Originally Posted by cruiserman
AAWH wants you to vote the Teamsters in, they hate spending good money and getting no results. JC1 started this movement and I suppose JC2 will continue the push. What better way to go around contractual commitments, than to just write your own labor contract and have your boys push it.
20 Years ALPA, Never be a Teamster
You only prove one thing with your statement, that is emotion steers your judgment rather than logic.
93+% of Atlas crewmembers say otherwise and are fed up with our level of representation under ALPA.
I would caution you in using the term "never", As they say never say never especially in this industry. By all accounts you have 90 days to come to grips with this transition or you will be free to live up to your promise of "never" being a Teamster.
I have personally been steam rolled by ALPA (twice I might add), I won't say never instead I will CHOOSE by my vote for IBT to not allow it again.
I want to address the topic of who Atlas would prefer to negotiate with in respect to representation issues?
Option A: Pilots who have attended a 2 week negotiating course with no formal education in legal matters? Pilots who have no formal education in/or experience arguing or pleading real legal cases? Pilots that allow ego to drive them to sit across the table from real attorneys as they attempt to negotiate with them matters that pertain to “our” livelihood? Would the company not want Pilots to attempt to debate subject matter beyond the scope of their formal profession i.e. flying airplanes literally outside the scope of their expertise and practice.
Option B: A hired professional negotiator and full-time staff attorney(s) with the support of dedicated office staff all backed by years of practice in aviation law and labor relations? Your/Our professional Negotiator, Attorney(s) and legal teams (provided by IBT) will be backed by formal negotiating experience in addition to being members of the bar. These same professionals will be steered by a pilot committee comprised of "subject matter experts" who provide the required insight into our day to day operations and it's specific details to insure proper language is included in any CBA or LOA. In addition the company would have to deal with any issues in respect to contractual or legal matters with these same individuals for the life of the contract/CBA or LOA in addition to representing all crewmembers in all matters as they relate to the company and governing entities?
There is the old adage in criminal trials that describes a person who represents himself at trial: "He has a fool for a client."
Accordingly, attorneys maintain that they should handle all legal matters for their clients and that clients should not attempt to discharge legal matters on their own, no matter how simple. However, attorneys often do not heed their own advice. They will at times attempt to handle their own personal legal matters, which can result in some of the same problems confronted by non-professionals.
Competency
Often attorneys who represent themselves lack competency in the practice area.
Over the past 50 years, the practice of law has become exceedingly more complicated. Early in the 20th century, trial lawyers were capable of handling all litigation matters, whether they be criminal or civil. Many of the members of the Bar were sole practitioners in small law practices who handled all legal matters, from wills to criminal proceedings.
However, with the dawn of specialty litigation practices, such as anti-trust, securities and environmental, the generalist trial lawyer has been replaced by the specialist. Therefore, most practitioners when confronted by problems in their individual lives that are outside their practice area would be well served to engage an expert. For example, it is generally the case that an attorney engaged in a specialized practice such as employment law would be a poor family lawyer representing himself in his own divorce.
Similarly, while transactional matters were simple at one time, changes in the law, the enactment of voluminous regulations and the propagation of federal statutes that govern virtually every business or commercial transaction have made these matters the realm of experts.
Thus, even transactional lawyers, when handling a matter on their own behalf or for a partnership or business entity in which they're a stakeholder or member, should engage specialized assistance. Because of the specialized nature of most of their practices, transactional attorneys often do not have the experience necessary to represent themselves in matters outside their specialty areas.
For example, a securities attorney should probably not handle the legal documentation involved in the sale of his home. Perhaps, he would not understand the important distinctions between a general warranty deed and a special warranty deed or complex title issues. He could very easily make errors in the transaction adversely affecting him and his other partners.
Conflicts of interest
Issues involving conflicts of interest can become especially acute when an attorney represents a business entity in which he is also an investor.
Attorneys are routinely participants in investment partnerships, private businesses, banks, hospital districts and any number of commercial and not-for-profit businesses.
In instances in which these businesses or ventures may have multiple investors, lawyers should refrain from acting in a dual capacity as counsel as well as an investor. In many cases, professional liability insurance will exclude coverage for advice given by an attorney if he is acting in any role other than as a provider of legal advice.
Furthermore, many private company matters involving an attorney's advice to the board of directors or the attorney's partners may involve mixed issues of law and fact that would give the liability insurance company a basis for excluding coverage of any claims that arose out of that relationship on the theory that the attorney provided business advice not legal counsel.
In addition, the attorney's partners would be concerned when they approach the attorney for legal advice in a matter in which he is also involved as an investor. Are they truly getting the objective, disinterested advice of a legal adviser, or is the advice tempered by the fact the attorney has a commercial stake in the venture?
Consider the situation in which the attorney is giving advice to his partners in an insolvent business. Normally, in a situation involving the insolvency of a company, the legal adviser would advise the members of the board of directors that their duty has shifted from representing the interests of the stockholders to the creditors and that they risk personal liability if they ignore their responsibility to the creditors of the business. However, if the attorney is an equity holder in this business, he might not give strong advice to the board to consider liquidating the company to pay creditors because of a wish to preserve his investment in the enterprise.
Market terms
An attorney practicing outside his area of specialty is much less likely to understand the market in which he is operating and, consequently, is much more likely to misjudge what is acceptable in that market.
Practicing attorneys in a field, beyond the technical nuts and bolts of practicing law, develop expertise as to the customary and appropriate terms for a matter in a given instance, that is, what the particular market will allow.
Thus, an attorney who attempted to represent himself in a divorce might not understand the typical terms that a judge might accept in arrangements regarding custody of the couple's children. Or, if a wealthy plaintiff's lawyer became involved in a corporate transaction involving a preferred stock investment in a company, he would not understand the current reasonable and customary terms of the venture capital market (appropriate protection provisions, dividends that could be expected, and liquidation rights).
This knowledge beyond the four corners of the law would largely escape the attorney practicing outside his area of specialty.
Contacts
An attorney practicing outside his field would likely lack the contacts necessary to facilitate the swift, satisfactory completion of the matter. For instance, most commercial transactions involve the participation of third parties. Thus, an attorney trying to capitalize on a business idea that he may have identified should seek to engage attorneys that are familiar with the venture capital market place.
Access to the adviser's Rolodex would provide introduction to venture capital firms and financing firms that might not otherwise be available. Also, participation of attorneys who are experts and conversant in the area will expedite and comfort third party participants that the transaction has a valid base and has counsel competent in the particular area.
Charles D. Powell is a partner at Haynes and Boone LLP
I choose to have hired proffesionals represent and negotiate for me, 100% IBT!
DBW