ITRADE
Veteran
God bless free labor markets...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
This Just In: US Airways union leadership votes to continue negotiations (1:39 PM EDT on Wednesday, September 22, 2004)
While US Airways pilots said the agreement they got Tuesday morning from the airline is not what they expected and not what they hoped for, union leadership voted Wednesday afternoon to send its negotiators back to the bargaining table.
Union leaders, meeting Wednesday in Charlotte, voted unanimously to direct negotiators to resume talks with the company in an effort to reach an agreement. The two sides had not talked since US Airways filed for bankruptcy protection Sept. 12.
Unlike previous talks, union leaders have placed no restrictions on negotiators, union spokesman Jack Stephan told The Observer. Negotiations could resume in the next few days, he said.
AgentOrange said:Someone said here there would have been Ch. 11 even with a deal two weeks ago- that does not absolve the ALPA of fault for delaying negotiations to early Sep so management could not finish negotiations with other unions.
AgentOrange said:It remains entirely irrelevant for people to claim management is not negotiating in good faith by reducing offers with passage of time. Their past offers are no benchmark when the process is now in bankruptcy court and creditors control the company.
AgentOrange said:It remains irrational for people to suggest that the pilots are better off "taking their chances" with a bankruptcy judge; they continue to want to fight even as the odds decline at every step to salvage a deal similar to management's original summer offer. This is irrational and proves the extent to which emotion has seeped into the decision process.
AgentOrange said:As pilots, the group or its proxies have not listened to objective appraisals from bankers, the history of how business works in bankruptcy court, or anything else rational. There remains no plausible outcome posited by the militants as to how continued intransigence results in a better financial outcome than agreeing to a deal now.
ua767fo said:Acting (as you say) rationally to maximize financial outcomes is not always what is best for the profession. ALPA pilots, being members of both a union and professional organization , overall are probably better off by not having a large labor group capitualate to the demands of unreasonable (my judgement) management.[post="183079"][/post]
sfb said:Whoa, wait just one minute here. Who chose to try to use the pilots as pressure on the other unions to reach agreements. Oh, wait, that's right, MANAGEMENT. UAIR management certainly did not have to wait for an agreement with the pilots before engaging in serious negotiations with its other unions. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. It is unfair to blame ALPA for management's failed strategy in approaching its negotiations.
[post="183140"][/post]
sfb said:From the way the bankruptcy statute is written, this is indeed true; however, this cuts both ways. The company cannot claim to have engaged in good-faith bargaining in front of the court, either.
[post="183140"][/post]
sfb said:Look, management's original summer offer had so little protection as to be laughable. The Section 1113 "protection" offered by management only lasted for 60 days since it was clear to anyone with half a brain that there was no way that the IAM would consensually agree to open its contract given the egregious violations of same since the previous bankruptcy. Chances are, given the track record, management would have chosen to go through the 1113 process with the pilots come November 11 to get what they're asking for now.
[post="183140"][/post]
sfb said:I'm not sure an appraisal from a so-called investment banker with no real company and being paid a bonus by the company if ALPA capitulates can be called "objective." I mean, do you believe "analysts" at securities firms who stand to profit from hyping the stocks of certain companies? The actual financial information provided to the pilots to try to make intelligent decisions for themselves seems to amount to little more than "You'd better give us what we want OR ELSE!"
[post="183140"][/post]
sfb said:What's truly missing here in all of the negotiations between US Airways management and its unions is trust. Moving targets, rhetoric, executives like Jerry Glass, failures to live up to past contracts, and half-a$$ed business plans don't lead to the employees putting much trust in top management.
[post="183140"][/post]
AgentOrange said:It was a reality of the situation that the other unions would not negotiate before the pilots budged. That reflected the senior position of prestige and responsibility implicit on the pilots. To suggest otherwise would be abrogating the responsibility of the pilots while still granting the union default representation- i.e. I'm a parent of this beautiful kid, but it's not my problem to feed him.
AgentOrange said:That doesn't matter- this is not a beauty contest. Cuts are happening one way or the other; there is no requirement to look good in doing it. The optimal solution for the airline should not be affected by like or dislike between labor and management- if it is, then one side is being emotional and irrational.
AgentOrange said:Whether this is true or not does not matter- the ALPA had a responsibility to its membership to act in their best interests, which was to choose the least bad outcome, and they put way too much value on "how much we gave back before" and "what other unions are doing". There are no bonus points given on the scoreboard for best relative deal- it's an absolute game here. The dispatchers understand that- you don't. Trying to blame management gives you no bonus points either.
AgentOrange said:Glanzer was not working for US Air. It was working for the pilots. It had no such incentive that you seem to believe above. You won't get very far if you make up things so you can believe what you want and dismiss what you don't feel like believing.
AgentOrange said:Trust is not necessary for labor union representation to do its job and act in the best interests of its membership. You can blame the cards if you are dealt a bad hand, but you still have to play it and accept the consequences if you lose.
Obviously the voice of someone who has no investment in their career, financial or otherwise.AgentOrange said:I think USA320Pilot is dead right.
His [her] arguments are logical, valid, and [gasp] define the best interests of the pilots as their job security and their pay, not their egos and irrational desire to claim subjective victory in a negotiation.
[post="183073"][/post]
PITbull said:Agent Orange,
I promise you that if the pilots would have come to a T/A before BK, AFA would not have even come close. We met with the co. a total of 3 times. Period.
There is no way we are even close on any provision.
Trust me on this one. If AFA was first, managment and wallstreet, the analysts, and A320 would have been blaming the two PA reps at AFA for a "roll call" vote and creating an excuse for a Bk filing.
[post="183158"][/post]