AOL update
11-21-2013, 02:31 AM
#1781
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
Then usapa should have opened this up to all pilots and not just those who were dues current! See a pilot in bad standing is a pilot here non the less but according to usapa that pilot had no right to vote on the mou. That in and of itself screams of deception and worthy of the courts review.
WD at AWA
WD at AWA
Really?
I would imagine there's some precedence on that
11-21-2013, 04:51 AM
#1782
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
There is! All persons employed be it union member or not are given contract protection thus allowed to vote for a contract. Usapa systematically removed many with its "good standing measurement". Many were in fact paid but still unable to vote do to usapa's slow nature of correcting accounts.
This thing stinks on all sides and like I said worthy of court review
WD at AWA
This thing stinks on all sides and like I said worthy of court review
WD at AWA
11-21-2013, 07:30 AM
#1783
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
That's interesting. 4 separate unions I've been a member of, and only those in good standing / members of union were allowed to vote on anything.
Strange you say that anyone should be able to vote. Did alpa do that? Teamsters? IPA APA etc etc?
Anyways, even if ALL the west pilots were given a vote regardless of status. How much would that 98% vote in favor of changed?
Maybe 1-2% at best bet. Still a overwhelming support for the MOU with AOL knowing it could bury the NIC.
Why would a court want to intervene on something, where the excluded votes would not of made a difference in the outcome?
Strange you say that anyone should be able to vote. Did alpa do that? Teamsters? IPA APA etc etc?
Anyways, even if ALL the west pilots were given a vote regardless of status. How much would that 98% vote in favor of changed?
Maybe 1-2% at best bet. Still a overwhelming support for the MOU with AOL knowing it could bury the NIC.
Why would a court want to intervene on something, where the excluded votes would not of made a difference in the outcome?
11-21-2013, 08:22 AM
#1784
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
There is! All persons employed be it union member or not are given contract protection thus allowed to vote for a contract. Usapa systematically removed many with its "good standing measurement". Many were in fact paid but still unable to vote do to usapa's slow nature of correcting accounts.
This thing stinks on all sides and like I said worthy of court review
WD at AWA
This thing stinks on all sides and like I said worthy of court review
WD at AWA
From National Right to Work Foundation (an anti-union legal group):
If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some "members-only" benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.) If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other "internal" union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.
SECTION 2 - RATIFICATION
A. Any contract, letter of agreement or letter of understanding that, in the opinion of the MEC,
substantially affects the pay, working conditions, retirement, or career security of member pilots will
be subject to membership ratification under the following terms and conditions:
(1) The MEC will, at its option, ballot the membership of their airline to determine if it is their
desire to have membership ratification. Once membership ratification is established it will remain
in effect until changed by another ballot of the membership through MEC action.
(2) Unless the membership is balloted, as described in Section 2A(1) of this Article, membership
ratification of individual contracts and agreements will remain the option of the MEC.
A. Any contract, letter of agreement or letter of understanding that, in the opinion of the MEC,
substantially affects the pay, working conditions, retirement, or career security of member pilots will
be subject to membership ratification under the following terms and conditions:
(1) The MEC will, at its option, ballot the membership of their airline to determine if it is their
desire to have membership ratification. Once membership ratification is established it will remain
in effect until changed by another ballot of the membership through MEC action.
(2) Unless the membership is balloted, as described in Section 2A(1) of this Article, membership
ratification of individual contracts and agreements will remain the option of the MEC.
11-21-2013, 09:44 AM
#1785
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Not completely true in this case and here is why. The person bringing the lawsuit, the plaintiff, has the burden of proving the elements of his lawsuit. In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. That means that he must prove a fact and his damages by showing that something is more likely so than not, i.e. 50.1% versus 49.9%.
If the judge or jury believes the plaintiff and defendant equally, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof and his claim must fail. In other words, the tie goes to the defendant. The defendant does not have to prove anything. The defense is free to simply poke holes in the case of the plaintiff.
There are limited circumstances in which the defendant must prove a defense. This usually arises when the defendant has raised what is known as an affirmative defense. Also, if the defendant attempts to blame a third party, he is usually required to prove his case against that third party by a preponderance of the evidence.
This is the case with the usapa and the mou, they are claiming that the mou does a way with arbitration results and as such now must prove that it does not harm the west class. Now since its very east to see how that harm can arise usapa has now put up and affirmative defense and as such carries a burden. The mou however is not an LUP. Its evident that the courts do not want to have to make a ruling here and hoping that there could be some resolution to this between the parties but that simply will not take place nor should it. The court will however make usapa prove that by changing the arbitration results the west class will remain unharmed. How do you prove that when the first economic down turn occurs?
WD at AWA
If the judge or jury believes the plaintiff and defendant equally, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof and his claim must fail. In other words, the tie goes to the defendant. The defendant does not have to prove anything. The defense is free to simply poke holes in the case of the plaintiff.
There are limited circumstances in which the defendant must prove a defense. This usually arises when the defendant has raised what is known as an affirmative defense. Also, if the defendant attempts to blame a third party, he is usually required to prove his case against that third party by a preponderance of the evidence.
This is the case with the usapa and the mou, they are claiming that the mou does a way with arbitration results and as such now must prove that it does not harm the west class. Now since its very east to see how that harm can arise usapa has now put up and affirmative defense and as such carries a burden. The mou however is not an LUP. Its evident that the courts do not want to have to make a ruling here and hoping that there could be some resolution to this between the parties but that simply will not take place nor should it. The court will however make usapa prove that by changing the arbitration results the west class will remain unharmed. How do you prove that when the first economic down turn occurs?
WD at AWA
Name one case in any court in the U.S. where the court implicitly assumed the defendant was guilty of the Plaintiff's claim and made the defendant prove they were innocent.
The plaintiff must state their claim and prove it. Always. Period.
Do you even know what your claim was?
11-27-2013, 05:36 AM
#1789
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
East pilot writes Judge Silver
11-27-2013, 07:25 AM
#1790
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
WD at AWA
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
