Nice Randy. Nice. Why do you talk like this when you're on here, but you're more reserved on the UAL board?

Ha Ha Ha

First I am Ristaino, now I am Randy!

Keep guessing

You were accused of being Ristaino?

Egads that's low!! :rolleyes:

I would never go there.

OK, my bad, you are obviously not one of the long knife politicos that attack Wallach for political purposes, for all their faults, I still consider them trade unionists.

You say you are only a lurker on the ALPA (UAL MEC) forum because you don't like the mundane discussions. You may not be old enought to know that before the electronic forums, your excuse was commonly used by the young and naive not to attend council meetings. They would later complain the senior guys run the union, oh well. Nevertheless, it is possible, because the UAL forum requires real names, you would find that inconvenient or impossible. It's just so much more satisfying to criticize those who work for the benefit of the profession without your having the slightest clue as to what you are talking about, and better yet, with complete anonymity. And while your at it, dribble it on an open forum where management and the public can delight in your misery.

Your "thug unionist" comment reveals a great deal about you. We just don't use that term. We do use the term "loyal employee," but you are probably not familiar with that one.

Actually I don't make too many union meetings due to work. The problem that ALPA seems to have in getting the meeting dates posted prior to PBS closing is also an issue. Most of the time I am sitting in a layover hotel when one of these meetings are taking place. If we can recognize that this is the 21st century, and Wallach can take Q&A from his minions in a fireside chat on the web. Then why on earth can not ALPA conduct meetings with secured internet access. There are businesses around the world that use virtual meetings securely, yet our union refuses to adapt. I will not say senior guys run the union because look at the stove pipe that was used for the bond. That was gerrymandering at it's finest. It reflected the demographics of the MEC at the time.

I appreciate your thinking that I am perhaps someone that is "new". Seeing as how the junior pilot at UAL will have 10 years here, it shows how out of touch you are with the reality of what is occurring within our ranks. More and more pilots look at the antics of Wallach as nothing more than a side show to a circus. With the enotes regarding SL usage it reflects the dimwiited brilliance of Wallach and his allowance of not heading off the lawsuit. The judges ruling, the sworn testimony and the facts paint Wallach in an extremely poor light.

Maybe you did not read the judges ruling, but I encourage to you take the time and see what your own MEC Chariman swore to in court. Wallach switched off negotiations that perhaps could have come up with an ERP and furlough mitigation. Wallach had the opportunity to save the jobs of furloughed pilots, keep some semblance of movement with retirements and yet he decided to walk away from negotiations, thus providing a huge disservice to the UAL pilots.
From the lawsuit:
{On the afternoon of July 14, 2008, Milone sent out a
revised proposal that he thought would resolve that issue, though Wallach apparently did not
receive it before making the decision to terminate negotiations. With regard to PERP
negotiations, the record suggests that ALPA’s negotiating committee simply never responded to
United’s proposal.}

After being warned that a lawsuit would be filed if Wallach didn't address the SL issue.
{ALPA took no further action to discourage the sick-out until after the lawsuit was filed
and, at the court’s suggestion, the parties entered into the Standstill Agreement.}

From testimony in the court hearing. Mr. Wallach has a difficult time with being truthful. The court record is filled examples as this below.

{Wallach's testimony that he did not see any progress in negotiations is further called into
doubt by his failure to meet with United’s new Senior Vice President of Flight Operations,
Joseph Kolshak. On direct examination by defendants’ counsel, Wallach testified that he had
never met Kolshak, asserting that Kolshak had “never introduced himself to me,” thus implying
that Kolshak was not interested in sitting down with ALPA to work on improving the company’s
relationship with the union. Evid. Hearing Tr. 920:24–921:2. On cross-examination, however,
Wallach admitted that Kolshak has been attempting to schedule a meeting with Wallach since as
early as May 2008 but Wallach has declined to meet with him—purportedly on the basis that
Wallach has “been busy.” Evid. Hearing Tr. 923:3–17.}


Personally I prefer a leader with a bit more integrity than that shown in the court hearings. You can support him if you wish but your group of like thinkers is dwindling at a rapid pace.

Lastly, this entire thread was started because of a "virus" that affected the forum on July 22nd. That is quiet some time to get a forum up and running after a "virus". I certainly hope we don't hear from ALPA any condemnation of company IT failures, when we can not reopen a simple forum in over two weeks time. Ironically this shutdown also occurred just prior to mass mailings about SL usage. I am sure there is no connection between the two <tic>.

L

You can pretty much count me as one who's support for Wallach has dwindled.

He decides to confront the company, demanding early negotiations, etc. This, all the while the company is losing money.

So, he effectively 'showed our hand' to the company. Resulted in the lawsuit and injunction.

Now, here is what I see happening. Crying to the judge because of high sicklist. Judge is interested in only facts, and certainly not the emotional argurment of why SL is so high. Judge finds for company, awards damages in the amount of $Y.

Section 6......company realizes that we must have a pay raise. They give us $X millions and tell us to split it up as we choose for pay raises among the fleet/seats.

Then the company says, "Oh, but remeber, you owe us $Y. So we must take $X that we were going to give you for pay raises and subtract $Y. So now you only have $Z available".

That's how I see it playing out in the near future. I am not impressed with the fact that we showed our hand so early and our negotiating power is gone. The above scenario will result in a minimal pay raise, instead of the measurable one we are due.

The so called electronic-meeting has been studied for some time. It is possible that some day, with streaming video etc. it may be possible to conduct a meeting in that medium, however as of now, the problems out-weigh the benefit. You can be sure a management sycophant would give the password to HQ. It would certainly put a chill on the debate if you knew that every word you said was being recorded for a future lawsuit or to be used against you in some other fashion. The drawbacks are a lack of interaction with other attendees, via side bars and also missing of the flavor of the debate. Fortunately most businesses recognize the limitations of electronic meetings, otherwise, to our detriment, a lot of business travel would disappear. In any case, you don’t have to attend all the meetings to stay informed, talking to someone that you know, that doesn’t have an agenda, who is credible, has experience and the facts, goes a long wait toward being informed.

As you point out, the seniority spectrum was well represented on the MEC during the bond debacle. I didn’t like their solution but it was well debated and they decided the bond was to limit the pain on the pilot group as a whole, not to enhance the A-plan trust fund as it was originally sold. Some thought it was a bribe to end the defined benefit plan, the courts may decide. This was the classic example of a management tactic of throwing money on the floor and then watching the feeding frenzy, all designed to destroy unity. I am sure the managers were ecstatic when the bond suit was filed, they got a two-for.


I don’t think you are new, maybe near the bottom of the list and ready to blame someone else who you think is responsible for your personal situation or possibly someone with an anti-union background, but you are not new. As for being out of touch, possible, but don’t think everyone was born senior.

Obviously, you don’t know the history of the lawsuit, its genesis predates Wallach. Managements have used the injunction tool before, AMR, DAL and UAL-IAM. It was developed as an anti-union tactic that the conservative courts were only too happy to assist. It is just another method to control labor. Pete McDonald testified that they were not going to allow another job action as they alleged occurred in 2000. This legal action was pre-planned. They hired a specialized anti-labor law firm that was ready to file the suit long before Wallach. They also hired the analyst and started collecting data to use against us years ago, it is part of the court record. This was their negotiating strategy for the 2009 contract. It was only because of a few renegade, about to be furloughed pilots, who wanted to burn their sick time before they left, that cause the company to pull the trigger early. The lawsuit would have occurred in any event because of the disputes over junior manning, fatigue and overtime, issues that Wallach inherited from the previous regime.


Your quotes are from the company’s web site and are one side of the case, you should really read the whole story at ALPA.org before parroting managements predictable slant on the facts.


No disrespect, but this paragraph pretty well sums up your lack of understanding of labor negotiations and illuminates your selfish concerns. Please understand, YOUR UNION AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES ARE UNDER ATTACK. Make no mistake, if management gets away with taking representatives hostage, on bogus, unfounded and malicious allegations, who do you think will serve? It will be the end of an effective union on the UAL property. Management will never address your pet issues because they won’t have too. Until these despicable terminations are resolved there can be no meaningful negotiations. This is union 101, Wallach and every other MEC chairman in the Association past and present knows this principle.

As for Wallach talking to “ColdSack,” Wallach talks to Tilton possibly Tague and the Board. There are junior officers at the MEC that communicate with lower level management. I don’t know why any UAL pilot would speak to this carpet bagger from DAL. He was brought here because of his experience with the DAL injunction, he won’t last long, even the obtuse managers see through the braggadocio.

I have enjoyed the discussion, give us one long layover togeather and I believe I could have you wearing a union jersey and carrying the inflatable pig.


Just to stay on topic, that virus is very contagious.

Just so I understand your reasoning here. You believe it would have been better if the company had decided who got the bond money? The company gave ALPA the money to distribute. I can only imagine the outrage you would have if they had not thrown the money on the floor. The argument you make does not make a great deal of sense and is of amazingly poor quality.





No, I am 767 Capt. for now... But who knows with the downsizing where it will put most of us. Not a scab and not a management lackey. Just someone that is willing to ask the difficult question of our questionable union leadership. I have witnessed two simultaneous destruction's take place here at UAL. One of the company and our fleet by a leader that doesn't seem to have a plan. The other by our once great union that is filled now with those more concerned with their egos and trip drops for Christmas off than the life of the line pilot. We once had some great ALPA minds. Those guys are gone and that may be the result of the demographic that is here. Maybe it was the screening in '85 that has left us with the position we are in today?

I am quite familiar with the other lawsuits. However, it is not manifest destiny. Having seen the paths and outcomes at the other carriers and realizing a loss in court would mean putting the union in a poor negotiating position, Wallach could have been well served to react differently to the threat. What is the old line about those not learning from the past are doomed to repeat?

With all of your double talk it seem that you might be Wallach himself. My quotes come directly from the judges ruling. You are denying that the judge wrote what was published here?


I strongly disagree with the "unfounded" charges. Read the depositions and you will see some grievous admissions by Domaleski, Tamkin, XF and Freeman. Domaleski himself acknowledges many items that would be grounds for termination in my opinion.



But this is a key point. Kolshak is the Senior Vice President of Operations. He was derided by Wallach to the pilot group as not attempting to contact him. However, in testimony Wallach acknowledged he had LIED and that yes he did try to contact him but Wallach was too "busy". If Kolshak was willing to talk to abate the lawsuit then why did Wallach seem to WANT to be sued? Also, why did Wallach not attempt to save jobs with the PERP? Your lack of acknowledgment cast a bright light onto the misdirection that ALPA seems to want the pilots to follow.


Well I certainly hope there is some fix for the "virus". It would be a shame to have more egg on the face of Wallach than already exist. Of course with the shaved dome he is appearing very eggy these days anyway ;)

L

Quote:

Just so I understand your reasoning here. You believe it would have been better if the company had decided who got the bond money? The company gave ALPA the money to distribute. I can only imagine the outrage you would have if they had not thrown the money on the floor. The argument you make does not make a great deal of sense and is of amazingly poor quality.

When the case gets to court, the company negotiator will have to testify under oath (if that really matters to them) as to what was their intent for the 1.5b bond. Or, were they just feeling magnanimous that day. My comment may have been too inside baseball for you.

Quote:

I strongly disagree with the "unfounded" charges. Read the depositions and you will see some grievous admissions by Domaleski, Tamkin, XF and Freeman. Domaleski himself acknowledges many items that would be grounds for termination in my opinion.

There is nothing in the depositions or even the judge’s decision that would be grounds for any discipline. Give us the page and line numbers of the documents you think are grounds, you can’t do it, because it’s just not there. It’s a good thing you are a pilot, because with your keen legal mind you would starve as a lawyer.

The defendants were a fully authorized committee working at the direction of their MEC and under the scrutiny of the ALPA legal department. They were simply volunteers working on your behalf. They will be vindicated and UAL will pay. You can kick them in the teeth while you hide anonymously behind a keyboard, but it speaks loudly as to the person that you are. If this were the UAL forum, there would be a call for Article 8 charges against you. Your comments have reached a new low, you truly owe these gentleman and their families an apology.

You say you are not a scab, well for some people it’s only a matter of not having an opportunity. Keep up the union bashing, management undoubtedly will seek you out. Sadly, you are now unwittingly their lackey.

Hard to even comment reading this crap