US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

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!)

That is the most likely finding from the court, remeber Silver already told lcc that "you know what you have to do not to get sued". So then if this scenario happens, lcc simply walks into the nmb and shows them the judgement, they cannot accept usapa's proposal under pain of liability. You must ask yourselves what are the chances usapa will get released for self help over section 22 when the company has a court order saying their in legal jeopardy if they go with usapas plan? I predict complete stale mate "parked" until usapa is gone and replaced with a bargaining agent that will honor the ta.

 

[fodase]

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 new 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.)

What does this matter? The Nic. list won't be scrutinized in anyway. You had 6 mos. after it came out to challenge it and you did not, statue of limitations expired.

 

[Metroyet]

What does this matter? The Nic. list won't be scrutinized in anyway. You had 6 mos. after it came out to challenge it and you did not, statue of limitations expired.

Had they hired competent lawyers to begin with, like AOL did, they would have known that.

 

[Phoenix]

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)

You are so smart!! Great timing!!

1. Yes a Hybrid DFR for the company participating in an illegal contract term, like if they knowingly provided ALPA false information about MDA, and thus corrupted the certified seniority list used in the NIC. Both ALPA and the Company would have different liability and for different reasons, but each could find it very difficult to have their portion of the case dismissed.

2. USAPA has not been convicted of a DFR, and even if it was conceded that they were, the terms of the bargaining positions have changed, and as the 9th has said, ".. USAPA's final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award." There is no certainty that USAPA will be found guilty of DFR II, that cannot be judged until ratification, and it will be according to the threshold of the SCOTUS precedent, which did not mention the inclusion of the Company having responsibility.

3. That has not been established and there is no basis to speculate or judicially intervene to hinder the free bargaining process.

4. More importantly, even if USAPA is eventually sued for DFR II (and perhaps even found to have some guilt and liability according to SCOTUS precedent), there is no precedent for the company to be responsible for their opponent's new bargaining position, to which they asserted to be their right.

 

[fodase]

Had they hired competent lawyers to begin with, like AOL did, they would have known that.

I should have been more clear, the Nic. list will be looked at, but in the context of how doh with c&r's affects west/east pilots as compared to Nic.

 

[CallawayGolf]

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.

Prior to USAPA becoming the bargaining agent, you are essentially correct. All of the parties who signed the TA can collectively agree to modify the TA of their own volition so long as all of the parties are willing to sign off on the same modifying amendment. With the election of USAPA and the dissolution of the west as a separate and distinct signatory to the TA, there is no recognized party of west pilots to accept or reject any such amendments. USAPA may claim to represent the west pilots in the same manner in which their interests were protected via the west MEC under ALPA, but no one would genuinely believe that to be the case given USAPA’s formative history.

So the Company says (paraphrase) to judge Silver – we don’t know if USAPA’s proposed modification of section 22 is lawful or not. What we do know is that USAPA was found liable for a DFR failure by a jury in a district court, ripeness notwithstanding, and we fully expect USAPA to be found guilty once again of violating their DFR should we agree to accept their modified proposal. This leaves us extremely vulnerable to a threatened hybrid DFR/collusion claim by a certified class of west pilots, and we believe that threat has substantial legal merit.

The west representation that existed under ALPA no longer exists meaning the TA cannot be modified as you claim. The west pilots still exist and they still have rights granted to them by the TA but their voice has been stripped away leaving them as only a legally harmed class as recognized by the courts throughout this process. USAPA cannot modify the TA because of this; the Company cannot modify the TA because of this; the court cannot modify the TA except in the case of bankruptcy where the company would have to petition for relief – probably on the basis of fleet size, but that isn’t on the horizon anytime soon. Thus the TA will remain unmodified and so will the Nicolau Award which was a product of the TA and became legally binding on all parties with no possible modification so long as the west cannot be independently identified under USAPA’s governing framework. The courts will recognize this fact by either issuing an injunction before a JCBA can be ratified or after it is ratified and ripe for DFR adjudication.

 

[USA320Pilot]

JetBlue Pilots Organize to Join ALPA

Will US Airways' pilots follow JetBlue?

See Story

 

[Phoenix]

What does this matter? The Nic. list won't be scrutinized in anyway. You had 6 mos. after it came out to challenge it and you did not, statue of limitations expired.

The point is you call people Clowns and Jackasses but don't hold to your own arguments. (In your defense, the two are not mutually dependent).

You were the one that made the point that the company was guiltless in the certified ALPA lists, because it was an internal union process.

 

[fodase]

You are so smart!!

I know

Great timing!!

1. Yes a Hybrid DFR for the company participating in an illegal contract term, like if they knowingly provided ALPA false information about MDA, and thus corrupted the certified seniority list used in the NIC. Both ALPA and the Company would have different liability and for different reasons, but each could find it very difficult to have their portion of the case dismissed.

According to the company in front of silver, they know that doh has been found illegal by a jury before and there is a good chance they will again, don't take my word read the transcripts

2. USAPA has not been convicted of a DFR, and even if it was conceded that they were, the terms of the bargaining positions have changed, and as the 9th has said, ".. USAPA's final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award." There is no certainty that USAPA will be found guilty of DFR II, that cannot be judged until ratification, and it will be according to the threshold of the SCOTUS precedent, which did not mention the inclusion of the Company having responsibility.

Usapa has been convicted for dfr, that is a fact. You are correct there is no certainty that usapa will ever get to doh, that is why we have the company filing the DJ. The 9th refused to answer the hypothetical, but that is exactly what a DJ does it answers the hypothetical.

3. That has not been established and there is no basis to speculate or judicially intervene to hinder the free bargaining process.

What usapa proposes has been found illegal by legal precedent on the 7th circuit, also Addington proves that what usapa proposes is illegal. The company and judge Silver both say the 9th never looked at the merits, the company specifically argues that usapa was found guilty and that the same fact would likely lead to the same result. Company attorney siegel (the guy that won the rakestraw case) said and you can reat in the transcripts, that he would not be in a good position having to defend the company when addington had already established that usapa's proposal is illegal

4. More importantly, even if USAPA is eventually sued for DFR II (and perhaps even found to have some guilt and liability according to SCOTUS precedent), there is no precedent for the company to be responsible for their opponent's new bargaining position, to which they asserted to be their right.

What? what do you think hybrid dfr is?

 

[fodase]

The point is you call people Clowns and Jackasses but don't hold to your own arguments. (In your defense, the two are not mutually dependent).

You were the one that made the point that the company was guiltless in the certified ALPA lists, because it was an internal union process.

I'll tell you the difference

1- the unions provided the lists, not the company

2- The company signed the ta and accepted the list AND PAID FOR the LIST, and it knows hybrid dfr's exist and it knows usapa's proposal has been found illegal by a jury and it knows that precedent's say it's illegal.

Do you still think they are the same thing?

 

[USA320Pilot]

There has not been too much discussion of USAPA's efforts on the Safety Culture and the opinions of the Union's renowned Safety Expert: Dr. von Thaden. I do believe she can help the union that is underfunded, has a deficit spending problem, and needs to find a way to fund its Status Quo lawsuit.

Maybe USAPA could follow Dr. von Thaden's group to host a pancake and bacon breakfast fundraiser too!

See Story

 

[fodase]

a union may not take away the seniority of some employees for no reason other than that the losers have too few votes to affect the outcome of an intra-union election, or that they opposed the union's leadership

Let me ask you easties this: Does the quote above accurately describe what usapa is attempting to do?

 

[end_of_alpa]

JetBlue Pilots Organize to Join ALPA

Will US Airways' pilots follow JetBlue?

See Story

No CM. Your hatred of pilots is well known. They're better off with the Company than ALPA. Time will tell.

You, however, are stuck with us.

 

[end_of_alpa]

There has not been too much discussion of USAPA's efforts on the Safety Culture and the opinions of the Union's renowned Safety Expert: Dr. von Thaden. I do believe she can help the union that is underfunded, has a deficit spending problem, and needs to find a way to fund its Status Quo lawsuit.

Maybe USAPA could follow Dr. von Thaden's group to host a pancake and bacon breakfast fundraiser too!

See Story

Worthless. You don't know anything because you are an objector and you don't talk to Streble. Your day will come and it won't be soon enough for everyone.

Go back and talk to yourself again with your "back of the trip sheets". There is only one pilot at this airline that is lower than you and he'll be retired in a few years, hopefully sooner!

 

[MyJ4JjobSucks]

I should have been more clear, the Nic. list will be looked at, but in the context of how doh with c&r's affects west/east pilots as compared to Nic.

Or possibly in the context of how doh with c&r's affect west/east pilots as compared to a nic list that cannot be implemented, i.e. no new contract vs contract with doh and c&r's.