USAPA coast amendment fails
03-18-2014 | 10:52 PM
#31
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
Who do you consider the biggest threat to your career?
03-19-2014 | 12:44 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
So you're saying that the "evil empire" (east/USAPA), who cared so much about protecting their relative seniority that they were willing to decertify ALPA, renig on binding arbitration, and operate as a separate pilot group for a lower hourly rate than west pilots, "agreed to have a single union" (APA) and thereby no substantial influence in the pending seniority integration?
I'm new and probably clueless, but that dog don't hunt. What did I miss?
I'm new and probably clueless, but that dog don't hunt. What did I miss?
If you are new you only missed ten years of useless squabblin'.
Welcome aboard and enjoy the fast ride to 2nd year pay. We are glad to see you newbies here and glad your career is going great!
03-19-2014 | 01:00 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Let's see if I can summarize this.
USAPA and APA agreed to an MOU for the merger before the merger. Part of the MOU said that the two would agree to a "seniority integration protocol" agreement (essentially a document as to how seniority list discussions were going to go IF the merger happened).
APA insisted that they have the ability to unilaterally change language in the MOU after they become the single union (could be this year)... and USAPA didn't like this... it took away the US pilot's ability to adequately oversee seniority integrations.
The MOU also stated that the seniority lists would come together in a "fair and equitable" manner, per McCaskill-Bond legislation (which was written to prevent another TWA/AA staple job).
However, the wolf in sheep's clothing is that the McCaskill-Bond legislation is thrown out the window once the two pilot groups have one union (presumably APA) and the union's internal merger policy supersedes. An internal merger policy can be changed at any time...you can see where this is going.
This is how it has been explained to me. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
US Airways And American And The Elephants In The*Room - Aviation Articles and Commentary - Swelblog / Swelbar on Airlines
USAPA and APA agreed to an MOU for the merger before the merger. Part of the MOU said that the two would agree to a "seniority integration protocol" agreement (essentially a document as to how seniority list discussions were going to go IF the merger happened).
APA insisted that they have the ability to unilaterally change language in the MOU after they become the single union (could be this year)... and USAPA didn't like this... it took away the US pilot's ability to adequately oversee seniority integrations.
The MOU also stated that the seniority lists would come together in a "fair and equitable" manner, per McCaskill-Bond legislation (which was written to prevent another TWA/AA staple job).
However, the wolf in sheep's clothing is that the McCaskill-Bond legislation is thrown out the window once the two pilot groups have one union (presumably APA) and the union's internal merger policy supersedes. An internal merger policy can be changed at any time...you can see where this is going.
This is how it has been explained to me. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
US Airways And American And The Elephants In The*Room - Aviation Articles and Commentary - Swelblog / Swelbar on Airlines
Yes. Correct.
We can add that the APA and the company are telegraphing that they want to have arbitration run by the APA and it appears the APA was asking USAPA to allow the APA to set up any group of representatives they want to represent different pilot groups, as they see fit, without any input from the current certified bargaining agents and parties to the MOU. The APA declares they will get this anyway and yet are demanding USAPA agree to it now because it is inevitable.
The West thinks Silver ruled against USAPA and declared that USAPA will have no MB SLI rights under MB or the MOU once the APA is the new certified agent. It is ridiculous to assert that she found that USAPA prevailed in the lawsuit and at the same time declared that USAPA is not entitled to MB statutory protections. She declared that the West Plaintiffs are not entitled to MB protections. The question of USAPA's entitlement to MB protections was not at issue in her trial.
The company has made a motion to Silver to get her to clarify. To use her own words "She is on thin ice." USAPA has filed a lawsuit in D.C. seeking enforcement of their MB protections.
This will all take several years and be a hoot to watch!
03-19-2014 | 10:57 AM
#35
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
No, actually not correct. What's correct is that this is another thread hijacked to reconstitute a tired old Usapian circle-jerk.
Usapian hysteria.
The arbitration will not be "run" by the APA, it will be run by the arbitrators. From my understanding, the APA will almost certainly appoint East pilots to represent East pilots on any committee bargaining after USAPA returns to Earth and comes back to its senses and those would almost certainly be pilots agreed to by East pilots. Likewise for the West. As for the original post, USAPA agreed to the MOU provisions that stipulate a JCBA before the SLI and now it is USAPA that wants to alter the MOU, not APA. USAPA agreed with the concept that APA would file for STS as soon as practicable, but is now implying that as an overreach and/or improper.
USAPA argued to Silver that only certified bargaining Agents were entitled to participate in the SLI with AA in deference to their demand they have their own reps at the table and yet agreed with the MOU provisions that ensured they would not be a bargaining agent by that point in the MOU process. They made this argument to hamstring and muzzle the West to eliminate any chance of consideration for the Nic. Now, they have flipped that argument demanding to redefine the MOU to both reverse what they agreed to beforehand (the MOU provisions and timeline) in the hope of continuing to muzzle the West as their representatives and argue for DOH or aspects that support DOH. They are crying that it's unfair APA is representing THEM in the AA/U SLI, yet advocated that very same concept when it involved them and West pilots.
This is known as hypocrisy.
Since then, they've attempted to build a house of cards to defend their actions and it will be seen for what it is. USAPA agreed to the MOU. The MOU calls for JCBA first and then SLI. The MOU allows APA to become the sole bargaining representative. For DFR purposes, APA will appoint merger committees (yet unknown) that will represent various sub-groups although they have no legal requirement to allow anyone else to participate in the actual arbitration. As of now, there likely wont BE any SLI negotiations as the process has stopped due to disagreement (although that may change). REGARDLESS of what APA says to the arbitrators, the arbitrators will decide the SLI and they certainly are aware of all the issues. If after the SLI occurs, any sub-group of pilots feels the APA misrepresented them or that the arbitrators were NOT appraised of all the issues, I'm sure there will be one or more DFR suits.
USAPA has filed a frivolous lawsuit to alter and redefine a process to which they both agreed to and which they now want to change for their benefit. McCaskill-Bond requires negotiation and then arbitration if no agreement in negotiation. So far, negotiation has failed. USAPA has failed to negotiate in the past, subverted the very process intended to resolve that failure and is now reconstituting a strategy that was successful in the past. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now..............you're free to return to whacking off.
We can add that the APA and the company are telegraphing that they want to have arbitration run by the APA and it appears the APA was asking USAPA to allow the APA to set up any group of representatives they want to represent different pilot groups, as they see fit, without any input from the current certified bargaining agents and parties to the MOU. The APA declares they will get this anyway and yet are demanding USAPA agree to it now because it is inevitable.
The arbitration will not be "run" by the APA, it will be run by the arbitrators. From my understanding, the APA will almost certainly appoint East pilots to represent East pilots on any committee bargaining after USAPA returns to Earth and comes back to its senses and those would almost certainly be pilots agreed to by East pilots. Likewise for the West. As for the original post, USAPA agreed to the MOU provisions that stipulate a JCBA before the SLI and now it is USAPA that wants to alter the MOU, not APA. USAPA agreed with the concept that APA would file for STS as soon as practicable, but is now implying that as an overreach and/or improper.
The West thinks Silver ruled against USAPA and declared that USAPA will have no MB SLI rights under MB or the MOU once the APA is the new certified agent. It is ridiculous to assert that she found that USAPA prevailed in the lawsuit and at the same time declared that USAPA is not entitled to MB statutory protections. She declared that the West Plaintiffs are not entitled to MB protections. The question of USAPA's entitlement to MB protections was not at issue in her trial. The company has made a motion to Silver to get her to clarify. To use her own words "She is on thin ice."
The company has made a motion to Silver to get her to clarify. To use her own words "She is on thin ice." This is known as hypocrisy.
Since then, they've attempted to build a house of cards to defend their actions and it will be seen for what it is. USAPA agreed to the MOU. The MOU calls for JCBA first and then SLI. The MOU allows APA to become the sole bargaining representative. For DFR purposes, APA will appoint merger committees (yet unknown) that will represent various sub-groups although they have no legal requirement to allow anyone else to participate in the actual arbitration. As of now, there likely wont BE any SLI negotiations as the process has stopped due to disagreement (although that may change). REGARDLESS of what APA says to the arbitrators, the arbitrators will decide the SLI and they certainly are aware of all the issues. If after the SLI occurs, any sub-group of pilots feels the APA misrepresented them or that the arbitrators were NOT appraised of all the issues, I'm sure there will be one or more DFR suits.
Now..............you're free to return to whacking off.
03-19-2014 | 11:13 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
No, actually not correct. What's correct is that this is another thread hijacked to reconstitute a tired old Usapian circle-jerk.
Usapian hysteria.
The arbitration will not be "run" by the APA, it will be run by the arbitrators. From my understanding, the APA will almost certainly appoint East pilots to represent East pilots on any committee bargaining after USAPA returns to Earth and comes back to its senses and those would almost certainly be pilots agreed to by East pilots. Likewise for the West. As for the original post, USAPA agreed to the MOU provisions that stipulate a JCBA before the SLI and now it is USAPA that wants to alter the MOU, not APA. USAPA agreed with the concept that APA would file for STS as soon as practicable, but is now implying that as an overreach and/or improper.
USAPA argued to Silver that only certified bargaining Agents were entitled to participate in the SLI with AA in deference to their demand they have their own reps at the table and yet agreed with the MOU provisions that ensured they would not be a bargaining agent by that point in the MOU process. They made this argument to hamstring and muzzle the West to eliminate any chance of consideration for the Nic. Now, they have flipped that argument demanding to redefine the MOU to both reverse what they agreed to beforehand (the MOU provisions and timeline) in the hope of continuing to muzzle the West as their representatives and argue for DOH or aspects that support DOH. They are crying that it's unfair APA is representing THEM in the AA/U SLI, yet advocated that very same concept when it involved them and West pilots.
This is known as hypocrisy.
Since then, they've attempted to build a house of cards to defend their actions and it will be seen for what it is. USAPA agreed to the MOU. The MOU calls for JCBA first and then SLI. The MOU allows APA to become the sole bargaining representative. For DFR purposes, APA will appoint merger committees (yet unknown) that will represent various sub-groups although they have no legal requirement to allow anyone else to participate in the actual arbitration. As of now, there likely wont BE any SLI negotiations as the process has stopped due to disagreement (although that may change). REGARDLESS of what APA says to the arbitrators, the arbitrators will decide the SLI and they certainly are aware of all the issues. If after the SLI occurs, any sub-group of pilots feels the APA misrepresented them or that the arbitrators were NOT appraised of all the issues, I'm sure there will be one or more DFR suits.
USAPA has filed a frivolous lawsuit to alter and redefine a process to which they both agreed to and which they now want to change for their benefit. McCaskill-Bond requires negotiation and then arbitration if no agreement in negotiation. So far, negotiation has failed. USAPA has failed to negotiate in the past, subverted the very process intended to resolve that failure and is now reconstituting a strategy that was successful in the past. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now..............you're free to return to whacking off.
Usapian hysteria.
The arbitration will not be "run" by the APA, it will be run by the arbitrators. From my understanding, the APA will almost certainly appoint East pilots to represent East pilots on any committee bargaining after USAPA returns to Earth and comes back to its senses and those would almost certainly be pilots agreed to by East pilots. Likewise for the West. As for the original post, USAPA agreed to the MOU provisions that stipulate a JCBA before the SLI and now it is USAPA that wants to alter the MOU, not APA. USAPA agreed with the concept that APA would file for STS as soon as practicable, but is now implying that as an overreach and/or improper.
USAPA argued to Silver that only certified bargaining Agents were entitled to participate in the SLI with AA in deference to their demand they have their own reps at the table and yet agreed with the MOU provisions that ensured they would not be a bargaining agent by that point in the MOU process. They made this argument to hamstring and muzzle the West to eliminate any chance of consideration for the Nic. Now, they have flipped that argument demanding to redefine the MOU to both reverse what they agreed to beforehand (the MOU provisions and timeline) in the hope of continuing to muzzle the West as their representatives and argue for DOH or aspects that support DOH. They are crying that it's unfair APA is representing THEM in the AA/U SLI, yet advocated that very same concept when it involved them and West pilots.
This is known as hypocrisy.
Since then, they've attempted to build a house of cards to defend their actions and it will be seen for what it is. USAPA agreed to the MOU. The MOU calls for JCBA first and then SLI. The MOU allows APA to become the sole bargaining representative. For DFR purposes, APA will appoint merger committees (yet unknown) that will represent various sub-groups although they have no legal requirement to allow anyone else to participate in the actual arbitration. As of now, there likely wont BE any SLI negotiations as the process has stopped due to disagreement (although that may change). REGARDLESS of what APA says to the arbitrators, the arbitrators will decide the SLI and they certainly are aware of all the issues. If after the SLI occurs, any sub-group of pilots feels the APA misrepresented them or that the arbitrators were NOT appraised of all the issues, I'm sure there will be one or more DFR suits.
USAPA has filed a frivolous lawsuit to alter and redefine a process to which they both agreed to and which they now want to change for their benefit. McCaskill-Bond requires negotiation and then arbitration if no agreement in negotiation. So far, negotiation has failed. USAPA has failed to negotiate in the past, subverted the very process intended to resolve that failure and is now reconstituting a strategy that was successful in the past. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now..............you're free to return to whacking off.
You are obsessed with USAPA. Its really a pity. USAPA hurt you a lot more than you let on. Its OK to come out of the closet. Let it out. Throw a few plates against the wall. Grab a box of Kleenex.
03-19-2014 | 11:25 AM
#37
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
USAPA argued to Silver that only certified bargaining Agents were entitled to participate in the SLI with AA in deference to their demand they have their own reps at the table and yet agreed with the MOU provisions that ensured they would not be a bargaining agent by that point in the MOU process.
They made this argument to hamstring and muzzle the West to eliminate any chance of consideration for the Nic. Now, they have flipped that argument demanding to redefine the MOU to both reverse what they agreed to beforehand (the MOU provisions and timeline)
in the hope of continuing to muzzle the West as their representatives and argue for DOH or aspects that support DOH. They are crying that it's unfair APA is representing THEM in the AA/U SLI, yet advocated that very same concept when it involved them and West pilots.
This is known as hypocrisy
This is known as hypocrisy
.
03-19-2014 | 11:44 AM
#38
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Your assessment is the POV of a die-hard Usapian that defends and justifies just about everything they do, so it means little to me. Besides, it's tough for me to be obsessed about an entity that will soon be found only in history books discussing airline labor and Wiki. I just thought the other side of the story needed a revisit since you and some of your brethren continue to hijack threads to regurgitate the same old drivel in the belief that if you do that it will somehow become credible.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
