US Pilots Labor Discussion

[CactusPilot1]

Did you get DOH after 3 years of trying?

Yes or No?

Is the list accepted by the company DOH?

Yes or No?

Question 1...No

Question 2...No

I'm sorry to answer for EOA but you would probably get a creative and evasive answer. Much like a Weiner who has been in the news.

 

[CactusPilot1]

First. No, not yet.

Second. Yes. So, what. Lawsuit still going on.

Are you saying DOH is the accepted list, EOA?

Since when? :unsure:

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

,

I wouldn't know an xbox if I saw one, but I know a dipshit when I see one and you are the original article.

You forgot to mention LOA 93!

 

[snapthis]

Question 1...No

Question 2...No

I'm sorry to answer for EOA but you would probably get a creative and evasive answer. Much like a Weiner who has been in the news.

I see what you are saying. The Weiner is trying to make his mob think that DOH is the accepted list? Now that is funny.

 

[nevergiveup]

I see what you are saying. The Weiner is trying to make his mob think that DOH is the accepted list? Now that is funny.

The present list on each side is DOH!.....hmmmmm.

 

[nic4us]

Nic4us......am I right?

How about a straight forward answer?

To the best of my knowledge yu are wrong, here is why.

Title:
Arbitration of Statutory Disputes in the Airline Industry: Options and Alternative
Accession Number:
01141832
Language:
English
Abstract:
In this article (Paragraph No. 30,061), under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, transportation workers remain barred from arbitrating statutory employment disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act. However, arbitration of such disputes may be achieved in the airline industry under certain circumstances. Enacted over 80 years ago, the Federal Arbitration Act excluded transportation workers from coverage because the industry was heavily unionized and Congress concluded that arbitration of employee disputes should take place under collective bargaining agreements pursuant to labor law. Today, however, union representation has declined and employees’ individual rights under employment laws have extended far beyond collective bargaining rights. The article discusses the development of legal processes to allow the arbitration of statutory disputes, as well as the ways that arbitration of these disputes can be achieved in the airline industry through the use of arbitration agreements and arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements. Other possible approaches, including the state law arbitration procedures and options created by federal Executive Orders establishing action programs, are also explored.


Our situation was one that contractually mandated arbitration as a means of conclusion to the seniority integration. It is in both of our CBAs and the TA. Just as now McCaskill-Bond guarantees arbitration per Allegheny-Mohawk sect 13. Once the arbitration has concluded you can't hide behind the case you cite and say, well now that the arbitration is over, we are claiming as transportation workers we are barred from arbitration, and the FAA.

 

[prechilill]

EOA- schooled.

 

[Zone5]

The company is dragging its feet on contract negotiations using the lack of consensus regarding seniority as an excuse for doing so. In as much as Section 22 is essentially a "no cost" item, it should not be holding up progress on all the other sections. While I agree with the decision to file the law suit to force the company to negotiate in good faith, I also think the process used by Cleary to do so was flawed and that he should be recalled as a consequence.

The contract (excluding Section 22) should be completed ASAP. Depending on how Silver rules on the DJ, as soon as she does and or the Company does not file an appeal, the completed contract should be sent out for ratification with two choices for Section 22, if possible, and let the pilots decided Nick or DOH. There is a lot of talk about how a Nick inclusive contract might pass depending on the rest of the contract terms, let's put it out and see. Once a contract is ratified the DFR's, sponsored by one or both sides of the seniority dispute, can begin.

seajay

 

[end_of_alpa]

To the best of my knowledge yu are wrong, here is why.

Title:
Arbitration of Statutory Disputes in the Airline Industry: Options and Alternative
Accession Number:
01141832
Language:
English
Abstract:
In this article (Paragraph No. 30,061), under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, transportation workers remain barred from arbitrating statutory employment disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act. However, arbitration of such disputes may be achieved in the airline industry under certain circumstances. Enacted over 80 years ago, the Federal Arbitration Act excluded transportation workers from coverage because the industry was heavily unionized and Congress concluded that arbitration of employee disputes should take place under collective bargaining agreements pursuant to labor law. Today, however, union representation has declined and employees’ individual rights under employment laws have extended far beyond collective bargaining rights. The article discusses the development of legal processes to allow the arbitration of statutory disputes, as well as the ways that arbitration of these disputes can be achieved in the airline industry through the use of arbitration agreements and arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements. Other possible approaches, including the state law arbitration procedures and options created by federal Executive Orders establishing action programs, are also explored.


Our situation was one that contractually mandated arbitration as a means of conclusion to the seniority integration. It is in both of our CBAs and the TA. Just as now McCaskill-Bond guarantees arbitration per Allegheny-Mohawk sect 13. Once the arbitration has concluded you can't hide behind the case you cite and say, well now that the arbitration is over, we are claiming as transportation workers we are barred from arbitration, and the FAA.

I disagree with your article. There is NO case law that supports your theorem. The article "discusses" the development of legal processes...however, again, is legal postulation but the The Supreme Court has already ruled.

We were NOT contrallually mandated. You are flat out wrong. If it were otherwise, there would be no vote. Democratic rights trump your premise which again is why the 9th found your case to be not ripe. To do otherwise will cause future interference with CBA. Again, you can "believe" what you want but I have proven you wrong and you simply will not admit it.

We'll be in court well past the time the new hires on the third list on the East take our attrition. I am now in the camp that believes your right to capture attrition above them is now worth nothing.

Good luck with your court cases.

 

[Ames]

You forgot to mention LOA 93!

I never mention LOA 93. Not a concern of mine but you go ahead and enjoy it anyway.

PS: It's interesting that you don't deny being the original article dipshit.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

I never mention LOA 93. Not a concern of mine but you go ahead and enjoy it anyway.

PS: It's interesting that you don't deny being the original article dipshit.

It's like you AMES your article is a subjective piece of highway garbage, just like your opinion! MM!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Are you saying DOH is the accepted list, EOA?

Since when? :unsure:

Fact: the company does NOT care about seniority.

Fact: companies have never cared about seniority.

Fact: companies want the lowest costs for both labor and the the products they use to maximize their profits.

Fact: no seniority no union.

Fact: arbitrations take away worker rights.

Fact: DOH will be the only accepted list.

See you in court for 10 more years. I've decided to vote against any contract. If we combine lists with you the third list new hires will be deprived accelerated advancement.

For me it's not about the money. It's about the principle. If you think my years of service are worth less than yours then I want to compete against you and your fellow west pilots. Without DOH there is no standard which labor, let alone pilots, can hang their hat on.

Good luck to you and your west pilots.

 

[fodase]

the completed contract should be sent out for ratification with two choices for Section 22, if possible, and let the pilots decided Nick or DOH. There is a lot of talk about how a Nick inclusive contract might pass depending on the rest of the contract terms, let's put it out and see. Once a contract is ratified the DFR's, sponsored by one or both sides of the seniority dispute, can begin.

seajay

Wow, everyday the east delusion grows. So if the majority prefers doh it will not be ripe, nice try but that is illegal in this country.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Fact: the company does NOT care about seniority.

Fact: companies have never cared about seniority.

Fact: companies want the lowest costs for both labor and the the products they use to maximize their profits.

Fact: no seniority no union.

Fact: arbitrations take away worker rights.

Fact: DOH will be the only accepted list.

See you in court for 10 more years. I've decided to vote against any contract. If we combine lists with you the third list new hires will be deprived accelerated advancement.

For me it's not about the money. It's about the principle. If you think my years of service are worth less than yours then I want to compete against you and your fellow west pilots. Without DOH there is no standard which labor, let alone pilots, can hang their hat on.

Good luck to you and your west pilots.

These are opinions not facts, and most of them are incorrect when cited as a fact.

The company does care about seniority. They drafted a joint statement of labor integration principles to guide and direct the SLI process according to their expectations. They also signed a transition agreement to accomplish, in part, the seniority integration of the pilots. Don’t confuse neutrality with a lack of care.

Companies do want to maximize profits, but that may or may not come with lower costs of labor or materials. If efficiency gains can be justified, companies will pay more for the unit cost of doing so if it returns a greater profit, in this case through higher wages. Of course a unionized workforce typically impedes any efficiency gains which may be otherwise available to the company. So the union engages in a self-fulfilling expectation that the company doesn’t want to pay workers so they knowingly or unknowingly take steps to decrease workforce efficiency. This in turn forces management to seek ways to lower labor costs through concessions or furloughs because of the negative effects of lost productivity/efficiency. Consumers expect and demand stable or declining prices while labor simultaneously expects continuously higher wages. The only way to achieve both in a solvent business model is through efficiency/productivity gains.

Arbitrations don’t take away workers’ rights. They settle disputes between parties when one or both are unwilling to do so for themselves. If you don’t trust you will get a satisfactory result from going to arbitration then find a way to negotiate using leverage and give-and-take to accomplish a resolution without going to arbitration.

Vote no on anything you like. That is your prerogative. However, the union is compelled to negotiate for a JCBA by the RLA. If they are also compelled by the courts to accept the NIC, then USAPA is going to have to put out a NIC-inclusive TA for the members to vote on. The question isn’t how will you vote, but how will east/west MIGS vote once a definitive ruling by the court is issued? No one knows what the outcome of that will be since it hasn’t happened yet.

 

[Phoenix]

The 9th did not embroil itself in the bargaining process because they found it fruitless to speculate about the possible conclusions of the matter. Do you think we have a more accurate crystal ball than they do?

I find your answers fascinating (the 9th's opinion too). Let me see if I have this straight, these are facts:

1- The east demands doh in arbitration, doesn't get it

2- The east forms a union for the sole purpose of obtaining doh, the east Instills doh as the FIRST tenet of usapa constitution

3- Usapa serves management with a doh list.

So I think you know very well what seniority position usapa will take and accept. But why don't we play the hypothetical?

Let's say the court says the same thing the 9th said " negotiate under pain of ripe dfr" and gives the company immunity from the west. At this point the company will just accept whatever list usapa gives them(doh). Under this hypothetical scenario I gave you, what do you think the chances of usapa being found guilty of dfr are? Hypothetically of course

The 9th did not embroil itself in the bargaining process because they found it fruitless to speculate about the possible conclusions of the matter. The only way forward is through the bargaining process. Speculating about the outcome isn't bargaining. Bargaining is bargaining.