Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Union Talk (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/union-talk/)
-   -   ALPA Dues reduction?! (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/union-talk/117932-alpa-dues-reduction.html)

Flytolive 01-31-2019 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stabapch (Post 2753824)
This is irrelevant. The Beck case applies to both.

Yes, but it is not irrelevant if you read Brennan's majority decision. RLA = Railway Labor Act that covers airlines. ALPA doesn't use dues for political purposes. Sorry, better luck next time.

Turning to the constitutional question, Brennan wrestled with the fact that "...in Railway Employees v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956), [the Court held] that because the RLA pre-empts all state laws banning union-security agreements, the negotiation and enforcement of such provisions in railroad industry contracts involves 'governmental action' and is therefore subject to constitutional limitations." The question before the Court in Beck, then, was whether such governmental action extended to the acts of unions in the private sector where there was no such federal pre-emption. CWA argued that because Section 14(b) of the NLRA permits each state make its own choice in this regard, there could be no federal pre-emption and thus no governmental action. Brennan concluded for the majority that the Supreme Court need not decide the issue: The Court's doctrine was to rule narrowly on grounds of statutory construction where possible, and that issue had already been decided on statutory grounds in the workers' favor.

stabapch 01-31-2019 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flytolive (Post 2753864)
Yes, but it is not irrelevant if you read Brennan's majority decision. RLA = Railway Labor Act that covers airlines. ALPA doesn't use dues for political purposes. Sorry, better luck next time.

Turning to the constitutional question, Brennan wrestled with the fact that "...in Railway Employees v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956), [the Court held] that because the RLA pre-empts all state laws banning union-security agreements, the negotiation and enforcement of such provisions in railroad industry contracts involves 'governmental action' and is therefore subject to constitutional limitations." The question before the Court in Beck, then, was whether such governmental action extended to the acts of unions in the private sector where there was no such federal pre-emption. CWA argued that because Section 14(b) of the NLRA permits each state make its own choice in this regard, there could be no federal pre-emption and thus no governmental action. Brennan concluded for the majority that the Supreme Court need not decide the issue: The Court's doctrine was to rule narrowly on grounds of statutory construction where possible, and that issue had already been decided on statutory grounds in the workers' favor.

Yet again, irrelevant. Your right to Beck requests are covered by Federal law. Please enlighten me on why ALPA has published advisement on how to handle Beck requests and how to request them? Seems kind of silly if it doesnít apply to them donít ya think...

But again back to the beginning the proof is all on government websites for everyone that puts effort into this subject. ALPA was specifically investigated for union dues paid to campaign contributions. But itís kind of hard for someone to take legal action when the union is paying their salary (ďlobbyingĒ).

WhistlePig 01-31-2019 03:27 PM

Wow ...
 
When did Alex Jones get an ATP?

Flytolive 01-31-2019 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stabapch (Post 2753892)
Your (sic) right to Beck requests are covered by Federal law.

If you are going to cite a legal decision then you should actually understand what it means. As you even admitted, "the courts held... against the union." Dues of RLA employees cannot be used for political purposes.

ALPA-PAC funds are voluntary and have used quite effectively to lobby for pilots' interests as evidenced by the FAA Reauthorization bill. You're welcome.

stabapch 01-31-2019 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flytolive (Post 2753900)
If you are going to cite a legal decision then you should actually understand what it means. As you even admitted, "the courts held... against the union." Dues of RLA employees cannot be used for political purposes.

ALPA-PAC funds are voluntary and have used quite effectively to lobby for pilots' interests as evidenced by the FAA Reauthorization bill. You're welcome.

No kidding! Dues of ANY union cannot legally be used for political purposes. You obviously missed the entire point of the conversation. Iím surprised someone would allow you to pilot an aircraft. But actually Iím not, ALPA has been known to defend and keep unqualified pilots at the controls.

Everyone abides by the laws right? Especially corporations (21st century unions)... FWIW even unionfacts publishes ALPA dues going towards political means no matter how small the percentage.

The propaganda is THICK, Iím not sure Iím gonna be able to pull ya out of this.

Flytolive 01-31-2019 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stabapch (Post 2753913)
Iím surprised someone would allow you to pilot an aircraft.

Now, now fighto. Easy on the projection. I am sure you are God's undiscovered gift to aviation who will eventually graduate from Bryan's Bazaar. Best of luck.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:31 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands