No i already said its going to be 300 billion equivalent to last years earnings according to your union president
American Airlines and Labor Negotiations
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
- Status
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
Today, the Court hearing the Injunction by AA against the Association released their opinion on some contested law brought up by the Association.
It didn't go well for them.
In general, these are the arguments and the opinion.
1. Association argues the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA), prohibits injunctive relief against "union activity" (airlines are covered under the Railway Labor Act, not the NLGA)
COURT OPINION: "...the court considers that the Fifth Circuit has left it no choice but to conclude that section 6 of the NLGA is not applicable..."
2. The Association argues that under the NLGA, the Company has to exhaust all other means of resolution to negotiations before an injunction could be applied. Those resolutions includes negotiating a contract or pursuing remedy via the grievance and arbitration mechanisms.
COURT OPINION: "The court concludes that section 8 of the NLGA does not require [American] to make reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute regarding the alleged slowdown."
3. The Association argues they can't be held responsible to make "all reasonable measures to stop concerted activity by their members if [the Association has] not participated, authorized or ratified it."
COURT OPINION: "...the court concludes that a union has a duty to take every reasonable effort to stop its members' unlawful concerted activity, even if they have not participated in, authorized, or ratified it."
4. The Association makes a similar argument as in number 2 but this time under the Railway Labor Act and seemingly includes disciplining mechanics engaged in the alleged slowdown and using that mechanism to try and stop the actions the Company sees as illegal rather than an injunction.
COURT OPINION: "The Supreme Court has made it clear that a court may only enjoin a [unions] violation of Section 2, First of the RLA if an injunction is the only practical, effective means of enforcing the duty to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements...In its brief, [American] did not appear to raise a meaningful disagreement with that rule, but rather argued that its failure to discipline individual employees or engage in arbitration should not bar the injunction it requested. That is not the question presented to the court, and the court will not resolve it here. [American] may well argue that such discipline or arbitration is not a practical and effective means of enforcing defendants' duty, but it must meet the above-cited standard."
That's an 0 for 4.
It didn't go well for them.
In general, these are the arguments and the opinion.
1. Association argues the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA), prohibits injunctive relief against "union activity" (airlines are covered under the Railway Labor Act, not the NLGA)
COURT OPINION: "...the court considers that the Fifth Circuit has left it no choice but to conclude that section 6 of the NLGA is not applicable..."
2. The Association argues that under the NLGA, the Company has to exhaust all other means of resolution to negotiations before an injunction could be applied. Those resolutions includes negotiating a contract or pursuing remedy via the grievance and arbitration mechanisms.
COURT OPINION: "The court concludes that section 8 of the NLGA does not require [American] to make reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute regarding the alleged slowdown."
3. The Association argues they can't be held responsible to make "all reasonable measures to stop concerted activity by their members if [the Association has] not participated, authorized or ratified it."
COURT OPINION: "...the court concludes that a union has a duty to take every reasonable effort to stop its members' unlawful concerted activity, even if they have not participated in, authorized, or ratified it."
4. The Association makes a similar argument as in number 2 but this time under the Railway Labor Act and seemingly includes disciplining mechanics engaged in the alleged slowdown and using that mechanism to try and stop the actions the Company sees as illegal rather than an injunction.
COURT OPINION: "The Supreme Court has made it clear that a court may only enjoin a [unions] violation of Section 2, First of the RLA if an injunction is the only practical, effective means of enforcing the duty to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements...In its brief, [American] did not appear to raise a meaningful disagreement with that rule, but rather argued that its failure to discipline individual employees or engage in arbitration should not bar the injunction it requested. That is not the question presented to the court, and the court will not resolve it here. [American] may well argue that such discipline or arbitration is not a practical and effective means of enforcing defendants' duty, but it must meet the above-cited standard."
That's an 0 for 4.
which part is in denial the silent partner the noisy partner or the whole thing? and again why are we in it?
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
The whole thing.
I suspect the silent partner was more surgical in their approach but at this point it seems they're both culpable.
The good news is that it appears to be coming to a head. There was an article that the faa is starting to take an interest. It seems to be following the same path as southwest. If we get the same result that is debatable. With the dysfuncitation i have serious doubts.
The association was blinded by tunnel vision. The only thing they saw and was focused on was $$$!
Tim Nelson
Veteran
where is your buddy weez? Well at least you have learned well and now see the value of NYer.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
The company didnt object to terminating and suing the suspects it may have targeted. The union argument to the judge was to whack employees, instead of the union.
Nobody should be involved in a slowdown because they could be subject to termination and fined. Ive never seen a union toss people under a bus quite like it is in these court docs.
This is getting ugly.
Last edited:
B737 driver
Veteran
- Jul 6, 2017
- 3,381
- 209
If that doesn't show you guys why you need new representation, nothing will. They totally threw you guys under the bus, after they wink wink go outside your scope of your task cards to ground airplanes, going to be a long hot summer, b.s. Now we know nothing, very unprofessional.
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,242
I would say the Association supporters (yes, that includes those from both the IAM and TWU side) are absent because they are preparing their crow the best way they can tolerate it. Some like it BBQ style, some fried, and I'm assuming some stuffed in NY Style pizza. But we all know that's not the case. They have no argument, they know they were wrong, and now crickets. These pages were covered with criticism of those of us who expressed our concern about the ASS. Now silence from each and every one of them. I won't mention a single one of them, not even the reps, but WE ALL know who are pretending to be deaf, dumb and mute at this point...
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,403
- 2,649
Anybody watching the Facebook fiasco should have known this was coming.
I know the two don't seem to be connected but hear me out.
You have the left attacking Facebook for propagating "hate speech" (a social engineering tool used by the left to both censure and censor) as if Facebook is supposed to monitor each and every single post by it's members, which of course is ridiculous.
This is the governments version of a war on social media. Their attempt to exert control, shut you up, and to keep you from standing up for yourselves. After all success encourages repetition and expansion and they simply can't have that.
CremaDiLimone
Veteran
- Jun 8, 2016
- 1,817
- 154
in regards to this forum, it would be unreasonable for the union to make angry posters forget their passwords.
the company doesn't need posts from this forum to make a strong case. the company made a strong case with the MELs. the court loves precedents. this is how many from same period 2015-2016, same period 2016-2017...etc.
now, it's up to the union to point to failed company policies resulting in the spike.
NYer, it looks like the AMTs got a very nice late piece of candy (wages) and all LUS assoc. members got another piece of candy (keep cheaper & superior insurance for 1 more year and $3k more 'bonus' than laa assoc. members).
where is the late piece of candy for laa fleet? what makes the company think i'd vote yes for diminished scope in exchange for a meager wage increase and keeping the same pathetic profit sharing formula?
all this after earning $16+ billion the past 5 years? unacceptable.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,403
- 2,649
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
Given the bad blood btwn comp n union spilling into the court n now the FAA involved how long before maintenance gets an offer n same w fleet? I feel for us fleet we wont see an offer for quite sometime or after pilots fas n cwa. Just my gut feeling n i hope im wrong. I still say we should of at very had chance to vote on proposal even though i think it wld been shot down but to vote at least wld of probably quelled few on here
- Status
