Jetblue close to alpa vote
05-27-2011, 01:54 PM
#271
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
You're confused on many levels. They have the lowest pay levels in the industry alright...rates negotiated by ALPA. With regard to decertifying ALPA, understand that this conversation was about the Seham law firm. A lot of ALPA apologists love to heap the hate on Seham, but they forget that Seham simply does what is asked of them BY THEIR CLIENT. You may not think it's a good plan, but the UsAir pilots do. And since Seham is the one who continues to win what the UsAir pilots want, the Seham firm is a success. Don't confuse the law firm's successes with the pilots wishes.
Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about. ALPA didn't get decertified by itself.
Now you're getting it. And if the UsAir guys win the snap-back lawsuit, they will have won their view of a great success.
The UsAir pilots aren't losers. You just hate them because they decertified your first love...ALPA.
Read the above...your love for ALPA is causing you to miss a lot.
Carl
Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about. ALPA didn't get decertified by itself.
Now you're getting it. And if the UsAir guys win the snap-back lawsuit, they will have won their view of a great success.
The UsAir pilots aren't losers. You just hate them because they decertified your first love...ALPA.
Read the above...your love for ALPA is causing you to miss a lot.
Carl
05-27-2011, 03:53 PM
#272
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
The USAir pilots might think it is a good plan, but it ain't putting any gas in the car... Hey you know I have little if any love for the mighty alpa, but come on Carl.. Seham or whoever might be a talented law firm, and maybe they really did do just what their clients - the USAir pilots - asked of them, but would you really prefer to be in their shoes rather than the ones you occupy now? Their "success" has come at a terrible price to the futures of all those pilots. I know we all want to punch the company in the nose and make it hurt. I want a big win as badly as the next guy, but to tout the USAir plan as any kind of success on the pilots' part is just nuts.. sorry.
USAir's "plan" was designed by the USAir pilots. They have bet the farm on this tactic of separate airlines blocking implementation of the Nicolau award, while hoping to win the pay snapback grievance. Many, many USAir pilots consider it worth every penny in low wages they've suffered through to keep the Nicolau award from being implemented. That's not my call to make...it's their call. What CANNOT be denied is that their law firm has fought the fights they've been asked to fight...and won. From decertifying ALPA, to keeping that award from being implemented, Seham's firm has fought for their client.
That's my only point.
Carl
05-31-2011, 11:10 AM
#273
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
FWIW, at my airline seems like 90% of the ALPA nay-sayers are obvious right-wingers. Hence, deep down I suspect they might even be somewhat anti-union. They spout off about forming an independant union and later follow with the whole guns, taxes, Hillary/Pelosi whine and hum Ted Nugent songs across the country. Not always the case I know...and I'm not telling you how to vote. Just telling it as a 14 yr ALPA member...(was 2 yrs Teamsters and 2 yrs independent union at my two previous carriers). Maybe the whole political thing was brought up already...Don't know cause I don't feel like reading a 28 pg thread. If you vote "R", I'm sure you'll whine bout my post (Ya, I know, "How's the UAL thing workin out?") Whatever...Don't care. Hell, I even like a good Nugent jam on occasion!...I'm open-minded
05-31-2011, 11:37 AM
#274
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 64
I don't see anything about trying to "break" a union.
The court found that ALPA management did not notify the union representing unit 1 employees of some impending layoffs.
I don't see where that forms a basis for your accusation that ALPA tried to "break" the unit 1 union.
By the way, don't your DPA friends complain that ALPA staffers are over paid?
On the other hand, when ALPA management tries hard-nosed negotiations, you accuse them of being scurrilous scoundrels.
If there's something ALPA could do to satisfy you, you should talk to your rep. But I realize some people just like to be negative with no real intention of making anything better.
I like my avatar.
The court found that ALPA management did not notify the union representing unit 1 employees of some impending layoffs.
I don't see where that forms a basis for your accusation that ALPA tried to "break" the unit 1 union.
By the way, don't your DPA friends complain that ALPA staffers are over paid?
On the other hand, when ALPA management tries hard-nosed negotiations, you accuse them of being scurrilous scoundrels.
If there's something ALPA could do to satisfy you, you should talk to your rep. But I realize some people just like to be negative with no real intention of making anything better.
I like my avatar.
05-31-2011, 12:30 PM
#275
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 64
You mean the pilots at individual airlines use their own strategy to deal with their own situation and are ultimately responsible for their own destiny? --- kind of like what happens in ALPA?
Many, many? You state that as though it is fact. I'm sure this is based on something other than your gut, right?
USAPAWATCH.COM
http://www.cactuspilot.com
CANNOT be denied...really?
How many thousand West pilots would you consider Seham's "client"? They're USAirways pilots too. And Seham/USAPA is devoted to denying them what they won fair and square in arbitration.
First it should be said that I think USAPA is morally unjustified in trying to block Nicolau's award. Two parties agreed to binding arbitration. It's not cool to break your word. Second, even if USAPA/Seham are "successful" at blocking the implementation of Nic, it's a Pyrrhic victory at best. They block Nic so they can upgrade to East Captain, but at pay rates most copilots should not be happy with. Is that a victory?
Finally, what has Seham "won"? The Ninth Circuit Appeal decision said they would not comment on the correctness of USAPA's behavior but that Addington's case was not yet "ripe". In other words, USAPA has not yet gotten a contract with management so they haven't yet done what Addington says is harmful to him. So now USAPA is really in a jam because if they get what they are negotiating for Addington pops back up and this time it's "ripe".
In short, Seham has "won" nothing and has only allowed USAPA to further back itself into a corner.
Brilliant leadership brought to you by the same people that are behind the curtain at DPA.
And what do you suppose DPA has promised Seham to get so much legal services on spec?
USAPAWATCH.COM
http://www.cactuspilot.com
How many thousand West pilots would you consider Seham's "client"? They're USAirways pilots too. And Seham/USAPA is devoted to denying them what they won fair and square in arbitration.
First it should be said that I think USAPA is morally unjustified in trying to block Nicolau's award. Two parties agreed to binding arbitration. It's not cool to break your word. Second, even if USAPA/Seham are "successful" at blocking the implementation of Nic, it's a Pyrrhic victory at best. They block Nic so they can upgrade to East Captain, but at pay rates most copilots should not be happy with. Is that a victory?
Finally, what has Seham "won"? The Ninth Circuit Appeal decision said they would not comment on the correctness of USAPA's behavior but that Addington's case was not yet "ripe". In other words, USAPA has not yet gotten a contract with management so they haven't yet done what Addington says is harmful to him. So now USAPA is really in a jam because if they get what they are negotiating for Addington pops back up and this time it's "ripe".
In short, Seham has "won" nothing and has only allowed USAPA to further back itself into a corner.
Brilliant leadership brought to you by the same people that are behind the curtain at DPA.
And what do you suppose DPA has promised Seham to get so much legal services on spec?
06-01-2011, 05:08 PM
#276
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
In short, Seham has "won" nothing and has only allowed USAPA to further back itself into a corner.
Brilliant leadership brought to you by the same people that are behind the curtain at DPA.
And what do you suppose DPA has promised Seham to get so much legal services on spec?
Brilliant leadership brought to you by the same people that are behind the curtain at DPA.
And what do you suppose DPA has promised Seham to get so much legal services on spec?
06-01-2011, 08:28 PM
#278
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
T, you've misunderstood me. I'm not touting the USAir plan. I'm responding to those ALPA apologists who keep trying to show Lee Seham's law firm as somehow incompetent or worse.
USAir's "plan" was designed by the USAir pilots. They have bet the farm on this tactic of separate airlines blocking implementation of the Nicolau award, while hoping to win the pay snapback grievance. Many, many USAir pilots consider it worth every penny in low wages they've suffered through to keep the Nicolau award from being implemented. That's not my call to make...it's their call. What CANNOT be denied is that their law firm has fought the fights they've been asked to fight...and won. From decertifying ALPA, to keeping that award from being implemented, Seham's firm has fought for their client.
That's my only point.
Carl
USAir's "plan" was designed by the USAir pilots. They have bet the farm on this tactic of separate airlines blocking implementation of the Nicolau award, while hoping to win the pay snapback grievance. Many, many USAir pilots consider it worth every penny in low wages they've suffered through to keep the Nicolau award from being implemented. That's not my call to make...it's their call. What CANNOT be denied is that their law firm has fought the fights they've been asked to fight...and won. From decertifying ALPA, to keeping that award from being implemented, Seham's firm has fought for their client.
That's my only point.
Carl
1. Filed RICO suit against THEIR OWN PILOTS - Summary judgement LOSS
2. Filed RICO suit again against THEIR OWN PILOTS - Summary judgement - LOSS
3. Sued for DFR in Federal Court - LOSS
4. Appeal DFR loss in Ninth Circuit - No ruling on merits, WIN on ripeness
They are now being sued by Airways management for a declaratory judgement on the seniority issue.
Here is what a federal judge had to say about Seham's legal work:
While neither side has refrained from taking dubious legal positions, USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts, and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the “contradiction or confusion . . . produced by a medley of judicial phrases severed from their environment.” Guaranty Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 106 (1945) (Frankfurter, J.). It is therefore necessary to cut a path through much labor law bramble on the way to granting relief.
Misstated law, facts, and procedural history. He was crushed in that court, losing almost every motion he filed. Given your history of predictions and facts, it makes sense you would hitch your wagon to this bunch.
The fact is that the union was formed to get a new contract and a date of hire list. The founders of the union went to multiple law firms who all told them they had no chance of prevailing. Finally, Seham takes the case with his legal theory that negotiating seniority is like negotiating crew meals and that they could easily change the seniority list and obtain a new contract. He promised it wouldn't take more than six months.
So far, he has taken more than 1/3 of the dues money from their pilots, he has not delivered one penny in contractual benefits. Their union is broke with multiple lawsuits they are both filing and defending. Right now, it is difficult to see them moving forward in any fashion for the next 5 or 6 years. As long as the US Air pilots want to commit career suicide it's fine for Seham to load the gun, prime the trigger, and put it in their hands, right? What a moral compass.
06-01-2011, 10:18 PM
#279
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Here's a little taste of what Seeham has caused
June 1, 2011
Leonidas Update
Today, Judge Silver denied USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss the US Airways' declaratory action. You can read the order here. Within the order, Judge Silver denied USAPA’s Motion to Drop the West pilots as a party to the company’s suit, and denied the West pilots’ “cross-claim” against USAPA.
Contrary to USAPA's repeated assertions that the seniority issue is settled, the company’s declaratory action- which is based solely on the seniority dispute- is alive and well. No matter how many times USAPA has claimed victory; today's ruling proves that it has not prevailed, as another trial looms just over the horizon.
(1) This action necessarily raises issues nearly identical to the issues in Addington. As a review, the company raised three questions. Because of today’s ruling, all three questions will proceed to be litigated:
(I) Whether agreement to a non-Nicolau seniority list violates the Railway Labor Act.
(II) Whether agreement to a non-Nicolau seniority list does not violate the RLA.
(III) Regardless whether use or non-use of Nicolau violates the RLA, that US Airways be immune from liability caused by agreeing to a non-Nicolau list.
It is straightforward to see why claims I and II invoke the same legal issues over which the Addington jury deliberated. Mr. Bob Siegel represents US Airways, and it was clear in his oral arguments before Judge Silver on February 9th that the effect of the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of Addington only on the grounds of “ripeness” created an intractable position for the company:
“On the seniority issue, the company has to tell the union whether or not it will or will not amend the transition agreement and acquiesce to a non-Nicolau seniority list. We have to answer that question and we don't know -- Your Honor, the only thought I want to emphasize is the reason we filed is because we don't know whether that proposal is legal or not. We're concerned because we are aware of a jury verdict that found it to be illegal. We have a ripeness ruling from the Ninth Circuit, and we have a demand from the union that we accept it, the non-Nicolau list.” [Feb. 9th Transcripts, Page 22]
Pay particular attention to Mr. Siegel’s use of the word “amend.” It is USAPA’s competence to amend the Transition Agreement which is really in question in the company’s declaratory action. As an agent, USAPA owes a duty to all pilots which it represents. Hybrid DFR law makes it clear that liability for failing to meet the “Duty of Fair Representation” does not stop with the union. A company can be held liable if the company knew (or should have known) that the union was not meeting its duty to fairly represent its members when bargaining. The failure to represent here is with regards to the seniority list. Thanks to USAPA, there is no separate West entity. Now, nobody knows if the West is being fairly represented when a seniority list is proffered that is not the Nicolau. The company is faced with the prospect of negotiating with USAPA to ignore a binding arbitration and instead, agree to a DOH seniority list in a joint collective bargaining agreement in lieu of threatened work stoppages. Mind you, the same DOH list has already been found by one jury to be illegal in this circumstance. Again, we will refer to Mr. Siegel’s oral arguments of February 9th:
“Your Honor, I'm quite aware of the law in this area. There's a lead case that discusses this, a District Court decision by Judge Conlon in Chicago in 1991 involving United Airlines. I represented United in that case. I actually was able to prevail on the issue of whether the carrier was or was not a colluder. But there are cases which I don't, as a carrier lawyer, don't favor but there are cases which hold that a carrier can be, in certain factual circumstances, held liable as facilitating, aiding, abetting, or colluding with the union in the adoption and agreeing to an illegal contract term. *** Unlike the Rakestraw case, as we get this threat, we're fully aware that the DFR argument that Mr. Harper's clients want to make was presented in a nine-day trial to a jury and to Judge Wake. We're fully aware that the facts that were presented caused a jury to find that the proposal made by the union breaches its duty of fair representation.” [Feb 9th Hearing Transcripts, pages 12-13]
(2) Just as the company’s declaratory action is alive and well, so too is the Nicolau Award. The Nicolau was the second exhibit admitted into evidence during Addington, and it is likely going to be among the first exhibits admitted in the company’s declaratory action. Rather than “collecting dust” (or whatever idiom USAPA used to allege that the Nicolau Award was impotent under USAPA) the Nicolau remains very much attached to both the East and the West. The Nicolau did not “go away,” as Lee Seham so confidently pronounced during USAPA’s campaign to replace ALPA. Nicolau is the standard against which USAPA’s duty to represent all pilots will be measured.
(3) We are three and half years into USAPA’s effort to pretend that the binding arbitration does not exist. Lee Seham exuded confidence in his response to an East A330 captain that the company would gladly deal on seniority in exchange for a “cost neutral contract.” Notwithstanding the obvious message from Seham that his clients are more than willing to sell their seniority, Seham and the USAPA founders mistakenly assumed that the company could actually be in a position to negotiate seniority. Again, we look to Mr. Siegel's statement in court:
“As to negotiations, this is not a subject that we bargained about, Your Honor. To give the reality of the labor negotiations, the carrier in a post-merger situation, waits for the union to give it an integrated seniority list. And so long as certain conditions are met, which are actually laid out in the transition agreement so that we're not required to do something called flush the system or otherwise incur a lot of extra training costs, we accept their list. * * * Your Honor, with all respect, on this, subject, it's yes or no. We're not sitting here bargaining a pay rate or a pension plan.” [Feb 9th Hearing Transcripts, page 19]
Ergo, the company cannot be thought of as a party capable of negotiating seniority. This is a principal assumption made by the founders of USAPA, which has FAILED the test of reality.
(4) The Addington trial does not go away. Mr. Siegel:
“I have not had a chance to talk to the parties but, obviously, one possibility that seems logical to us is that there would be some type of ability to transfer the record from Judge Wake's courtroom to this courtroom so that if there needs to be any resolution or material issues of fact or supplemental evidence, that can be done very quickly. But rather than reinvent the wheel, assuming that that is something that the two pilot groups would want, we would certainly support moving on that as quickly as possible without delay.” [Feb. 9th Hearing Transcripts, page 23]
(5) Our final point is to ask rhetorically how a federal mediator can possibly continue negotiations in light of the fact that the company’s declaratory action is ongoing in federal court. Despite the snail’s pace of negotiations brought on by a puppet NAC, the issues being litigated in federal court are intertwined with many sections in the contract. Seniority affects all of the major (and contentious) provisions of a contract: pay, scheduling, retirement, medical, and many others. Congratulations USAPA! Instead of securing a contract in 90 days, it seems more plausible that you will not secure a contract for 90 months.
Now that litigation has resumed, you can expect more updates from Leonidas. We are entering a new chapter in the defense of our careers. We appreciate your robust financial support, which has made our ongoing legal defense possible. With your continued support, we will be able to finish this dispute and move ahead for the benefit of all US Airways pilots.
Sincerely,
Leonidas LLC
http://www.cactuspilot.com
Leonidas Update
Today, Judge Silver denied USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss the US Airways' declaratory action. You can read the order here. Within the order, Judge Silver denied USAPA’s Motion to Drop the West pilots as a party to the company’s suit, and denied the West pilots’ “cross-claim” against USAPA.
Contrary to USAPA's repeated assertions that the seniority issue is settled, the company’s declaratory action- which is based solely on the seniority dispute- is alive and well. No matter how many times USAPA has claimed victory; today's ruling proves that it has not prevailed, as another trial looms just over the horizon.
(1) This action necessarily raises issues nearly identical to the issues in Addington. As a review, the company raised three questions. Because of today’s ruling, all three questions will proceed to be litigated:
(I) Whether agreement to a non-Nicolau seniority list violates the Railway Labor Act.
(II) Whether agreement to a non-Nicolau seniority list does not violate the RLA.
(III) Regardless whether use or non-use of Nicolau violates the RLA, that US Airways be immune from liability caused by agreeing to a non-Nicolau list.
It is straightforward to see why claims I and II invoke the same legal issues over which the Addington jury deliberated. Mr. Bob Siegel represents US Airways, and it was clear in his oral arguments before Judge Silver on February 9th that the effect of the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of Addington only on the grounds of “ripeness” created an intractable position for the company:
“On the seniority issue, the company has to tell the union whether or not it will or will not amend the transition agreement and acquiesce to a non-Nicolau seniority list. We have to answer that question and we don't know -- Your Honor, the only thought I want to emphasize is the reason we filed is because we don't know whether that proposal is legal or not. We're concerned because we are aware of a jury verdict that found it to be illegal. We have a ripeness ruling from the Ninth Circuit, and we have a demand from the union that we accept it, the non-Nicolau list.” [Feb. 9th Transcripts, Page 22]
Pay particular attention to Mr. Siegel’s use of the word “amend.” It is USAPA’s competence to amend the Transition Agreement which is really in question in the company’s declaratory action. As an agent, USAPA owes a duty to all pilots which it represents. Hybrid DFR law makes it clear that liability for failing to meet the “Duty of Fair Representation” does not stop with the union. A company can be held liable if the company knew (or should have known) that the union was not meeting its duty to fairly represent its members when bargaining. The failure to represent here is with regards to the seniority list. Thanks to USAPA, there is no separate West entity. Now, nobody knows if the West is being fairly represented when a seniority list is proffered that is not the Nicolau. The company is faced with the prospect of negotiating with USAPA to ignore a binding arbitration and instead, agree to a DOH seniority list in a joint collective bargaining agreement in lieu of threatened work stoppages. Mind you, the same DOH list has already been found by one jury to be illegal in this circumstance. Again, we will refer to Mr. Siegel’s oral arguments of February 9th:
“Your Honor, I'm quite aware of the law in this area. There's a lead case that discusses this, a District Court decision by Judge Conlon in Chicago in 1991 involving United Airlines. I represented United in that case. I actually was able to prevail on the issue of whether the carrier was or was not a colluder. But there are cases which I don't, as a carrier lawyer, don't favor but there are cases which hold that a carrier can be, in certain factual circumstances, held liable as facilitating, aiding, abetting, or colluding with the union in the adoption and agreeing to an illegal contract term. *** Unlike the Rakestraw case, as we get this threat, we're fully aware that the DFR argument that Mr. Harper's clients want to make was presented in a nine-day trial to a jury and to Judge Wake. We're fully aware that the facts that were presented caused a jury to find that the proposal made by the union breaches its duty of fair representation.” [Feb 9th Hearing Transcripts, pages 12-13]
(2) Just as the company’s declaratory action is alive and well, so too is the Nicolau Award. The Nicolau was the second exhibit admitted into evidence during Addington, and it is likely going to be among the first exhibits admitted in the company’s declaratory action. Rather than “collecting dust” (or whatever idiom USAPA used to allege that the Nicolau Award was impotent under USAPA) the Nicolau remains very much attached to both the East and the West. The Nicolau did not “go away,” as Lee Seham so confidently pronounced during USAPA’s campaign to replace ALPA. Nicolau is the standard against which USAPA’s duty to represent all pilots will be measured.
(3) We are three and half years into USAPA’s effort to pretend that the binding arbitration does not exist. Lee Seham exuded confidence in his response to an East A330 captain that the company would gladly deal on seniority in exchange for a “cost neutral contract.” Notwithstanding the obvious message from Seham that his clients are more than willing to sell their seniority, Seham and the USAPA founders mistakenly assumed that the company could actually be in a position to negotiate seniority. Again, we look to Mr. Siegel's statement in court:
“As to negotiations, this is not a subject that we bargained about, Your Honor. To give the reality of the labor negotiations, the carrier in a post-merger situation, waits for the union to give it an integrated seniority list. And so long as certain conditions are met, which are actually laid out in the transition agreement so that we're not required to do something called flush the system or otherwise incur a lot of extra training costs, we accept their list. * * * Your Honor, with all respect, on this, subject, it's yes or no. We're not sitting here bargaining a pay rate or a pension plan.” [Feb 9th Hearing Transcripts, page 19]
Ergo, the company cannot be thought of as a party capable of negotiating seniority. This is a principal assumption made by the founders of USAPA, which has FAILED the test of reality.
(4) The Addington trial does not go away. Mr. Siegel:
“I have not had a chance to talk to the parties but, obviously, one possibility that seems logical to us is that there would be some type of ability to transfer the record from Judge Wake's courtroom to this courtroom so that if there needs to be any resolution or material issues of fact or supplemental evidence, that can be done very quickly. But rather than reinvent the wheel, assuming that that is something that the two pilot groups would want, we would certainly support moving on that as quickly as possible without delay.” [Feb. 9th Hearing Transcripts, page 23]
(5) Our final point is to ask rhetorically how a federal mediator can possibly continue negotiations in light of the fact that the company’s declaratory action is ongoing in federal court. Despite the snail’s pace of negotiations brought on by a puppet NAC, the issues being litigated in federal court are intertwined with many sections in the contract. Seniority affects all of the major (and contentious) provisions of a contract: pay, scheduling, retirement, medical, and many others. Congratulations USAPA! Instead of securing a contract in 90 days, it seems more plausible that you will not secure a contract for 90 months.
Now that litigation has resumed, you can expect more updates from Leonidas. We are entering a new chapter in the defense of our careers. We appreciate your robust financial support, which has made our ongoing legal defense possible. With your continued support, we will be able to finish this dispute and move ahead for the benefit of all US Airways pilots.
Sincerely,
Leonidas LLC
http://www.cactuspilot.com
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
