APA,APFA & TWU

[Birdman]

The result from all these strategies should remove all doubt as to who has the leverage in future BK's, as if we didn't already know. The constant given is that bs awyers will monetarily gain every time.

 

[eolesen]

I'd say binding arbitration is a bit of a risk. There's nothing to prevent an arbitrator ruling, settling the contracts, and the company continuing to proceed with a S1113 abrogation.

Just because the company would agree to binding arbitration doesn't mean the agreements would be sustainable, and the only thing the company would need to prove in the S1113 proceedings is that voiding the newly arbitrated agreement is still in the economic interests of the estate if it is to restructure.

That, too, could backfire, but since we appear to be playing "Lawyering With The Stars" lately, you need to look at this as a game of chess, and not a game of checkers or dominoes...

 

[TWU informer]

That, too, could backfire, but since we appear to be playing "Lawyering With The Stars" lately, you need to look at this as a game of chess, and not a game of checkers or dominoes...

Nah, we should all continue to give praise to the professors of Tiddly Winks University

 

[Jager]

NMB and binding arbitration is the final procedure providing both parties agree that any settlement is word.. This is usually utilized as a last ditch effort to ward off bankruptcy or deadlocks..

After bankruptcy filing, it's evolves into a whole new game..

This is the companies game, rules and time frame.. Exactly why would the "home team" agree to an inferior position such as binding arbirtration?

 

[Super FLUF]

I'd say binding arbitration is a bit of a risk. There's nothing to prevent an arbitrator ruling, settling the contracts, and the company continuing to proceed with a S1113 abrogation.

Just because the company would agree to binding arbitration doesn't mean the agreements would be sustainable, and the only thing the company would need to prove in the S1113 proceedings is that voiding the newly arbitrated agreement is still in the economic interests of the estate if it is to restructure.

You have brought up one of many questions the APA membership has about this "strategy".

So we get arbitration, and then have a contract for the judge to void, vs. APA arguing that we currently don't have a contract for the judge to void.

???

Those of you cheering that your union followed the APA may regret that later.

 

[Kellerguy]

Might be a face saving strategy for the union leadership. If you think about it, especially after turning down better contracts prior to BK, what chance would they have to sell accepting less to their memberships. As Bates said, it might just be easier to have the solution imposed instead of reaching consensus. This would get them all off the dime so that the company can move forward with the reorganization plan without resistance, and take merger or sell offs off the table.

I would agree with E, the company could still ask for abrogation if the arbitration is not competetive.

 

[AA89]

And the unions could have just continued with the "negotiations" when obviously the company has no desire or motivation to budge on anything. So no loss of bargaining power by the unions because don't and won't have any from here on. The only thing they gain is the hope of a better contract on the very small chance that the company would agree to BA and perhaps some goodwill in the eyes of the judge. I don't see that they have ANYTHING to lose.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It falls under the scope according to this link?

An offer of binding arbitration is definitely within the NMB's scope - if I gave any other impression it was unintentional. What gets borderline is asking the NMB to offer binding arbitration but not as the last step to releasing both sides to the cooling off period, which is what was asked of the NMB. While technically the NMB can do it, it's unheard of for them to do it. And, of course, both sides would still have to agree - the NMB has no power to force arbitration on either side.

I believe that all the AA unions were in section 6 prior to the bankruptcy filing, and the filing hasn't changed that yet. But in bankruptcy, section 6 has 3 outcomes - a ratified agreement (no strike), no ratified agreement and the judge approves abrogation of the contracts (case law at this point says no strike), or an in-between where the NMB declares an impasse, offers arbitration, and the cooling off clock starts (depending on the timing AA could ask for 1113e temporary reductions (no strike) or ask for an expedited hearing on an 1113 motion (as of now no strike).

Jim

 

[aapitbull]

Well it looks like the APA lawyers have come up with a very interesting idea, great to see the TWU has the good sense to listen, very surprising but good to see never the less.




http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/amramerican-bankruptcy/

pitbull, the APA lawyers have nothing to do with this. With reading the TWU/AA bankruptcy site the company today filed a request for a 6 month extension to present their plan to the bankruptcy court. I'm of the opinion this is a response by the TWU who in-turn is requesting binding arbitration through the NMB to reach a quick resolution. Seems the TWU is growing tired of the delaying antics.

This is clearly part of the APA strategy to get released so the option to strike is on the table you can see this by the fact that the APA had to modify their constitution before they could even take this step and the twu is just following along period. there is no way jim little could come up with this on his own.

 

[swamt]

So AMP Organizers are advocates for a process that eliminates membership ratification of their labor agreement?

WOW! And I thought the AMP idea was to advocate more membership control NOT LESS!

AMFA would have asked the members which route they prefered to take.

 

[TWU informer]

AMFA would have asked the members which route they prefered to take.

You're Out of Order Brother

 

[swamt]

You're Out of Order Brother

Actually I am not. It's called perfect timing...

 

[aapitbull]

This is nothing more than the TWU looking to take the membership vote out of the equation and deflect blame for what is about to happen. Basically equates to another "without ratification" signed labor agreement by James C. Little.

No More VOTE NO vidoes

Just a binding decision that the membership must accept without voting on a labor agreement.

Well based on our current postion which is whatever the company takes to the judge they are very likely to get, having the option to go in front of a neutral third party to ask for parity with others in our industry seems appealing from where i setting. plus if the nmb gets involved and profers the company and they refuse this might start the clock ticking toward release in which case the threat of strike comes back into play.

So the way I see it is if the twu comes to a agreement and it gets voted down all the company has to do is ask the judge to enforce it and we are stuck with it so please explain how that differs from binding arbritration. except you get to take a meaningless vote.

I agree Super Fluf this is probaly not going to get us much but it is worth a try and if AMP was involved any contract agreed to would have to only take effect after exiting BK are have a agreement in place that prevents the company from just turning around and abrogating it the day we signed as suggested by "E"

But lets go with your suggestion and let the twu get us a T/A so we can vote, lord knows that has worked oh so well over the last 30 years!!!!!

 

[aapitbull]

So AMP Organizers are advocates for a process that eliminates membership ratification of their labor agreement?

WOW! And I thought the AMP idea was to advocate more membership control NOT LESS!

AMP is not in play here but since you ask the AMP constitution is very similar to that of the APA and like theirs if the members believed this is a bad idea they have recourse to block this from going forward. but as has been your M/O of late you just seek to twist the truth.

My opinions are my own and do not represent AMP'S postion you know in a democratic organization we would have to vote to make any agreements with the company.

Again feel free to ignore what I post.

 

[TWU informer]

But lets go with your suggestion and let the twu get us a T/A so we can vote, lord knows that has worked oh so well over the last 30 years!!!!!

You were the one praising the TWU at the start of this thread not me.

I think the TWU thinks ALL membership votes are meaningless and has for years now, and now you agree.