FDX: Don't make the same mistake video... :)
08-06-2008, 02:31 PM
#31
gets every day off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Retired MD11 Capt
Posts: 705
[quote=RedeyeAV8r;439913]Of course anything can be appealed especially if you have a large check book to pay legal fees. quote]
"You have an EXCELLENT case here... We'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or your last dollar, whichever comes first."
- Lawyer's business card
"You have an EXCELLENT case here... We'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or your last dollar, whichever comes first."
- Lawyer's business card
08-06-2008, 02:33 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
[QUOTE=Nitefrater;439923]
Which is what I believe the lawyer of new USAir Union USAPA has in Large print on his card, no doubt.
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Of course anything can be appealed especially if you have a large check book to pay legal fees. quote]
"You have an EXCELLENT case here... We'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or your last dollar, whichever comes first."
- Lawyer's business card
"You have an EXCELLENT case here... We'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, or your last dollar, whichever comes first."
- Lawyer's business card
Which is what I believe the lawyer of new USAir Union USAPA has in Large print on his card, no doubt.
08-06-2008, 06:05 PM
#33
Administrator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
First off, it wasn't an ALPA brokered deal. It was an agreement for Binding Arbitration between two groups: The Pilot's of the former America West (USAir West) and the Pilots of the former USAirways AAA (USAir East). Each MEC was fighting and fending for itself. ALPA National couldn't take sides since both groups were ALPA.
There is a Big difference between Mediation and Binding Arbitration.
And when you are speaking of the Law, it doesn't matter if a law is ""right just or Fair" The law is the law.
I ain't no lawyer, Maybe Vagabond will chime in here and add her 2 cents ??
When both sides or groups covered by a Collective Bargined agreement agree to Binding Arbitration, what theyare saying is We will never come to a negotiated ending, therefore we agree to put our lives in the hands of a Nuetral Arbritrator (who is for all practicle purposes a Judge) and we agree to abide by the the his/her decision. Basically you put all your cards on the table and hope for the best. There is No negotiation or ammending once the decision is made.
It is legal and the arbitrator's decision becomes Law. The end result might not be Fair, just or right but the decsion is final.
Of course anything can be appealed especially if you have a large check book to pay legal fees.
Bottom line don't agree to Binding arbitration if you can't live with the decsion.
There is a Big difference between Mediation and Binding Arbitration.
And when you are speaking of the Law, it doesn't matter if a law is ""right just or Fair" The law is the law.
I ain't no lawyer, Maybe Vagabond will chime in here and add her 2 cents ??
When both sides or groups covered by a Collective Bargined agreement agree to Binding Arbitration, what theyare saying is We will never come to a negotiated ending, therefore we agree to put our lives in the hands of a Nuetral Arbritrator (who is for all practicle purposes a Judge) and we agree to abide by the the his/her decision. Basically you put all your cards on the table and hope for the best. There is No negotiation or ammending once the decision is made.
It is legal and the arbitrator's decision becomes Law. The end result might not be Fair, just or right but the decsion is final.
Of course anything can be appealed especially if you have a large check book to pay legal fees.
Bottom line don't agree to Binding arbitration if you can't live with the decsion.
Arbitration and mediation are different forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). In mediation, a neutral mediator helps opposing parties to craft a solution to their problems. The parties themselves determine the elements of the agreement with the mediator serving in the role of go-between.
Arbitration, however, is quite a bit different. It is almost like litigation where the parties go at it and the arbitrator serves as a judge. Most arbitration is binding in that the decision of the arbitrator is accepted by the parties. There are many arbitration that is non-binding; it depends on the contract terms. The "loser" can appeal, but usually only on procedural grounds such as the arbitrator did something he should not have done.
The effect of arbitration can be serious and have a deep, penetrating impact. Just ask the Alaska pilot group what happened to them a few years ago. In all my years as a lawyer, I do not often see such a devastating result, and all the pilots could do was take it. The company took full advantage of this favorable decision and it does not appear the pilots will ever get back to status quo of 2005.
Despite its many disadvantages, it is still cheaper than litigation, that's why it is so widely used and touted. I have been on both sides of the bench and can confirm that if you can avoid litigation, you should.
08-07-2008, 11:05 AM
#34
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
[quote=LivingInMEM;439723]It was a noble attempt? The US Air pilots were looking at losing a relative 18 or more years seniority in some instances (one guy I know said he - as a 18+ yr US Air guy - was going to end up behind an America West dude with less than 1-yr) with the ALPA-brokered deal quote]
Ah...the "date of hire" conundrum. OK, hypethetical question. If FedEx bought another air cargo airline, that happened to have a number of pilots on furlough, would you support furloughing pilots off our list in order to bring back the furloughed pilots from the airline we bought? If your answer is no, that would require that our most junior pilots have a seniority number above the furloughed pilots at the aquired airline. If your answer is yes, then the argument "because it's the right thing to do" would suffice.
Ah...the "date of hire" conundrum. OK, hypethetical question. If FedEx bought another air cargo airline, that happened to have a number of pilots on furlough, would you support furloughing pilots off our list in order to bring back the furloughed pilots from the airline we bought? If your answer is no, that would require that our most junior pilots have a seniority number above the furloughed pilots at the aquired airline. If your answer is yes, then the argument "because it's the right thing to do" would suffice.
08-07-2008, 11:23 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Aeris, et al
There is no way to merge two seniority lists that is "fair" to all unless; both airlines are approximately the same size, the resultant airline is twice the original size of either of the two original airlines, and both airlines have seniority lists that have near the same depth of longevity. That way, everyone maintains a near par relative seniority. When it comes to mergers (and a lot of other situations) our seniority system has some nearly unworkable flaws. So, with that in mind, when a voter votes he usually votes as to what will most benefit him/her in that particular situation. I don't think anyone was really concerned about a date of hire conundrum or anything else along those lines.
The way the merger decision was structured, it was voided as soon as ALPA was voted out - because the US AIR East MEC was still "ALPA" (whether national or not). Given that, it seemed like an easy decision for the question of retaining ALPA or not. To some, the option of accepting the resultant seniority was not much better than having to start again at another airline - so putting the long-term health of the airline may not have been such a huge risk.
With that seniority list being the over-riding concern of the majority of voting members, it was pretty short-sighted to produce videos about insurance benefits, etc. I am sure that video was effective as one that, when shown to a pilot group that was about to vote whether to accept 50% paycuts (a hypothetical), talked about how they would lose out on their free breakfasts if they voted out the union. I don't believe any of those US Air guys would be sitting at their resultant seniority saying "good thing we still have our insusrance."
There is no way to merge two seniority lists that is "fair" to all unless; both airlines are approximately the same size, the resultant airline is twice the original size of either of the two original airlines, and both airlines have seniority lists that have near the same depth of longevity. That way, everyone maintains a near par relative seniority. When it comes to mergers (and a lot of other situations) our seniority system has some nearly unworkable flaws. So, with that in mind, when a voter votes he usually votes as to what will most benefit him/her in that particular situation. I don't think anyone was really concerned about a date of hire conundrum or anything else along those lines.
The way the merger decision was structured, it was voided as soon as ALPA was voted out - because the US AIR East MEC was still "ALPA" (whether national or not). Given that, it seemed like an easy decision for the question of retaining ALPA or not. To some, the option of accepting the resultant seniority was not much better than having to start again at another airline - so putting the long-term health of the airline may not have been such a huge risk.
With that seniority list being the over-riding concern of the majority of voting members, it was pretty short-sighted to produce videos about insurance benefits, etc. I am sure that video was effective as one that, when shown to a pilot group that was about to vote whether to accept 50% paycuts (a hypothetical), talked about how they would lose out on their free breakfasts if they voted out the union. I don't believe any of those US Air guys would be sitting at their resultant seniority saying "good thing we still have our insusrance."
08-07-2008, 11:39 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by LivingInMEM
Aeris, et al
There is no way to merge two seniority lists that is "fair" to all unless; both airlines are approximately the same size, the resultant airline is twice the original size of either of the two original airlines, and both airlines have seniority lists that have near the same depth of longevity. That way, everyone maintains a near par relative seniority. When it comes to mergers (and a lot of other situations) our seniority system has some nearly unworkable flaws. So, with that in mind, when a voter votes he usually votes as to what will most benefit him/her in that particular situation. I don't think anyone was really concerned about a date of hire conundrum or anything else along those lines.
The way the merger decision was structured, it was voided as soon as ALPA was voted out - because the US AIR East MEC was still "ALPA" (whether national or not). Given that, it seemed like an easy decision for the question of retaining ALPA or not. To some, the option of accepting the resultant seniority was not much better than having to start again at another airline - so putting the long-term health of the airline may not have been such a huge risk.
With that seniority list being the over-riding concern of the majority of voting members, it was pretty short-sighted to produce videos about insurance benefits, etc. I am sure that video was effective as one that, when shown to a pilot group that was about to vote whether to accept 50% paycuts (a hypothetical), talked about how they would lose out on their free breakfasts if they voted out the union. I don't believe any of those US Air guys would be sitting at their resultant seniority saying "good thing we still have our insusrance."
There is no way to merge two seniority lists that is "fair" to all unless; both airlines are approximately the same size, the resultant airline is twice the original size of either of the two original airlines, and both airlines have seniority lists that have near the same depth of longevity. That way, everyone maintains a near par relative seniority. When it comes to mergers (and a lot of other situations) our seniority system has some nearly unworkable flaws. So, with that in mind, when a voter votes he usually votes as to what will most benefit him/her in that particular situation. I don't think anyone was really concerned about a date of hire conundrum or anything else along those lines.
The way the merger decision was structured, it was voided as soon as ALPA was voted out - because the US AIR East MEC was still "ALPA" (whether national or not). Given that, it seemed like an easy decision for the question of retaining ALPA or not. To some, the option of accepting the resultant seniority was not much better than having to start again at another airline - so putting the long-term health of the airline may not have been such a huge risk.
With that seniority list being the over-riding concern of the majority of voting members, it was pretty short-sighted to produce videos about insurance benefits, etc. I am sure that video was effective as one that, when shown to a pilot group that was about to vote whether to accept 50% paycuts (a hypothetical), talked about how they would lose out on their free breakfasts if they voted out the union. I don't believe any of those US Air guys would be sitting at their resultant seniority saying "good thing we still have our insusrance."
As far as the content of the video...It wasn't just "East" guys voting. The Am West guys were also voting. So, maybe it was directed at them?
Regardless, it was horrible!
** No offense, Vagabond.
08-07-2008, 11:49 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
voided, delayed - either way, the only option to potentially get this thing out was to vote out ALPA - you play the cards you're given. My point is not about the technicalities of the decision, it is about the relative petty topic covered by the video vs. what was at stake. As far as being aimed at West, I thought their vote was pretty much in hand.
And it has been hinted at, but not overtly said. Saying something three times is NOT, NOT, NOT the same as saying something and then backing it with substance or facts. That video was even shallower than most of the political ads showing on TV. I am in no way against ALPA demonstrating the benefits of their representation - nothing wrong with education - but, if that was the best they could do.......
And it has been hinted at, but not overtly said. Saying something three times is NOT, NOT, NOT the same as saying something and then backing it with substance or facts. That video was even shallower than most of the political ads showing on TV. I am in no way against ALPA demonstrating the benefits of their representation - nothing wrong with education - but, if that was the best they could do.......
08-07-2008, 11:56 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by LivingInMEM
voided, delayed - either way, the only option to potentially get this thing out was to vote out ALPA - you play the cards you're given.
And, that is much of the point. If all you're doing is delaying the inevitable... Then, you're wasting your time, money and any hope of getting a decent contract. Just making your lawyers rich. Or, should I say richer?
We did make that mistake.
And again, I'd be embarrassed to be in that ad.
08-07-2008, 02:08 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Is it 100% that it is only being delayed? Who says it is inevitable? What else are the dues going to go towards - either the lawyers get rich or ALPA national gets rich. If the alternative is unbearable, why make the decision for them and not try? Don't try = 100% chance of losing.
There were real (at least in the minds of the US Air East pilots) issues and ALPA pretended they didn't exist, much like they pretended the majority of respondents to the polls weren't against Age 65.
There were real (at least in the minds of the US Air East pilots) issues and ALPA pretended they didn't exist, much like they pretended the majority of respondents to the polls weren't against Age 65.
08-07-2008, 02:43 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
LivingInMEM, so it was ALPA v ALPA and ALPA national was pretending none of it was happening....
is that like you pretending that 62% of your fellow pilots wanting to drop opposition to the Age 60 rule never happened?
https://crewroom.alpa.org/DesktopMod...1068&TabId=202
I seem to recall ALPA trying to avoid picking sides until after both MECs elected binding arbitration....and the results were out. I can't seem to remember ALPA national lobbying for any results until the USAir guys worked towards a recall.
is that like you pretending that 62% of your fellow pilots wanting to drop opposition to the Age 60 rule never happened?
https://crewroom.alpa.org/DesktopMod...1068&TabId=202
I seem to recall ALPA trying to avoid picking sides until after both MECs elected binding arbitration....and the results were out. I can't seem to remember ALPA national lobbying for any results until the USAir guys worked towards a recall.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
