AMR talks about training fill-in flight attendants

[BoeingBoy]

there are stark differences in the examples you list.

All those differences have no bearing on the meaning of the word merger.

Miriam Webster - a : the act or process of merging b : absorption by a corporation of one or more others; also : any of various methods of combining two or more organizations (as business concerns)

Miriam Webster Financial & Legal Dictionary - a combining of two or more companies, corporations, etc. into one, as by issuing stock of the controlling corporation to replace the greater part of that of the other or others

Travel Industry Dictionary - The legal process whereby one corporation acquires or joins with another

Bloomberg Financial Glossery - Acquisition in which all assets and liabilities are absorbed by the buyer. More generally, any combination of two companies. The firm's activity in this respect is sometimes called M&A (Merger and Acquisition)

Investor Words.com - The combining of two or more entities into one, through a purchase acquisition or a pooling of interests. Differs from a consolidation in that no new entity is created from a merger

The Center Online Securities Glossary -The joining of two or more corporations into a single corporation

Accounting, Business Studies and Economics Dictionary - The purchase of either the physical assets or the controlling share of ownership of one firm by another

By some of these, Republic's purchase of Frontier was a merger, but by most it was not.

Is that enough?

Jim

 

[aafsc]

You're as wrong as someone else who said basically the same thing (those who pay dues or something like that). The union is charged with representing all the employees in the group the union represents and representing them fairly, not just members.

Jim

So are your saying that the APFA had a duty to represent the TWA F/As when they were still represented by the IAM; even to the detriment of APFA AA F/AS? The APFA had/has a legal duty to fairly represent the former TWA F/As the day the IAM was extinguished as their legal representative and the APFA became their legal representative and not anytime before. It has been stated that the contract and the C&B calls for "stapling". They stapled the Reno F/As. Is the APFA just supposed to ignore their own contract and laws to the detriment of their own members for the benefit of a group that is represented by another union? If they did, the lawsuits would fly and AA's inflight service would worse than that of CO during the Lorenzo era. Of course the TWA F/As will claim that they "are not fairly represented" because APFA did not break it's own laws and give them TWA DOH as soon as the transaction was announced.

 

[QQ3270]

Reno didn't have a union!

ok wrong and once again your point??? we were teamsters and it doesnt matter you guys didnt have merger protection so you didnt have a union either.You gave it up in order to be bought by AA you were not protected so you had no union we had no contract yet we were working on one when the deal went through

 

[BoeingBoy]

So are your saying that the APFA had a duty to represent the TWA F/As when they were still represented by the IAM

I meant exactly what I said - a union has a responsibility to represent all members of the group it was elected to represent, not just those who are members or paying dues to that union. Most if not all unions representing employees that fall under the RLA have contract language that requires the payment of at least objector fees to the union or risk termination, but that is not dues and those paying that fee are not members. But the union must represent them. I didn't even mention mergers.

However, assuming that the same union doesn't represent the same group on both sides in a merger, one union can't dictate terms to the other union no matter if those terms are pay rates, work rules, or seniority. If one of the unions does that it has effectively elected itself as the representative of the group it wants to dictate to and the duty to fairly represent comes into play. There is no middle ground - one of the unions can't simultaneously say "We don't represent you because XYZ union represents you" and "You will work under these contract terms". Only the union that represents employees can dictate contract terms to those employees or agree to change those contract terms on behalf of those it represents. The one exception, of course, is when a company is in bankruptcy. Then the company in bankruptcy can dictate terms if the judge approves the terms but there is a process that must be followed (a change in bankruptcy law due to Lorenzo's abrogation of employee contracts in CO's bankruptcy).

Jim

 

[conniegirl]

there are stark differences in the examples you list.

1. When NW bought republic by purchasing it's stock republic was a viable going concern not in bankruptcy and NW assumed ALL contractual liabilities of republic (including their union contracts and associated seniority protections) and republic's employees had valid career expectations even if NW had not purchased it. Furthermore, in terms of size (hubs) they were about equal, NW had NRT and MSP and republic had DTW and MEM but NW was very heavy on international and widebodies whereas republic had none.

2.When DL bought western by purchasing it's stock western was a viable going concern not in bankruptcy and DL assumed ALL contractual liabilities of western (including their union contracts and associated seniority protections; although eventually only pilots remained unionized while the others eventually ended up non-union) and western's employees had valid career expectations even if DL had not purchased it. Furthermore, in terms of size they were about equal. At that time DL had hubs in ATL and DFW while western had it's SLC hub and LAX was a large operation (maybe hub) for them. DL flew L-10-11s while western flew the DC-10s.

3. When DL bought NW by purchasing it's stock with it's own DL stock NW was a viable concern not in bankruptcy and DL assumed ALL contractual liabilities of NW (including their union contracts and associated seniority protections; pilots are now integrated and union representation for the agents, ramp, and F/As are yet to be ascertained but DL is still honoring, by law, the contracts of these former NW groups) and NW employees had valid career expectations even if DL had not purchased it. Furthermore, in terms of size, they were about equal. DL had JFK, ATL, CVG, SLC, Europe and a large presence in South America. NW had DTW, MSP, MEM, NRT and the Pacific. They were pretty close in terms of widebodies.

4. AA DID NOT buy TWA by purchasing it's stock and TWA was NOT a viable concern and WAS in bankruptcy and AA did NOT assume all of TWA's contractual liabilities (only those AA deemed fit and it did NOT assume their union contracts in their entirety) and TWA employees had NO career expectations whatsoever and if AA had not purchased the assets it desired the TWA people would have been out of work and on the street. Furthermore, in terms of size, they were NOT AT ALL equal. AA had DFW, ORD, MIA, SJU, LAX, NYC , the Caribbean and Latin America. TWA only had STL. AA had about 700 planes while TWA had about 200. AA had at the time a huge fleet of widebodies (close to or over 100), DC-10s, MD-11s, A-300s, and 767 while TWA had only around 9, that's right 9 767s.
And finally AA had a net worth of about $7.5 billion while TWA had a negative net worth and was bankrupt and out of cash which is why AA wasted a couple hundred million in two installments to keep the corpse alive through the Ch11/CH7 proceeding.

You view it in an operational sense while I and many other nAAtives view it in a financial and legal sense which is most appropriate because the TWAers needed AA but the nAAtives and AA certainly did not need TWA.

PS: I want to make another point. You said "'Merger' is the generic word for taking two companies and combining then into one." On 4/9/01 TWA (Trans World Airlines) existed as TWA INC. When the "transaction" closed on 4/10/01, AA took the assets it wanted and placed them in an AA subsidiary called TWA Airlines (TWAllc) and paid TWA Inc. cash for these assets. So legally what you have is American Airlines Inc. with its new subsidiary TWAllc and TWA Inc. which is now a shell company consisting of the cash received from AA, the assets that AA didn't want (some aircraft), the liabilities that AA didn't take, and it's certificate of incorporation. So, according to your own definition, the two companies never merged.TWA Inc. shell company disbursed the cash it had to it's creditors. In the NW/republic, DL/western, and DL/NW examples you give, there are no shell companies of the acquired because, unlike TWA Inc., they were in fact merged with their acquirer.

 

[conniegirl]

APFA had a DUTY to fairly represent us, as DUES PAYING MEMBERS which they insisted upon. We were represented by the IAM.....APFA insisted that we be brought under the umbrella of their union (note I don't capitalize it) and then the intense discrimination began.

A UNION is supposed to represent it's members, not discriminate against any one portion.

You can spin it any way you want and continue to beat that drum.....the TWA flight attendants were discriminated against by the very union they were forced to join.

Fat lady's warming up....I can hear her.

 

[Hopeful]

APFA had a DUTY to fairly represent us, as DUES PAYING MEMBERS which they insisted upon. We were represented by the IAM.....APFA insisted that we be brought under the umbrella of their union (note I don't capitalize it) and then the intense discrimination began.

A UNION is supposed to represent it's members, not discriminate against any one portion.

You can spin it any way you want and continue to beat that drum.....the TWA flight attendants were discriminated against by the very union they were forced to join.

Fat lady's warming up....I can hear her.

Its over, you lost...The government will not alow a strike....



Stop your crying and go find another company to sue.

 

[conniegirl]

Nope......this one'll do just fine. They're already in the hot seat with the DOL (what, six or seven questionable elections ?).
We'll just stay around to the end, but thanks for your suggestion.

 

[Bob Owens]

APFA had a DUTY to fairly represent us, as DUES PAYING MEMBERS which they insisted upon. We were represented by the IAM.....APFA insisted that we be brought under the umbrella of their union (note I don't capitalize it) and then the intense discrimination began.

A UNION is supposed to represent it's members, not discriminate against any one portion.

You can spin it any way you want and continue to beat that drum.....the TWA flight attendants were discriminated against by the very union they were forced to join.

Fat lady's warming up....I can hear her.

Other than being put to the bottom when you started working for AA how were you discriminated against?

By the way employees of AMRs AE get put to the bottom when they come over to AA. Ground employees within the TWU go to the bottom if they change classifications as well even though they still belong to the same union and work for the same employer. So being put the the bottom is not as unusual as you make it out to be.

You never did address the issue of EAL workers who lost all their seniority because they chose to fight for the rights of workers and the fact that when they hired on they went to the bottom. For the record I would prefer that we were all in one union and established portable seniority but I dont think that the system should be set up to reward workers who grant concession after concession to an employer who eventually sells the company and punish workers who stand up and fight. Thats pretty much what you guys are saying, you should be rewarded for your service at TWA and the employees of AA should pay the price, in the meantime nobody ever thought twice about treating the EAL workers as they should have been-Heroes of the labor movement (I never worked for EAL). They fought the good fight and went right to the bottom of the seniority lists, including yours at TWA.

Why dont the TWA FAs who say they are willing to scab blame management? Management decided to buy your company, management decided to close your domiciles, management decided to reduce headcount, management decided to push for concessions that would allow them to reduce headcount to the point where every ex-TWA FA was laid off. Why do you put all the blame on the Union and not the company?

So you can go on and on about how you were treated unfairly, in that somebody who was hired at AA 20 years before you showed up was not willing to step aside for you but then again you didnt step aside for the EAL FAs when they showed up at TWA. You can use that percieved injustice to advocate scabbing but for all your talk about unionism and what it means to be union that singular position makes it clear that unionism has nothing to do with it, its all about YOU. A true unionist doesnt scab-period.

 

[BoeingBoy]

A UNION is supposed to represent it's members

As I've said several times, a union is required to represent all the employees it represents, not just members.

Jim

 

[Skymess]

So you can go on and on about how you were treated unfairly, in that somebody who was hired at AA 20 years before you showed up was not willing to step aside for you but then again you didnt step aside for the EAL FAs when they showed up at TWA. You can use that percieved injustice to advocate scabbing but for all your talk about unionism and what it means to be union that singular position makes it clear that unionism has nothing to do with it, its all about YOU. A true unionist doesnt scab-period.

Bravo, Bob.

 

[Royal Ambassador]

Keep dreaming......The government will not allow any strike under the RLA.
Do you get it?

So why are you all panicking?

 

[butchord45]

So why are you all panicking?

Because their lives are so mundane and uninteresting....they must talk about something, until the next People magazine comes out.

 

[jersey777]

So why are you all panicking?

Believe me, no one is panicking on the line. This potential scabbing from the furloughed TWA f/a's is great fodder for on line chat rooms but no one is talking about it at work. We go and do our jobs and stay informed and wait for this to play itself out. We don't even know the specific issues that we would be potentially striking over.

 

[TWskyliner]

Other than being put to the bottom when you started working for AA how were you discriminated against?

By the way employees of AMRs AE get put to the bottom when they come over to AA. Ground employees within the TWU go to the bottom if they change classifications as well even though they still belong to the same union and work for the same employer. So being put the the bottom is not as unusual as you make it out to be.

You never did address the issue of EAL workers who lost all their seniority because they chose to fight for the rights of workers and the fact that when they hired on they went to the bottom. For the record I would prefer that we were all in one union and established portable seniority but I dont think that the system should be set up to reward workers who grant concession after concession to an employer who eventually sells the company and punish workers who stand up and fight. Thats pretty much what you guys are saying, you should be rewarded for your service at TWA and the employees of AA should pay the price, in the meantime nobody ever thought twice about treating the EAL workers as they should have been-Heroes of the labor movement (I never worked for EAL). They fought the good fight and went right to the bottom of the seniority lists, including yours at TWA.

Why dont the TWA FAs who say they are willing to scab blame management? Management decided to buy your company, management decided to close your domiciles, management decided to reduce headcount, management decided to push for concessions that would allow them to reduce headcount to the point where every ex-TWA FA was laid off. Why do you put all the blame on the Union and not the company?

So you can go on and on about how you were treated unfairly, in that somebody who was hired at AA 20 years before you showed up was not willing to step aside for you but then again you didnt step aside for the EAL FAs when they showed up at TWA. You can use that percieved injustice to advocate scabbing but for all your talk about unionism and what it means to be union that singular position makes it clear that unionism has nothing to do with it, its all about YOU. A true unionist doesnt scab-period.

I dont understand why you keep bringing up Eastern...TWA never bought/acquired/merged with Eastern, but we gave their flight attendants (and I'm assuming other employees) preferential hiring and along with Pan Am were the only airline to honor thier employee passes as well as retiree passes after they closed shop.

It's called honor for a reason...Hell, AA won't even give it's own inactive employees preferential hiring.