All UAL wants for Christmas is Labor Agreements

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/26/2002 1:34:16 PM wts54 wrote:

ual747mech, yes we will see how big our
slice of the s**t pie is going to be and
decide by a vote if we want to eat it or
not.Do you have a problem with that bud??
----------------
[/blockquote]

No, no problem at all bud but don't you see, every wrong move that you make will make the s**t pie bigger and bigger!!

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/24/2002 2:06:15 PM wts54 wrote:

Bob,I agree with you 7 years is to long.
That is enough for me.If they asked for help
then maybe one year extension no more.

----------------
[/blockquote]

same respond to you bud.

 

[wts54]

So then what is your strategy if it is
unacceptable to you ? We all have to decide that
for ourselves what we will accept or when we draw
the line.As for me an extra 7 years especially since
Tilton said we will be in chap11 for maybe two years
is to long an extension.

 

[ual747mech]

The best strategy is to follow what the Unions are saying. They're the ones that can guide us since they got their attorneys and financial advisers looking at whether the company's proposal is fair and equitable. I think if they feel that what the company is proposing is not fair or necessary then they will take it to the judge. I know a case where that happened. They told us that it's best for us to keep the Company out of bankruptcy and they were right.

If you think it won't get worst than what the Company is proposing right now you better think again. Continental unilaterally imposed 60% paycut and drastic benefit changes after they got the contracts rejected. If you think that will not happen here you're naive. "We'll strike you say, yup we have that right but unless the pilots and the other labor groups support us I don't think the Company is worried about that. Just like Continental was able to survive, United will also survive if we were the only ones voting down our tentative agreement. Also, we become an at will employees once the Company abrogate our contract so that means they can pick and choose who stays and gets laid off. Don't worry though the Company and the Unions have as much to lose therefore they end up settling. Look at US Air.

I guess the only thing that we can do is decide whether it's still worth working here or not once the dust settles. Hell I'm looking around right now to see what's out there to see if I can find something better.

 

[wts54]

Dow Jones Business News
United Holds Off Filing Motion on Redoing
Contracts
Thursday December 26, 7:13 pm ET

CHICAGO -- United Airlines said it will delay until Friday the filing of a motion enabling it
to the section of bankruptcy law which could lead to the court-supervised renegotiation
of contracts with its labor unions.

The unit of UAL Corp. (NYSE:UAL - News) , which filed for bankruptcy earlier this
month, had been expected to make the filing under Section 1113 Thursday but said in
a statement it would postpone doing so by a day after requests from unions and the
ongoing discussions with them.

The carrier said last week it would make the Section 1113 filing by Dec. 26. The section
allows companies to abrogate unions' existing labor contracts and allow the firms to
impose new terms on the workers. But such a move carries risks because it could lead
to labor discontent and job actions.

At 4 p.m. EST on the New York Stock Exchange, shares of UAL were up 23%, or 24
cents, at $1.29 on volume of 8.9 million shares. The daily average is 5.8 million.

-Ralph Tasgal; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5400


Dow Jones Newswires
12-26-02 1913ET

 

[thedog]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/26/2002 112 PM ual747mech wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]Hey Bob!! It's not that simple as you make it seem to be![BR][BR]The best thing to do is to wait and see what the Unions and the company works out and see what they have to say about whatever agreement they work out. They're the ones who can best look at the matters in front of us. They have their attorneys and financial advisers looking at whether what the Company is proposing to us is fair and necessary. [BR][BR][BR][BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][STRONG][EM]And all this time I thought we were the union. Who is the union?[/EM][/STRONG][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/26/2002 112 PM ual747mech wrote:

----------------
[/blockquote]

Hey Bob!! It's not that simple as you make it seem to be!

The best thing to do is to wait and see what the Unions and the company works out and see what they have to say about whatever agreement they work out. They're the ones who can best look at the matters in front of us. They have their attorneys and financial advisers looking at whether what the Company is proposing to us is fair and necessary.




----------------
[/blockquote]

Didnt they have them in "94" also? There are times when the interests of the Unions leadership and the members diverge. A 7-year contract that will save the union negotiations expenses and pretty much guarantee a constant dues base might not be in the best interests of the members.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/27/2002 6:16:43 PM thedog wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 12/26/2002 112 PM ual747mech wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
Hey Bob!! It's not that simple as you make it seem to be!

The best thing to do is to wait and see what the Unions and the company works out and see what they have to say about whatever agreement they work out. They're the ones who can best look at the matters in front of us. They have their attorneys and financial advisers looking at whether what the Company is proposing to us is fair and necessary.






[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]


[STRONG][EM]And all this time I thought we were the union. Who is the union?[/EM][/STRONG][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
[/blockquote]

Yes, ultimately we, as union members, are the ones who will make the final decisions. Before we do that though, we need to find out how and why the Unions and the Company came to that agreement so we can make an informed decisions. Just like a sport team who needs the guidance of a coach, we need the union leadership to guide us. Just like a defendant in a murder case, he needs guidance from the attorney who is representing him. So yes we are the union who will ultimately decide our fate but I wouldn't do it before I gather important information from the Union leadership who arrive at the tentative agreement in front of us. Do you understand what I'm talking about? you stupid dog!! Just kidding, nice picture, do you really look like that?

 

[ual747mech]

[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/27/2002 5:55:57 PM Bob Owens wrote: [BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/26/2002 112 PM ual747mech wrote: [BR][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Hey Bob!! It's not that simple as you make it seem to be![BR][BR]The best thing to do is to wait and see what the Unions and the company works out and see what they have to say about whatever agreement they work out. They're the ones who can best look at the matters in front of us. They have their attorneys and financial advisers looking at whether what the Company is proposing to us is fair and necessary. [BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Didnt they have them in "94" also? There are times when the interests of the Unions leadership and the members diverge. A 7-year contract that will save the union negotiations expenses and pretty much guarantee a constant dues base might not be in the best interests of the members.[BR][BR]----------------[BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]Yea, it's nothing but a big conspiracy huh? [BR][BR][BR]<PORTION DELETED BY MODERATOR>[BR]

 

[Steiner]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/27/2002 9:15:06 PM ual747mech wrote:

Yes, ultimately we, as union members, are the ones who will make the final decisions. Before we do that though, we need to find out how and why the Unions and the Company came to that agreement so we can make an informed decisions. Just like a sport team who needs the guidance of a coach, we need the union leadership to guide us. Just like a defendant in a murder case, he needs guidance from the attorney who is representing him. So yes we are the union who will ultimately decide our fate but I wouldn't do it before I gather important information from the Union leadership who arrive at the tentative agreement in front of us. Do you understand what I'm talking about? you stupid dog!! Just kidding, nice picture, do you really look like that?
----------------
[/blockquote]


ual747mech, you have a tone in your writing that usually appears when an IAM official is about to lose their union position and associated perks. Do you know where your toolbox is, and can you identify it? Is it conceivable that the membership feels it has less to lose in a bankruptcy court than the union leadership does? Do you think the membership will believe what the union leaders are saying after all these years?

 

[Trip Confirmed]

I agree, all UAL wants for Christmas is Labor Agreements.

But I think they should have asked Santa for passengers.

 

[UnitedChicago]

Trip Confirmed:[BR][BR]Hmmm...I think Santa granted them their wish:[BR][BR]CHICAGO, Dec. 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- United Airlines (NYSE:[BR] UAL) announced today it established a company record revenue load[BR] factor of 90.7 percent on Saturday, Dec. 21, 2002. The revenue load[BR] factor measures the percentage of available seats filled with[BR] revenue-paying passengers.[BR][BR]Of course I know that this is holiday related traffic...but United has released several statements stating that there has been NO decline in passanger bookings since filing CH11.[BR][BR][SPAN class=BodyFont]<portion deledted by moderator>[/SPAN]

 

[Bob Owens]

[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/27/2002 9:30:42 PM ual747mech wrote: [BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/27/2002 5:55:57 PM Bob Owens wrote: [BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/26/2002 112 PM ual747mech wrote: [BR][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Hey Bob!! It's not that simple as you make it seem to be![BR][BR]The best thing to do is to wait and see what the Unions and the company works out and see what they have to say about whatever agreement they work out. They're the ones who can best look at the matters in front of us. They have their attorneys and financial advisers looking at whether what the Company is proposing to us is fair and necessary. [BR][BR][BR][BR][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Didnt they have them in "94" also? There are times when the interests of the Unions leadership and the members diverge. A 7-year contract that will save the union negotiations expenses and pretty much guarantee a constant dues base might not be in the best interests of the members.[BR][BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]Yea, it's nothing but a big conspiracy huh? [BR][BR][BR]<PORTION DELETED BY MODERATOR>[BR]----------------[BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Is that your rebuttal? You claim that the members should do what the Union says because of their experts and lawyers, just as they did in "94". I brought that up and your answer to that is that I am not a UAL employee? Why should the members be so confident in the judgement or motives of the same people that got them to grant long term concessions and invest a huge sum of money in company stock that is now pretty much worthless? Their advice in the past did not prove to be sound, why should they beleive that being advised to accept long term concessions again, by those same people, is in their best interests? Or is it in the IAMs best interests being that they will not have to bear the expense of negotiations for 8 years. 8 years of collecting dues with minimal expenses! For the next 8 years they will tell those members who gripe "You voted for it". Were the cuts designed to minimize the loss of dues to the union while maximizing the cuts the members take?[BR]

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/28/2002 7:53:40 AM Steiner wrote:


ual747mech, you have a tone in your writing that usually appears when an IAM official is about to lose their union position and associated perks. Do you know where your toolbox is, and can you identify it? Is it conceivable that the membership feels it has less to lose in a bankruptcy court than the union leadership does? Do you think the membership will believe what the union leaders are saying after all these years?



----------------
[/blockquote]

I'm not a fan of the IAM but if you look at what the AFA and ALPA are saying you will find out that it's really true that the Company is about to crash and that's why they are desperate to cut cost everywhere they can. Sure! we can resist concession all we want but theres a risk of we end up giving up more. We resisted the concession previously that had the potential of keeping the Company out of Bankruptcy had we gotten the ATSB loan. I know that in the end that didn't matter anyway but the intent was to keep the Company out of Bankruptcy which would've been less painful. Hindsight is 20/20.

Now that we are in bankruptcy, we are faced with a bigger slice of the s**t pie concession but before we go and say hell no but f**k no like last time I think we better see why it's better to accept it than reject it because theres always a risk of we end up getting much shi**ier deal. Continental imposed a 60% paycut and drastic benefit changes to their employees after they got the contracts rejected. It took them a while to get back to industry standard. Go to the AFA Bankruptcy Q and A and you will find out what I'm talking about. You can also dig up information about the history of Continental if you don't believe it. Dig up information on your own if you don't believe what your union official is saying. Look at what the other Unions are saying, its not hard to do these days to dig up information, we're in the internet age.

When it's time for us to vote, if they bring back a tentative agreement for us to vote on, go ask the union officials question to get information. Ask them what they recommend on how we should vote and ask why they would recommend that. If you don't trust them then try to verify on your own whether what they are saying is true or not.

Like I said, I am not a fan of the IAM because of secret negotiation, lack of information(its actually improved now that they're putting more information on their website), and lack of leadership to go out and inform the membership. Sometimes I can't really blame them since there's so many AMFA fanatics who don't trust them. I prefer AMFA myself but I don't really care anymore because there are so many negative people out there and most of them are AMFA fanatics. There are people who will vote no just because it's the IAM who negotiated it. People don't just think anymore, they don't bother asking for information, they will vote no without thinking of the consequences.

 

[ual06]

The following quotes are from previous posts by Bob Owens. (Just up above.)

"Didn't they have them in;94; also? There are times when the interests of the
Unions leadership and the members diverge. A 7-year contract that will save the union
negotiations expenses and pretty much guarantee a constant dues base might not be in
the best interests of the members."


It seems as if he is saying that Union leadership wants a pay raise through increased dues receipt and does not want to see a 7 year freeze on dues receipts. So what if people lose their jobs. None at UAL are in his "local".


" Is that your rebuttal? You claim that the members should do what the Union says because of
their experts
and lawyers, just as they did in "94". I brought that up and your answer to that is that I am not a
UAL
employee? Why should the members be so confident in the judgement or motives of the same
people
that got them to grant long term concessions and invest a huge sum of money in company stock
that is
now pretty much worthless? Their advice in the past did not prove to be sound, why should they
beleive
that being advised to accept long term concessions again, by those same people, is in their best
interests? "


In '94, the lawyers and experts advising the unions at UAL were those hired by the unions, as they are today. Does union leadership know more than the lawyers and experts that the union leadership obtain to represent the members?