Carl Spakler

Over the years he's been both, and been in NYC & LAX.

Now LAX 76

Carl Spakler

I'll try to find an example. I don't know if one exists. Rakestraw at UAL is a pretty decent analogy though.

Regardless, my point was not that it has been done.

My point is the DPA/USAPA lawyer has numerous times told his clients and speaking audiences that it CAN be done.

In fact USAPA shopped their case to 15 firms, looking for someone who said they could overturn an award. Then they found the DPA/USAPA attorney...telling them what they wanted to hear.

He provided discounted fees during the organizing drive. USAPA Advisory Council had to sign exclusive provider contracts. Now they have to pay the firm through the nose. Acording to www.unbiasedfacts.org USAPA now pays the firm over $57,000 per week!

Funny now to hear one of his clients worry about dues and assessments.

80ktsClamp

alfaromeo

It has occurred, not at an airline that I know of, but at other unions. The cases are cited by USAPA in the original Addington trial, it is just too much work to find those exact cases, the transcripts are literally thousands of pages. One read was enough.

The case that is quoted most often in the USAPA case is Rakestraw vs. ALPA. It wasn't an arbitrated list, but that doesn't matter. The issue is can you take a seniority list that exists, no matter what the origin of that list, and change it. That is the situation we have at both Delta and at US Air. The origin of the list does not matter, arbitration, negotiation, mediation, coin flipping, random number generator. United had a list, everyone had a number just like us and then the list was changed.

Rakestraw et. al. sued ALPA over the duty of fair representation, just like you say they would. In the jury trial, Rakestraw won, citing that ALPA had not provided fair representation to the scabs.

The appeal was where the case changed. The appeals court ruled that ALPA had indeed treated the scabs unfairly, but that punishing scabs made the entire union stronger, more capable of bargaining for new contracts, by increasing the penalty for scabbing. In short, while a group was harmed, the union as a whole was improved and thus they provided fair representation to the group as a whole.

In the Addington vs. USAPA case, the DPA lawyer has argued that Rakestraw applies in the following context. Since Rakestraw has shown that a current seniority list, no matter how it was formed, can be renegotiated,, USAPA merely has to show a greater union good that increases the benefits to the whole in order to avoid a DFR loss. In this case, the DPA lawyer says that Date of Hire is the "gold standard" in integrating seniority lists, therefore the entire group will benefit from using the "gold standard". That is the legal basis of the DPA lawyer.

You ask the question of DFR, which is the critical question of the entire case. Changing a seniority list is a zero sum game and so it is quite easy to prove who wins and who loses in a renegotiation. That is why the lists are rarely changed and why I have repeatedly said it is quite difficult to do.

However, the DPA lawyer insists that it is easy, he has collected massive amounts of dues over the last few years pushing that very prospect. I would love to hear the DPA lawyer say, publicly, that it is not possible to change an arbitrated award, as that would completely contradict his position to date. Carl can try to create some legal distinction between a group that is operationally integrated and a group that is not operationally integrated, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that there is no difference. Once the list is accepted by management then it is the list. No do-overs allowed, just renegotiation.

To throw one other monkey wrench in the equation, USAPA was warned by a lawyer (not the DPA lawyer but another) that they needed to conceal the purpose of changing the seniority list. This fact was exposed at the federal trial as the founder of USAPA had violated the lawyer client privilege by posting the email from the lawyer on a public website. So the DPA lawyer knows that DPA would have to conceal any plan to change the seniority list and that he needs to leave no physical evidence of that concealment.

That said, I have no idea what DPA's goals are. They change with every update of their website. Thus SOME pilots can think that DPA is the vehicle to change the seniority list. Carl has admitted that this is true. We don't really know USAPA's goals because they are written in electronic ink and change frequently.

That is USAPA's goal regarding contract negotiations (at least until they change it). Anyone that thinks that they are going to magically restore C2K hasn't read their material. SOME think DPA will get them a 50% pay raise but even DPA realizes that you have to analyze the company's finances and determine what is possible to achieve. Just makes me laugh when people say "ALPA better ask for the moon or I'm sending in my card." To whom? The guys that say they have to consider the company's ability to pay?

johnso29

Another thing to consider WRT DPA.....DALPA has a warchest built for Sec 6. It's a whole lot more then DPA could ever get, or at least in time for Sec 6.

johnso29

Also, the A320 CA's I'm flying with are saying they won't budge on SCOPE. A lot of these guys are early 50's and have no intention of pulling the ladder up behind them.

Either that or they don't have the nuts to tell me otherwise.

80ktsClamp

What's say we have some fun on here tonight instead of DPA/ALPA dribble?

I'll lead off with some pump up, and then Check will bring the boobage like he has shown himself to be ever so adept at recently:

DAL 88 Driver

Well, there you have it. Alfaromeo clearly not on board with a 50% pay increase. Therefore Alfaromeo clearly not on board with being paid at least as much as SWA. (Alfaromeo, BTW, is highly involved in ALPA work.) Sadly, to varying degrees, this appears to be the thinking of many in our MEC. I know my LEC Chairman sees it the way Alfa does. Sounds like the MSP LEC Chairman does too. If you pin them down, I'll bet you'll smoke out a whole bunch more reps who think this.

Folks, we better all start asking a lot of questions and get a handle on this before we end up with another substandard TA and many more years of concessionary wages. And make sure you get specific answers. Some of these guys are real politicians and slicker than owl snot. Kinda like this guy...

TenYearsGone

I hate to break it to you, there will never be a way to do this. The books are cooked and a "true" analysis of the companies "true" non-manipulated health will never be reached, please trust me on this. Also, trust me when I say the company WILL NOT go into bankruptcy, TRUTHFULLY, if we receive 50% payraises. They just have to work harder and cleverly to make more revenues.

TEN

acl65pilot

Hey, I got a suggestion. If what has been stated is true about the MSP Chair, you have your chance this fall for the MSP pilots to elect a new Chair. His term is up March 1, 2012 and his election is this fall.

LAX and MSP are both up for new elections this fall.

That said, My interaction with both of the MSP Reps has been beyond reproach. I like both of them as people, and have witnessed thoughtful deliberation on a plethora of issues, in plenary.