Pay up or get fired

[Raoul Duke]

you do not have to pay full dues, you only have to pay that portion of dues that are directly related to collective bargaining expenses. That means that have to separate out all of those legal fees and pay for those from another source.

 

[TWA Dude]

Not exactly true. There's a laundry list of what constitutes germane versus non-germane expenses and it's apparently subject to interpretation. Bottom line: ALPA and APA agency fee is about 85% of full dues. USAPA is claiming at least 95%.

 

[PHXFLYR]

Ahhh...Tell your BUDDY!! that destroying/defacing
US currency is a federal offence!! D-A$$!!

"..Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service...."

How you gonna prove he defaced it, "D-A$$? "

No wonder why Seham loves you guys......

PHXFLYR

 

[St. Nic]

It's pointless talking to anybody who thinks they can get out of paying dues just because they feel like it. NEWS FLASH: you work for a closed shop! You have to pay dues whether you like it or not!
So sorry, so sad...

 

[cactusboy53]

Here is the simple truth: USAPA is the legal CBA, they have been the CBA since April 2008 and all pilots employed at USAirways must pay dues. I understand some of you all out west have trouble abiding by federal laws (RICO) but really, isn't it time to grow up?

Paid up since early this year, member in good standing.

Speaking of growing up, when exactly is it good union business to urinate away nearly $300,000 on a RICO lawsuit that was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE? This case should have been dropped over a year ago. Now Cleary is taking back to court. If it gets shot down again (gee, what do you suppose the odds of that are??), will ANY east pilot figure out that Cleary is going to cost you a bunch of money??

Further PERSECUTION of the C18 could cost USAPA in counter suits.

Why don't you do something productive, like calling your BPR representative and tell him to cease all litigation against the C18 IMMEDIATELY. That would be a good first step to getting this pilot group together.

With USAPA actions against the West pilot group (attempting to circumnavigate the Nicolau list, RICO lawsuit against Cactus pilots, and attempts to appeal the DFR lawsuit), is it ANY WONDER why any West pilot has trouble coughing up $$ to our "union":nuts:??

 

[FR8mastr]

Well let's see, what part of DFR don't you understand?

As far as USAPA being the legal CBA, that will change, very, very shortly.

That would be brilliant... 6 months before the West has the majority vote, you get rid of "your"union and bring back ALPA.
I would expect nothing less

 

[Cowboy75]

That would be brilliant... 6 months before the West has the majority vote, you get rid of "your"union and bring back ALPA.
I would expect nothing less

Under the leadership of Sheepman and his follower Cleary, they will soon find they are in the corral with no place to run.

 

[TWA Dude]

NEWS FLASH: you work for a closed shop!

Typical Seham follower, can't even get facts straight. Like all other unionized US carriers we're an agency shop. That means membership is optional but agency fee is required. A closed shop means membership is required.

 

[Cowboy75]

Where does USAPA get it's legal advice from?

From a recent Leonidas update:

After shopping several law firms, a group of East Pilots found a law firm willing to guide, indeed promote, a scheme of advancing East Pilot seniority rights to the detriment of West Pilot seniority rights. This law firm, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, advised the East Pilots that, with majority status, they could create USAPA and use it to promote their seniority interests in disregard of the Nicolau Award. Mr. Seham told them, relying on his tortured reading of Rakestraw, that USAPA could advance East Pilot interests to the detriment of West Pilot interests so long as there was any rational relation to a legitimate union objective, regardless of USAPA's actual motives.

USAPA, while guided by its legal advisor, left quite an evidentiary trail of bad faith. Much of that trail was apparently created to garner political support among East Pilots who wanted a union that would advance their majority interests over those of the West Pilot minority. USAPA, with legal guidance, acted while motivated by that bad faith. It drafted a constitution intended to create a pretext defining a duty to disregard the Nicolau Award. It made campaign promises to disregard the Nicolau Award. Once elected, it embarked on a preordained course to disregard the Nicolau Award. It did all these things solely for illegitimate motives.

USAPA left the West Pilots no option but to institute this litigation. Plaintiffs filed this action after the Airline announced plans to reduce service in a manner that would burden West Pilots far more than they would have been burdened if the transition to Operational Pilot Integration had occurred as intended. USAPA selected the Seham law firm to handle its defense. In essence, therefore, the Seham law firm was put in a position of defending both itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and USAPA for following that advice.

It was apparent early on that this lawsuit would determine just two material issues: (1) whether, as a matter of law, liability attached if USAPA's only actual motivation in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots; and (2) whether, as a matter of fact, this was USAPA's only actual motivation. Early in this litigation, the Court held, in regard to the first issue, that “the union's position flies against the headwind of cases from other circuits.” Order, 9:27 to 9:28 (Nov. 20, 2008). Doc. # 84. At that point, because USAPA and its legal advisors knew their actual motivation, they surely knew that USAPA would not prevail on the merits of the second, factual issue.

It was also apparent early on that USAPA had a strategy to delay decision on the second, factual issue as long as possible and to run up the costs of the litigation as much as possible in a needless and improper “war of attrition.” The vigor with which this case was defended, obviously based on this strategy, far exceeded what was needed. Perhaps this was in part because the defense team was defending itself as well as its client. Perhaps it was a coldly calculated attempt to outspend and exhaust Plaintiffs before they could obtain a verdict. What matters is that the costs were huge.

With a degree of bad faith that mirrored USAPA's pre-litigation bad faith, USAPA took advantage of every possible legal maneuver to delay a decision on the merits and to expand the costs of the litigation. As a consequence, the litigation costs far exceeded what should have been necessary to resolve the case on the merits. USAPA, through its defense team, demanded substantial amounts of irrelevant discovery, filed unnecessary motions repeatedly raising the same issues, engaged in hostile and abusive practice against Plaintiffs personally, and repeatedly tried legal maneuvers to stay or continue these proceedings. USAPA is, therefore, not only responsible for creating the need for this litigation, but it is also responsible for causing it to be so expensive.

Both sides incurred substantial litigation expenses. USAPA's 2009 LM-2 filed with the Department of Labor shows that it paid $718,474.00 in attorneys' fees allocated to this matter (not including related matters litigated in North Carolina) between October 17, 2008 and February 13, 2009. That comes out to approximately $180,000 a month for the first four months of the litigation.1 What USAPA paid the Seham law firm for the remainder of this representation, including the motion seeking a stay of the permanent injunction, is yet to be reported but will also be part of the public record.

USAPA will pay the attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses incurred in defending this action from membership dues and agency fees. By operation of the RLA, USAPA can assess membership dues or agency fees against the entire bargaining unit. In effect, therefore, the entire bargaining unit (including West Pilots) must share the burden of USAPA's attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses.

In pursuing this action, Plaintiffs incurred attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses comparable to those incurred by USAPA. In contrast to USAPA, however, Plaintiffs cannot assess the members of the entire bargaining unit to pay those fees and expenses. They can pay only from voluntary donations, largely made by West Pilots. Hence, absent a fee and expense award by this Court, West Pilots will bear a share of the attorneys' fees and expenses from both sides while East Pilots will bear only a share of the attorneys' fees and expenses from the defense of USAPA. West Pilots, therefore, would bear a substantially greater burden than East Pilots. Surely, as the prevailing parties, as parties who bear no responsibility for this litigation or for its excessive expense, West Pilots ought not to bear a greater burden than the East Pilots.

If the Court awards Plaintiffs their attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses, the burden will be evenly distributed among all members of the bargaining unit. West Pilots will bear no greater or lesser burden than East Pilots. Attorneys' fees and other expenses from both sides will be paid from membership dues and agency fees assessed by USAPA. That is surely an equitable result.