FDX Pilots Sue Alpa
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
My memory is not what it used to be but wasn't AVA available in almost every seat before we signed the contract? I am pretty sure the vacation buy back wasn't making it very far down the list.
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
I read it. I'm not a lawyer but I think they'd have a stronger case if we didn't all have copies of the TA to read and examine before voting. What is the likelihood of success of suing a used car salesman for what he said, after you've signed your name to a written contract that you had weeks to read? Anyone who voted purely based on the roadshows shouldn't have voted to begin with. Can we sue those voters for negligence? Stupid question....You can always sue.
So I agree with your last statement. Lawyers making money. Quelle surprise.
So I agree with your last statement. Lawyers making money. Quelle surprise.
I don't have a problem with our MEC or NC trying to "sell" their product to us at a roadshow. Just give us the facts. They can talk all day about the pay increases, scheduling gains, signing bonuses, etc.
I do however, have a major problem with our MEC/NC and committee chairman knowingly and intentionally lying to us about those same said gains. We paid these guys to represent US! Not to lie to us.
I agree with everything in their lawsuit. I wish I didn't. But, I find it truly revolting to know that I paid 10's of thousands of dollars, just during those negotiations, for representation that wasted my dues and then lied to me, to get me to vote for the contract. Regardless of whether or not we had the TA in hand...we were lied to by our representatives. That's the basis of the lawsuit.
Truly pathetic.
Last edited by Busboy; 04-30-2016 at 02:19 PM.
#23
What if you had hired the used car salesmen to sell your car for you? And he knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the facts and figures to get you to sell it, for the price he agreed to?
I don't have a problem with our MEC or NC trying to "sell" their product to us at a roadshow. Just give us the facts. They can talk all day about the pay increases, scheduling gains, signing bonuses, etc.
I do however, have a major problem with our MEC/NC and committee chairman knowingly and intentionally lying to us about those same said gains. We paid these guys to represent US! Not to lie to us.
I agree with everything in their lawsuit. I wish I didn't. But, I find it truly revolting to know that I paid 10's of thousands of dollars, just during those negotiations, for representation that wasted my dues and then lied to me, to get me to vote for the contract. Regardless of whether or not we had the TA in hand...we were lied to by our representatives. That's the basis of the lawsuit.
Truly pathetic.
I don't have a problem with our MEC or NC trying to "sell" their product to us at a roadshow. Just give us the facts. They can talk all day about the pay increases, scheduling gains, signing bonuses, etc.
I do however, have a major problem with our MEC/NC and committee chairman knowingly and intentionally lying to us about those same said gains. We paid these guys to represent US! Not to lie to us.
I agree with everything in their lawsuit. I wish I didn't. But, I find it truly revolting to know that I paid 10's of thousands of dollars, just during those negotiations, for representation that wasted my dues and then lied to me, to get me to vote for the contract. Regardless of whether or not we had the TA in hand...we were lied to by our representatives. That's the basis of the lawsuit.
Truly pathetic.
If they told you the sky was purple but the TA said it was blue, it's your fault for not knowing that the sky is blue.
#24
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Say you know nothing about cars but the used car salesmen tells you there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and in fact you are getting a really really good deal! Now, because you know nothing about all of the mechanical intricacies about the vehicle you have 2 choices - believe the salesman or pay someone to pick the vehicle apart. The problem is the mechanic we hired is also the used car salesman!
#25
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: Aeroflot
Posts: 179
Time to vote the union out and become non union. I mean whats the point of having a union when over the past 20yrs its been nothing but deceit by those in charge. Maybe having someone like Jimmy Hoffa in charge would be better.
#26
I took about 20 minutes to read the 33 page document. All in all, I'd say someone's got some explaining to do on ALPA's behalf. Not drinking the cool aid but many valid questions and points. I would encourage folks to read before judging. Accountability is a word many of our "Leaders" don't understand. IMHO. Cheers
I think ALPA will lose this lawsuit.
#27
I agree 100%. When I first heard about this lawsuit I wasn't happy. My first impression was that these guys were a bunch of sore losers. However, after reading the entire document, they make it very clear that ALPA wasn't telling the truth about the contract during the call-ins, roadshows, and YouTube videos. They continued to do so after the errors were brought to their attention.
I think ALPA will lose this lawsuit.
I think ALPA will lose this lawsuit.
Do tell, and please, file an amicus curiae too.
Their goal is to have the association (us) pay 'wronged' association members (us) and their lawyers. Solid plan.
Do not believe everything you read by a complainant.
#28
I'm not so sure.
I'll start off by saying I don't have a position on either side. I'm just interested in how this will play out. I'm not attached to the class, as I was hired right after and wasn't eligible to vote. (Don't get me wrong, if I get more money out of this deal, then great) This is gonna be an uphill battle for the Plantiffs. Misrepresentation is very hard to prove. Especially when it comes to Airline union cases. Most cases involving ALPA have been dismissed or lost. (Although most of these have been about seniority integration). Statistically speaking, ALPA has the better track record. One major case that was brought, was UAL pilots v ALPA 2007. It was settled outside of court, for 44 million, and ALPA claims no wrongdoing.
To my knowledge, to prove misrepresentation, you have to show,
(I'm Citing VAUGHN III III v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LLC);
1) that a union breaches its duty of fair representation by it's actions being either "arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
Arbitrary=A union's actions are “arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational.” O'Neill v ALPA, 499 U.S. at 67.
Discriminatory = A union's acts are discriminatory when “substantial evidence” indicates that it engaged in discrimination that was “intentional, severe, and unrelated to legitimate union objectives.” Amalgamated Ass'n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of Am. v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 301 (1971).
Bad Faith=(more than likely what this case hinges on IMO) Bad faith, which “encompasses fraud, dishonesty, and other intentionally misleading conduct,” requires proof that the union acted with “an improper intent, purpose, or motive.”
2)They must show that a there was a casual connection that the pilot group was harmed in some way. (i.e. Monetarily) Not as hard to show that via the plaintiffs math, if the jury agrees.
The fact that the union didn't take into account the Plantiffs claims of mathematical errors, could be interpreted to not be "outside the realm of reasonableness". We all had the TA copy to read, and the union advised all pilots to read it before making our decisions on how to vote as well. There are lots of parts to this case. The lawyers have a lot of work ahead of them if this case isn't dismissed.
As I understand it, most misrepresentation lawsuits have a 6 month statute of limitations on them anyway. It Might be too late.
As far as us having to pay for the ALPA lawyers, As far as I know, ALPA has never had a dues assessment for a lawsuit brought against them. However, if the plaintiffs lose, they could be required to pay ALPAs lawyers fees. Could be an expensive gamble.
I'll start off by saying I don't have a position on either side. I'm just interested in how this will play out. I'm not attached to the class, as I was hired right after and wasn't eligible to vote. (Don't get me wrong, if I get more money out of this deal, then great) This is gonna be an uphill battle for the Plantiffs. Misrepresentation is very hard to prove. Especially when it comes to Airline union cases. Most cases involving ALPA have been dismissed or lost. (Although most of these have been about seniority integration). Statistically speaking, ALPA has the better track record. One major case that was brought, was UAL pilots v ALPA 2007. It was settled outside of court, for 44 million, and ALPA claims no wrongdoing.
To my knowledge, to prove misrepresentation, you have to show,
(I'm Citing VAUGHN III III v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LLC);
1) that a union breaches its duty of fair representation by it's actions being either "arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
Arbitrary=A union's actions are “arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational.” O'Neill v ALPA, 499 U.S. at 67.
Discriminatory = A union's acts are discriminatory when “substantial evidence” indicates that it engaged in discrimination that was “intentional, severe, and unrelated to legitimate union objectives.” Amalgamated Ass'n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of Am. v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 301 (1971).
Bad Faith=(more than likely what this case hinges on IMO) Bad faith, which “encompasses fraud, dishonesty, and other intentionally misleading conduct,” requires proof that the union acted with “an improper intent, purpose, or motive.”
2)They must show that a there was a casual connection that the pilot group was harmed in some way. (i.e. Monetarily) Not as hard to show that via the plaintiffs math, if the jury agrees.
The fact that the union didn't take into account the Plantiffs claims of mathematical errors, could be interpreted to not be "outside the realm of reasonableness". We all had the TA copy to read, and the union advised all pilots to read it before making our decisions on how to vote as well. There are lots of parts to this case. The lawyers have a lot of work ahead of them if this case isn't dismissed.
As I understand it, most misrepresentation lawsuits have a 6 month statute of limitations on them anyway. It Might be too late.
As far as us having to pay for the ALPA lawyers, As far as I know, ALPA has never had a dues assessment for a lawsuit brought against them. However, if the plaintiffs lose, they could be required to pay ALPAs lawyers fees. Could be an expensive gamble.
#29
I agree 100%. When I first heard about this lawsuit I wasn't happy. My first impression was that these guys were a bunch of sore losers. However, after reading the entire document, they make it very clear that ALPA wasn't telling the truth about the contract during the call-ins, roadshows, and YouTube videos. They continued to do so after the errors were brought to their attention.
I think ALPA will lose this lawsuit.
I think ALPA will lose this lawsuit.
Not trying to defend either side--just pointing out the process can be harder and messier than it looks.
As for the suit....the nutshell seems to be that "industry leading" and "about 3%" terms used in roadshows was "misleading". I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to know what the criteria will be for judging this. From the front porch on main street, however, here is what think they will I hear:
130k in retirement won't be raised, and that's unfair, because the company could pay more....
300 bucks an hour wasn't really "industry leading" because another company will have a higher hourly rate. Granted--vacation, trip rig, duty rig, etc lead to us getting bigger W-2s but those guys have bigger hourly rates so we are getting screwed....
Our lie flat seats in business class aren't good enough. We need first class. The company can afford it...
Because the company successfully purchased another company to grow its obvious they could have paid us more....
The NMB would have let us strike if we wanted to....
4300ish pilots got to look at the contract...on paper and in print. I'm not sure what the fiduciary responsibility of the road shows really was. Could they have mailed the contract and said "vote?" and that's all we get? I dunno. But while I attended the roadshow, I made up my own mind on the contract. I crunched my own numbers, and made an individual decision. About 57% went one way, and 43% went the other. I certainly wasn't happy with everything by a long shot. I'm not sure, however, that going to court in this case is going to make anyone money, improve the process going forward, or create any winnings for our pilots. But--I've been wrong many, many times, and perhaps this will be another one....
What I can say is that if we continually sue and vilify our union, it will be harder and harder to attract people to step up and attempt to work for all us. I got pretty bent out of shape about some decisions made in 2007/8, and as a result I didn't sue, but ran for office. The result was along with some other folks we sort of took the "heir apparents" of leadership and moved in another direction. Some will probably say that was a mistake, others will praise it...but either way we did it within the system and bylaws, and along the way really really tried to treat even the outgoing folks with respect and thanks for doing the best they could at a tough job. Many folks will cycle in and out of these positions as political winds sway. Being civil and respectful, and trying to listen and learn a bit (and I learned a ton....) is good for the long term success of the organization. But suing our own union doesn't strike me as a good long term investment in our collective futures.
And for those who scream about 2% dues...YGTFSM. Its the best career insurance an airline pilot can have, and there are a host of resources available if God forbid you ever need them. Go to the website and look at all the committees and various things our pilots are doing for you behind the scenes. We don't want to discourage people from stepping up and getting involved. If you don't like things...then dive in. I get the frustration, because I've been there.
Time will tell. I'm not defending anyone here...just wondering why pilots always seem to be the only unionized group that regularly sues their union.
#30
I agree everyone was given the TA in paper form. However, the alleged errors were brought to the union's attention and the NC kept stating the alleged wrong information.
Unfortunately the issue is now in the hands of the courts.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post