US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/9-6/16--PLEASE OBSERVE THE RULES

[A320 Driver]

And any hint of USAPA negotiating section 6 for the east only is going to be another DFR, with damages of course.

I wonder what it is like to keep painting yourself into corners?

I have not seen any mention of any contract negotiations other than those for a joint contract. Have you?

Driver B)

 

[prechilill]

"The appropriate solution, under present circumstances, is to provide for
a court supervised contract negotiation and a ratification vote of all
active pilots. The very reasons that USAPA has been found guilty of
DFR has driven pilots, East and West, away from accepting USAPA as a
legitimate, competent Bargaining Agent and this issue is too important
to deny working pilots the opportunity to participate in a court
supervised ratification. Disinterested supervision needs to participate in
the contract negotiations to ensure that USAPA does better than simply
deliver a proposal that is intended to only produce the dissolution of
injunctive relief through a “Noâ€￾ vote. "


www.unbiasedfacts.org


Some people out east get it. Hotheads around here simply have their head in a hole and can't figure out what the significance of having Nicolau in the federal court system. Denial is a coping mechanism for Snoop, east and a few stalwarts around here- it gives them a little bit of false hope to be able to wake up and face the day even though they are staring at the end of their sinister plan to subvert a binding arbitration which their CBA wanted.
God bless Neil Wake.

 

[A320 Driver]

"The appropriate solution, under present circumstances, is to provide for
a court supervised contract negotiation and a ratification vote of all
active pilots. The very reasons that USAPA has been found guilty of
DFR has driven pilots, East and West, away from accepting USAPA as a
legitimate, competent Bargaining Agent and this issue is too important
to deny working pilots the opportunity to participate in a court
supervised ratification. Disinterested supervision needs to participate in
the contract negotiations to ensure that USAPA does better than simply
deliver a proposal that is intended to only produce the dissolution of
injunctive relief through a �€œNo�€� vote. "


www.unbiasedfacts.org


Some people out east get it. Hotheads around here simply have their head in a hole and can't figure out what the significance of having Nicolau in the federal court system. Denial is a coping mechanism for Snoop, east and a few stalwarts around here- it gives them a little bit of false hope to be able to wake up and face the day even though they are staring at the end of their sinister plan to subvert a binding arbitration which their CBA wanted.
God bless Neil Wake.

Court supervised negotiations...

THAT should move things right along. NOT!

All active pilots in good standing should get to vote. There are no free rides here.

Driver B)

 

[prechilill]

Court supervised negotiations...

THAT should move things right along. NOT!

USAPA's *new* carrot to you stalwarts is the permanent feet-dragging in negotiations to enable separate ops- this is after the formerly promised cramdown of a DOH list using your superior numbers, which is now impossible thanks to the Honorable Neil Wake. From one dishonorable promise to another...
Leonidas is closing in on your efforts to stall progress. The west wants a joint contract which benefits the east much more than the west- you guys have suffered enough. We want to help you out of the hole you dug for yourselves and even though you continually spit in our faces we still will offer our hand in help. We are good people, I know most of you don't see it though with your blinding rage and bitter anger. Someday you will, however. Take care.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Court supervised negotiations...

THAT should move things right along. NOT!

All active pilots in good standing should get to vote. There are no free rides here.

Driver B)

As a friendly warning to all pilots if you are not current on union dues please pay up now. Be smart and don't give up your career over a few dollars of union dues.

For any pilots not dues current the company will be enforcing section 29 and terminating any pilot who refuses to pay. Termination letters will be going out to all delinquent pilots within the next few months. They will have 3 pay periods (6 weeks) to become dues current or be terminated by the company as required by the contract and backed by federal law.

Don't push it as word is there will be no last second chances to pay. This is not West specific and applies equally to both East and West dues delinquents. Nobody wants to see someone lose their job over such a minor and easily resolvable issue. Be smart and write the check now before it is too late.

underpants

 

[Captain Underpants]

deleted for copy error

 

[Objector]

As a friendly warning to all pilots if you are not current on union dues please pay up now. Be smart and don't give up your career over a few dollars of union dues.

For any pilots not dues current the company will be enforcing section 29 and terminating any pilot who refuses to pay. Termination letters will be going out to all delinquent pilots within the next few months. They will have 3 pay periods (6 weeks) to become dues current or be terminated by the company as required by the contract and backed by federal law.

Don't push it as word is there will be no last second chances to pay. This is not West specific and applies equally to both East and West dues delinquents. Nobody wants to see someone lose their job over such a minor and easily resolvable issue. Be smart and write the check now before it is too late.

underpants

That is a very scary warning.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

"The appropriate solution, under present circumstances, is to provide for
a court supervised contract negotiation and a ratification vote of all
active pilots. The very reasons that USAPA has been found guilty of
DFR has driven pilots, East and West, away from accepting USAPA as a
legitimate, competent Bargaining Agent and this issue is too important
to deny working pilots the opportunity to participate in a court
supervised ratification. Disinterested supervision needs to participate in
the contract negotiations to ensure that USAPA does better than simply
deliver a proposal that is intended to only produce the dissolution of
injunctive relief through a �€œNo�€� vote. "


www.unbiasedfacts.org


Some people out east get it. Hotheads around here simply have their head in a hole and can't figure out what the significance of having Nicolau in the federal court system. Denial is a coping mechanism for Snoop, east and a few stalwarts around here- it gives them a little bit of false hope to be able to wake up and face the day even though they are staring at the end of their sinister plan to subvert a binding arbitration which their CBA wanted.
God bless Neil Wake.

"If you are contending that the Court should fashion
some kind of injunction that allows the -- a final proposed CBA
to be voted on somehow without addressing the Seniority List, I
have two concerns that you will want to address. One, is I'm
just -- I can't visualize how that could be done, and second,
it seems to me that the members of the collective bargaining
unit have an absolute right to vote up or down on a CBA and
that no court can control that..."

Neil Wake

 

[Tiger 1050]

While "fair" is being discussed; I couldn't actually count all the times west posters have trumpeted forth: "You can live on LOA93 forever!". Just an observation.

I think it's fair to say that both sides have been taking advantage of each others situation to further their own agenda. So yes, I have been know to use that very phrase, but only as a motivator for the east to move off of their cut my nose off to spite my face position. I'd love to see these two pilot groups come together. Unfortunately we have only deepened each side's resolve and exacerbated our inflamed views of one another. Typical though don't you think? I can't change what you think is fair, nor can you change my views. However debate and discussion can and will shape how we view things in the future. I wholeheartedly believe the west is in the right with this one. If you remove the subjective issue of fairness regarding the Nic then you are left with your side's obligation to uphold your end of the agreement. Yes. No matter how distasteful you may believe it to be. But, alas, we shall have a third party with sufficient authority supervise the remaining of our school yard recess...

 

[cleardirect]

It was one of the USAPA national officers who pointed that fact out to me last January.

Check your own da** facts.

Check again. That was January. Things change as information, facts and legalities are checked.

USAPA has a new lawyer, not from the Seham firm.

Just like the hostile work environment that CLT and Cleary has been pushing. Turns out they were wrong. Not agreeing with someone’s position or showing a sticker is not hostile. It does not constitute a call to 911.

How is it that one organization can be wrong so many times?

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

USAPA's *new* carrot to you stalwarts is the permanent feet-dragging in negotiations to enable separate ops- this is after the formerly promised cramdown of a DOH list using your superior numbers, which is now impossible thanks to the Honorable Neil Wake. From one dishonorable promise to another...
Leonidas is closing in on your efforts to stall progress. The west wants a joint contract which benefits the east much more than the west- you guys have suffered enough. We want to help you out of the hole you dug for yourselves and even though you continually spit in our faces we still will offer our hand in help. We are good people, I know most of you don't see it though with your blinding rage and bitter anger. Someday you will, however. Take care.

How sweet...

No thanks.

LOA84 will be just fine while the appeals process unfolds and Parker continues to stall.

 

[cactusboy53]

How sweet...

No thanks.

LOA84 will be just fine while the appeals process unfolds and Parker continues to stall.

I thought the east crew was on "LOA 93". What is LOA 84?

 

[Hate2fly]

I thought the east crew was on "LOA 93". What is LOA 84?

This might help you understand! Since the LOA93 pay rate provision ends after Dec. 31, 2009, what pay rate provision is in effect on Jan. 1, 2010? The answer to that question is found in the underlying provisions of the agreement that preceded LOA93. That of course is LOA84. LOA84 is the contract that was in effect regarding pay rates when LOA93 was made effective. Therefore, LOA93 modified and changed LOA84 to the extent is was explicit on the term. Just like LOA 84 modified the first concessionary agreement in mid-2002 and the first concessionary agreement modified the basic agreement that was effective in 1998. According to the explicit pay rate term of LOA93, the pay rate provision of LOA84 was changed on the effective date of LOA93. Also, according to its explicit time of effectiveness, the LOA93 pay rates provision expires after Dec 31, 2009, leaving in its place the provisions of LOA84 for that date and beyond.

 

[cleardirect]

LOA84 will be just fine while the appeals process unfolds and Parker continues to stall.

Yes Parker will continue to stall. No you are not going to get LOA 84 No we are not going to get a new contract.

Check out the latest update called Road to Pay disparity. Tell usapa to stop whining about what everyone else has. What that update tells me is that us air pilots had the worst career in the industry. What was your investment worth? A new hire F/O at SWA that’s what. Your 16 years were not worth anything. That is why Nicolau placed you where you are.

That is a great explanation. Your own union just told you what you were worth.

After all of the crying where is their solution? I did not read one. Only be patient. How does that fix the problem? The only solution to that update is a new contract.

So it is the east pilots choice.

Accept the inevitableness of Nicolau and get a new contract. Otherwise stop wasting our time. I am tired about hearing what lousy wages the east has but refuses to do anything about it. You all have made a choice. That denying an arbitrated list is more important then a new contract. Fine. But live with the consequences of your actions.

 

[Megasnoop]

This might help you understand! Since the LOA93 pay rate provision ends after Dec. 31, 2009, what pay rate provision is in effect on Jan. 1, 2010? The answer to that question is found in the underlying provisions of the agreement that preceded LOA93. That of course is LOA84. LOA84 is the contract that was in effect regarding pay rates when LOA93 was made effective. Therefore, LOA93 modified and changed LOA84 to the extent is was explicit on the term. Just like LOA 84 modified the first concessionary agreement in mid-2002 and the first concessionary agreement modified the basic agreement that was effective in 1998. According to the explicit pay rate term of LOA93, the pay rate provision of LOA84 was changed on the effective date of LOA93. Also, according to its explicit time of effectiveness, the LOA93 pay rates provision expires after Dec 31, 2009, leaving in its place the provisions of LOA84 for that date and beyond.

More education needed, Hate2fly. This late in the game, its finally coming home to roost and the company's lack of interest in mediation makes west position even worse.

Now I know you've been around long enough (longer than me) to know that LOA 93 was considered a great burden. Which it is. Before we got to the trial there was NO talk of any kind of snapback or anything of the sort.

Pay reinstitution was being discussed a far back as ALPA days in negotiations. NAC brought it up last fall. Company dismissed it. What you miss is that unless Parker needs a single contract, hes going to stall this out another year. Look at the mediation schedule. No doubt pay reinstatement does help maintain east solidarity. As our own DB said (reprinted with permission, only a small part of 2 lengthy emails),

paraphrased, with permission to pass on,

Remember, unless otherwise stated, all terms of a contract are subject to the status quo provision of the law when the amendable date is reached. There are several ways to say otherwise, one of which is the example I gave in the above paragraph. Another technique is to state that a provision(s) is to only be in effect for a certain period of time. It is the use of this language that I read in the pay rates provision of LOA93. Paraphrasing, the writer of this specific provision wrote that the pay rates will be frozen and reduced a further 18% from the date of signing through Dec. 31, 2009. This is exactly the way that a contract writer indicates that a provision is not to become part if the status quo. He gives the provision a certain beginning date and a certain ending date. This is so even though the amendable date and the end of the "time certain" provision are coincident. Think of it this way, had the writer intended the pay rates provision to simply be included in the status quo, he would not have given it its own special time period. Had he simply been silent as to the time the provision was to end it would be included in the underlying status quo period of the specific agreement. LOA93 extended the amendable date of LOA84 one year, to Dec. 31, 2009, but expressly ended the concessionary pay rate provision after Dec. 31, 2009.
As previously stated, LOA84 was amendable on Dec 31, 2008, but had explicit pay rate raises on Jan 1, 2009 and May 1, 2009. But for LOA93's explicit pay rates provision carrying through Dec 31, 2009, LOA84's pay rate provision would be in effect, albeit in its own status quo period beginning on May 1, 2009. Therefore, with the explicit expiration of the LOA93 pay rate provision after Dec 31, 2009, the pay rate provision of May 1, 2009 contained in LOA84 is in effect, but is itself subject to status quo.

Long way of saying we should get old rates back in January or the company faces a loser arbitration. Maybe Parker should have read the fine print in the contract, or had Glass and Hemenway explain it to him. Someone blew the due deligence on that one. But then, he thought hed have the whole place sold off by now. snoopee