August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

John john

It appears that the cwa didnt ask management if it was ok. The ill ask management bosses asked management but management said Hell No u cant sympathize and you better sign the damn contract. So the ill ask management agreed.

 

[Tim Nelson]

robbedagain,
I ask that everyone please consider the following regarding current contract negotiations: With going through 2 BKs and a Transition Agreement the Fleet Service has a long list of needed improvememts. With that being said... anyone who implies all of these improvements will or should be achieved through one Section 6 contract agreement is either misleading or naive. Granted... this may be the last contract for many. The unfortunate truth for many is they will never get back the concessions of the past. There is so much to get back it will not be achieved in one contract. The NC must focus on building repair damage one foundation block at a time. It starts with protecting the work we have through better scope language. there are so many needs of repair the NC needs to prioritize.

north of amr is where the ta needs to be. Starting with scope increases for sure and a wage north of amr. I dont see anything stopping fleet from enjoying everything the cwa also has. If upstairs has12 sick days at full pay, 10 holidays, more vacation, more money, and scope that recognizes every station then so should fleet.

 

[robbedagain]

robbedagain,
I ask that everyone please consider the following regarding current contract negotiations: With going through 2 BKs and a Transition Agreement the Fleet Service has a long list of needed improvememts. With that being said... anyone who implies all of these improvements will or should be achieved through one Section 6 contract agreement is either misleading or naive. Granted... this may be the last contract for many. The unfortunate truth for many is they will never get back the concessions of the past. There is so much to get back it will not be achieved in one contract. The NC must focus on building repair damage one foundation block at a time. It starts with protecting the work we have through better scope language. there are so many needs of repair the NC needs to prioritize.

orgac i understand and to be frank with you bro i really do not expect much at all but what i would expect at least with a new ta is the wages to be north of where we are at currently and improvement to scope espec scope and sick but the reality is right now who knows what will happen and who knows what will come of talks or if the nmb does release us but i do agree with you orgac we will never ever get back to where we once were

 

[Kev3188]

robbedagain,
I ask that everyone please consider the following regarding current contract negotiations: With going through 2 BKs and a Transition Agreement the Fleet Service has a long list of needed improvememts. With that being said... anyone who implies all of these improvements will or should be achieved through one Section 6 contract agreement is either misleading or naive. Granted... this may be the last contract for many. The unfortunate truth for many is they will never get back the concessions of the past. There is so much to get back it will not be achieved in one contract. The NC must focus on building repair damage one foundation block at a time. It starts with protecting the work we have through better scope language. there are so many needs of repair the NC needs to prioritize.

I hear ya, but by the same token you can't win if you don't play, right?

Might as well swing for the fences...

 

[Tim Nelson]

orgac i understand and to be frank with you bro i really do not expect much at all but what i would expect at least with a new ta is the wages to be north of where we are at currently and improvement to scope espec scope and sick but the reality is right now who knows what will happen and who knows
what will come of talks or if the nmb does release us but i do agree with you orgac we will never ever get back to where we once were

comments like that do not support your nc. If im ah i copy your comments and throw them in the face of the nc.

Robbed, how do u or anyone else know that you wont ever get what you had? Look upstairs and they got all their snapbacks already, why wont you?

 

[john john]

<p>[quote name=&#39;700UW&#39; timestamp=&#39;1371736496&#39; post=&#39;1008882&#39;]<br />
Do you all not understand what happened?<br />
<br />
It is apparent you dont understand bankruptcy and Section 1113 C of the code which outlines the procedures for collective bargaining agreements in chapter 11.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[/quote]</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>KATZ&#39;S ON &quot;SELP-HELP&quot;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Daniel M. Katz (VSB # 18022)</p>
<p>KATZ &amp; RANZMAN, P.C.</p>
<p>1015 18th Street, N.W., Suite 801</p>
<p>Washington, D.C. 20036</p>
<p>(202) 659-4656 (Telephone)</p>
<p>(202) 659-3145 (Facsimile)</p>
<p>Attorney for the Communications Workers</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The reference to &acirc;&euro;&oelig;work slow-downs or other service disruptions,&acirc;&euro;</p>
<p>moreover, apparently constitutes an attempt to interfere with CWA&acirc;&euro;&trade;s right to engage in self-help</p>
<p>guaranteed under the RLA. As we demonstrate, infra, should the Court impose contractual</p>
<p>modifications to which CWA has not agreed, CWA would be free, under the RLA, to engage in</p>
<p>self-help and strike. The Norris- LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. &Acirc;&sect; 101, forbids the issuance of</p>
<p>injunctions against such lawful strikes. The Company&acirc;&euro;&trade;s proposal relating to outsourcing appears</p>
<p>designed to penalize the CWA and its members for exercising their right to engage in lawful</p>
<p>strike activities. Any court order embodying such a provision would therefore run afoul of the</p>
<p>Norris-LaGuardia Act.</p>
<p>Under the NLRA, unions retain the right to resort to self- help in support of their</p>
<p>bargaining positions upon bankruptcy court modification of their collective bargaining contracts</p>
<p>pursuant to &Acirc;&sect; 1113. Crowe &amp; Assoc., Inc. v. Bricklayers Local No. 2, 713 F.2d 211 (6th Cir.</p>
<p>1983) (vacating injunction against strike called to back up union&acirc;&euro;&trade;s demand that debtor pay</p>
<p>12 It is noteworthy that the carrier never even raised the issue in the hotly contested Continental Airlines</p>
<p>bankruptcy, in which all of the carrier&acirc;&euro;&trade;s unionized work groups went on strike when the airline repudiated its</p>
<p>collective bargaining contracts. See In re Continental Airlines Corp., 901 F.2d 1259 (5th Cir. 1990); ALPA v.</p>
<p>O&acirc;&euro;&trade;Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991). Nor did the courts issue an injunction against the pilots of the bankrupt Eastern</p>
<p>Airlines for engaging in a sympathy strike. Although the pilots&acirc;&euro;&trade; contract was not rejected pursuant to Section 1113,</p>
<p>the strike was held lawful. Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. ALPA, 1989 WL 205343 (11th Cir.); IAM v. Eastern Airlines,</p>
<p>Inc., 121 B.R. 428, 431 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), affirmed, 923 F.2d 26, 27 (2d Cir. 1991).</p>
<p>33</p>
<p>money into union pension fund); Briggs Transp. Co. v. Teamsters, 739 F.2d 341 (8th Cir.), cert.</p>
<p>denied, 469 U.S. 917 (1984) (strike to protest modification of collective bargaining agreement is</p>
<p>labor dispute that cannot be enjoined due to Norris LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. &Acirc;&sect; 101); In re</p>
<p>Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1981); In re Third Ave. Transit Corp. v. Quill, 192 F.2d 971, 973</p>
<p>(2d Cir. 1951); In re Kentucky Truck Sales, Inc., 52 B.R. 797, 806 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1985). See</p>
<p>also Teamsters v. IML Freight, Inc., 789 F.2d 1460 (10th Cir. 1986) (reversing and remanding</p>
<p>order approving rejection because bankruptcy court did not consider, inter alia, the likelihood</p>
<p>that the employees would strike). The Company does not contend otherwise, instead ignoring</p>
<p>the issue on the apparent assumption that airline employees should have fewer rights to respond</p>
<p>to the abrogation or modification of their collective bargaining contracts under &Acirc;&sect; 1113 than</p>
<p>trucking or manufacturing workers.</p>
<p>To be sure, the RLA is a statute designed to deter premature resort by employers or</p>
<p>unions to self- help, and to encourage the parties to resolve their bargaining impasses by utilizing</p>
<p>mediation and voluntary arbitration, as opposed to strikes and lock-outs. So, too, however, is the</p>
<p>NLRA, which asserts as its first finding, in 29 U.S.C. &Acirc;&sect; 151: &acirc;&euro;&oelig;The denial by some employers of</p>
<p>the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of</p>
<p>collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the</p>
<p>intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce. . . .&acirc;&euro; Akin to the findings</p>
<p>and declarations of policy in the RLA, the NLRA further states as a declaration of national labor</p>
<p>policy in 29 U.S.C. &Acirc;&sect; 171 a and B that:</p>
<p>(a) sound and stable industrial peace and the advancement of the general</p>
<p>welfare, health, and safety of the Nation and of the best interests of employers and</p>
<p>employees can most satisfactorily be secured by the settlement of issues between</p>
<p>employers and employees through the processes of conference and collective</p>
<p>bargaining between employers and the representatives of their employees;</p>
<p>34</p>
<p>b- the settlement of issues between employers and employees through</p>
<p>collective bargaining may be advanced by making available full and adequate</p>
<p>governmental facilities for conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid</p>
<p>and encourage employers and the representatives of their employees to reach and</p>
<p>maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions, and</p>
<p>to make all reasonable efforts to settle their differences by mutual agreement</p>
<p>reached through conferences and collective bargaining or by such methods as may</p>
<p>be provided for in any applicable agreement for the settlement of disputes. . . .</p>
<p>Thus, the RLA and the NLRA do not differ significantly on the primary point on which we</p>
<p>expect the Company to rely.</p>
<p>What distinguishes the RLA from the NLRA in this regard is not the overall aim of the</p>
<p>legislation, but rather the means by which that aim is realized. Under the NLRA, by and large,</p>
<p>the obligation of a union not to strike, and the obligation of an employer not to resort to self-help,</p>
<p>is created by the parties&#39; contract, as interpreted in light of the aims of the statute. See Mastro</p>
<p>Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 350 U.S. 270, 280-83 (1956). Under the</p>
<p>RLA, the restriction against self- help dur ing the term of a contract is written expressly into the</p>
<p>statute. At the same time, the RLA contemplates that, once the parties have entered into a</p>
<p>collective bargaining relationship, that relationship continues indefinitely; that is, RLA contracts,</p>
<p>unlike NLRA contracts, do not have fixed terms, but rather come up for amendment periodically,</p>
<p>and remain in effect until amended. See, e.g., Bhd. of Ry. and S.S. Clerks v. Florida East Coast</p>
<p>Ry. Co., 384 U.S. 238 (1966) (contract terms that the employer did not specifically seek to</p>
<p>modify during collective bargaining negotiations continue in effect); Trans World Airlines v.</p>
<p>Indep. Fed&acirc;&euro;&trade;n of Flight Attendants, 809 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1987) (same), aff&acirc;&euro;&trade;d mem. by an equally</p>
<p>divided Court, 485 U.S. 175 (1988). And, it is against this backdrop that the RLA&acirc;&euro;&trade;s regulation of</p>
<p>employer and union self-help operate.</p>
<p>35</p>
<p>Before unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment described in a</p>
<p>collective bargaining agreement, a carrier must follow the detailed procedures specified in the</p>
<p>RLA for amending such an agreement. Section 2, Seventh of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. &Acirc;&sect; 152,</p>
<p>Seventh, provides: &acirc;&euro;&oelig;No carrier, its officers or age nts shall change the rates of pay, rules, or</p>
<p>working conditions of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner</p>
<p>prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title.&acirc;&euro; See, e.g., RLA Section 6, 45</p>
<p>U.S.C. &Acirc;&sect; 156, concerning written notice of the change. See also Brotherhood of Railroad</p>
<p>Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 378 (1969) (summarizing the Act&acirc;&euro;&trade;s major</p>
<p>dispute resolution procedures). As the Supreme Court held in Brotherhood of Railway and</p>
<p>Steamship Clerks v. Florida East Coast Ry., 384 U.S. 238, 247 (1966), &acirc;&euro;&oelig;The processes of</p>
<p>bargaining and mediation called for by the Act would indeed become a sham if a carrier could</p>
<p>unilaterally achieve what the Act requires be done by the other orderly procedures.&acirc;&euro;</p>
<p>The significance of the RLA&acirc;&euro;&trade;s major dispute resolution procedures for present purposes</p>
<p>is this: The statute contemplates that a CBA, once entered into, does not expire on its own</p>
<p>terms, thus provid ing a trade-off between the right to self- help, on the one hand, and the stability</p>
<p>afforded by the continuing agreement, on the other. The RLA endeavors to secure this balance</p>
<p>by mandating a series of specified procedures before permitting an employer unilaterally to</p>
<p>impose changed terms and conditions on its employees or allowing a union to call a strike in</p>
<p>order to pressure an employer to agree to terms and conditions more favorable to employees.</p>
<p>Section 1113 disrupts this regime by allowing an employer, with Bankrup tcy Court approval, to</p>
<p>reject or modify a CBA without regard to RLA procedures. Thus, &Acirc;&sect; 1113, like the RLA itself,</p>
<p>creates a process&acirc;&euro;&rdquo;albeit a comparatively accelerated process&acirc;&euro;&rdquo;for arriving at an impasse and</p>
<p>allowing employer self- help. There is accordingly only one logical way to reconcile the RLA</p>
<p>36</p>
<p>and the Bankruptcy Code, and to prevent the unfair consequences of permitting only one</p>
<p>collective bargaining party to engage in self- help in support of its bargaining position. That is to</p>
<p>understand &Acirc;&sect; 1113 as the functional equivalent of the major dispute resolution procedures of the</p>
<p>RLA. We submit that the Court should therefore recognize, just as every court to have</p>
<p>considered the question under the NLRA has held, that rejection or modification of a CBA,</p>
<p>followed by an employer&acirc;&euro;&trade;s unilateral imposition of terms and conditions, triggers the right to</p>
<p>strike on the part of employees.</p>
<p>Moreover, if the CWA were to strike, it would do so specifically in order to &acirc;&euro;&oelig;maintain&acirc;&euro;</p>
<p>the collective bargaining agreement, as required under Section 2, First of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. &Acirc;&sect;</p>
<p>152, First, not to undermine it. RLA Section 2, First provides: &acirc;&euro;&oelig;It shall be the duty of all</p>
<p>carriers, their officers, agents and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and</p>
<p>maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions &acirc;&euro;&brvbar;.&acirc;&euro; Section 2, First</p>
<p>therefore supports the Union&acirc;&euro;&trade;s position that the Bankruptcy Court should leave all of the</p>
<p>provisions of the contract intact, exactly as the parties agreed to them.</p>
<p>In addition, Section 2, First is inextricably linked to other provisions of the RLA, which</p>
<p>provide for an orderly, but drawn out process for the negotiation and modification of collective</p>
<p>bargaining contracts. By obtaining the Bankruptcy Court&acirc;&euro;&trade;s approval of its modification of the</p>
<p>CWA contract, over the CWA&acirc;&euro;&trade;s objection, US Airways would be sidestepping the RLA&acirc;&euro;&trade;s</p>
<p>detailed procedures for contract formation and amendment. Having itself eschewed the RLA</p>
<p>processes, US Airways would have no equitable basis from which to contend that the RLA itself</p>
<p>prevents the Union and its members from striking on the theory that they are under a duty to</p>
<p>&acirc;&euro;&oelig;make and maintain&acirc;&euro; their collective bargaining agreement, even though the Company is</p>
<p>purportedly at liberty to modify it.</p>
<p>37</p>
<p>Any attempt by US Airways to enjoin a strike, moreover, would be doomed to fail. As</p>
<p>the Supreme Court emphasized in Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 772 (1961), &acirc;&euro;&oelig;AThe Norris-</p>
<p>LaGuardia Act [29 U.S.C. &#39; 101 et seq.]. . .expresses a basic policy against the injunction of</p>
<p>activities of labor unions.&acirc;&euro; Prior to the enactment of the Norris- LaGuardia Act in 1932, federal</p>
<p>courts routinely issued injunctions against peaceful strike activity in spite of the fact that the</p>
<p>Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. &Acirc;&

 

[ograc]

north of amr is where the ta needs to be. Starting with scope increases for sure and a wage north of amr. I dont see anything stopping fleet from enjoying everything the cwa also has. If upstairs has12 sick days at full pay, 10 holidays, more vacation, more money, and scope that recognizes every station then so should fleet.

agreed! But it will only be achieved through a united front ready to vote down any TA that comes back short. Even if the NC and District Leadership is selling it as they did at UA.

 

[Tim Nelson]

For sure ograc

We will mobilize against any mini ta that sells us short. At this point i actually have hope that the nc may hold its ground though. Presently there is no hurry since we are still acrruing the A benefit schedule of the iampf till january so i was never a proponent of losing that benefit before january.
Our counterparts at amr have a contract till 2017 so they should be fine. Especially with the wage pay parity opener in 2015. Remember, every amr ramper should want u to get a big fat pay raise because their pay parity will be based partly on your pay....and that pay parity is the only snowballs chance that any amr ramper is going to see a wage improvement before 2020. And thats a thought. Whatever wage we negotiate, we also need a pay parity midterm if it means further increases.
Also, this is the time for the iam to politically shine cuz they have a trendous opportunity to get a solid contract and that will help kev and the dl rampers organizing campaign.
If the iam stumbles once again then it is most likely finished everywhere but with usair ramp

 

[robbedagain]

tim the company's actions speak for itself they do not want to negogiate they dont give a rats thats why i made the comments i did. i do support the nc team but in reality of things yes the cwa got their snap backs but that is one of the good things their union did ours well you know the story look no further then the 2005 and the 2008 contracts and now its ovious that the monkeys running the circus airline do not want to give us raises but they sure as hell can give it to amr i realize that our folks in the nc team are doing all they can and with the asking to be released is a huge step forward.. its really a good time to build solidarity and get united now

 

[robbedagain]

i do not think the iam is going to stumble here tim i do think may be given the sound off by ual may have helped them figure out a few things if you know what i mean

 

[Tim Nelson]

It stands to reason robbed again but we have to support them. Negative comments like "we will never get everything back" have no value except to ah. I disagree that negative comments dont mean anything to him. I know the game and he is a professional. Love him or hate him, if someone cant expect and believe that they will get everything back that they lost then its probably better not said. As kev said, we gotta fight and you fight by setting the bar high.
Alot of what i say is directed at ah since he would b foolish not to have someone monitor these boards.
He is well aware, along with the iam eboard that i have been successful at mobilizing complete groups against dopey contracts. And i can tell you that if the wage wasnt north of amr with the same 2015 pay parity, and more scope, i will hammer the ta.
Lets hope others dont continually underestimate key people.

 

[robbedagain]

ive met some of the folks on the nd team and i have a lot of confidence in these folks tim. also tim are you going to help with the building of solidarity like what you have done in the past? as for kev he is very very right in what he said and i totally agree with him i also agree with orgac i try not to down im one of those that gives folks chances and id like to see the nd team succeed at this to be honesti definitly agree with you on wages north of amr and the pay parity and scope protection enhancements

 

[700UW]

It doesnt matter what Katz filed with the court, courts have ruled you cant strike upon an abrogation.

 

[Tim Nelson]

It doesnt matter what Katz filed with the court, courts have ruled you cant strike upon an abrogation.

Judges and governmental agencies are so political. It really doesn't matter what the law says, a Republican judge will rule one way, a democratic judge will rule another. Going through bankruptcy, W was president so I'm not sure anything good 'legally' would have happened. That said, the CWA put forth a much stronger case and forced AH to give them a much better deal.

 

[charlie Brown]

As far as im concerned. Put the additional .85 in the wage instead of trying to chase more money into the iampf just to make up for what the iamp trustees robbed from us. Imo, it makes absolutely no sense to divert increased benefits into the control of the pension trustees. Put in increases in wage, benefit or scope since everything is a dollar figure. Either that or base the iampf on a % like at united. The iampf trustees ripped our members off once so dont worship the iam and bow down to further increases into the iampf. Btw, cb, how many members quit before the finish their fidth year?
I t is better for those peeps if they had a 401 because we should rather they get to keep their money instead of the iam.
Gosh i hope reagan isnt going to get you guys to bite on tossing more into the iampf without recognizing the 401.

Tim
Good point on the people quitting before 5 years. There is a lot. But my point wasn't necessarily the 5 yr point. You kept saying 5% is 5%. But in reality unless my math is off, 1.05 in your pension is more than 5% every year on the pay scale except for top out. That's why I asked you if you were referring to top out only? I know how you feel about the pension. But I always knew and you did too, that the pension was never guaranteed. That's what I used to argue with the previous team, was they were telling people something was guaranteed that wasn't. I do think it is a good pension!! But nothing is guaranteed.