grievance settlement that you don't like (think PHX crew news), then it is pretty obvious the company would be quickly dismissed from the suit, sorta like what happened with Addington.

Phoenix, what you say would make sense in a vacuum, but you have a big problem with your theory, that problem is "hybrid dfr".
If "hybrid dfr" didn't exist then you would be 100% correct in that only usapa would be liable for not representing the west. There are 3 things going on here that you don't address:
1-Hybrid dfr- Can hold a company liable for an illegal contract term
2- Usapa previously convicted of dfr
3- usapa's proposal is illegal (pending ratification)

 

[Phoenix]

Well if the Nic. wasn't devised with the correct east list, which was submitted by the east who's fault was that? ....

Let me guess... the Company's fault, because they knew that ALPA knew MDA was a scam... right! What do I win? A kick in the ass.

Obviously, even if the company knew that MDA was a scam, it was the responsibility of the bargaining representative to provide the bargaining position. Which is ALPA, and if ALPA found they made a mistake with regard to one or a hundred pilots on the SLI, the TA allowed them to make changes to their bargaining position.

The Phoenix DJ is that the East shouldn't waste their money trying to chase the company for ALPA's certified seniority list...

(One difference here is that the Company may have falsely obscured the real nature of MDA, which is a different question of liability.)