CWA local leader recommends...VOTE NO!!

[Gone4Now]

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THE WEB PAGE OF CWA LOCAL 3641
Dear Members

I have received the updated concession package, a copy has been mailed to all. The changes are what we are voting on now. The vote also has been backed up to start on Friday, Dec. 27th and to end on January 10th. The same pen number and information will be used to cast your vote. For
those who had already cast a vote, you will have to vote again using the same pen number and information.

Your CWA bargaining team agreed to send something out for a vote under the threat of liquidation. It needs to be clear that only under this threat is the CWA bargaining team sending it to be voted on. There is No Doubt in some cases agents will be voting themselves out of a job. The Company would like you to believe that if you have something to come back to it will be OK but for many it is not.

During Dave’s speech to the CWA and afterwards Doug McKeene, said that the Company had to become more productive. I for one find it very hard to believe that, by giving the Fleet Service our express language when they had none, is being more productive. We started this Local with 22 Mainline cities, we now have less than half that amount, so it is clear to me that the Company will do what it intends to do no matter what language is in the contract.

I feel the Company got seasonal flying into our express cities during the last concessions and that was good enough. To allow the Company to have 2 mainline flights into every express city is to allow the pilots to have jobs, the flight attendants to have jobs, but no customer service jobs for mainline. If they wanted to use this as a way to test a new market I would be inclined to allow that, but to let existing cities go express with 2 mainline flights would speed up the Mainline job loss. That is something that I am not in favor of.

I know that many of you don’t know what to do. I for one have prayed to find my answer. My decision is a personal one. I will vote NO. The CWA cannot read its members minds, so let us know how you feel with your vote. The leadership of this local (E-Board) will be able to answer any questions that you may have during the voting period. I myself will not be back in the office until Jan. 3rd.

Thank you all and I hope everyone has a Happy Holiday Season.

Sincerely James Root, President Local 3641

 

[autofixer]

To all of those U employees who picketed the U ALPA headquarters in PIT in 1996--demanding the pilots accept the RJs, among other now unpopular issues. Now you are reaping the whirlwind. Good luck, you are going to need it!

 

[sdavis29]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/2/2003 520 PM autofixer wrote:
[P]To all of those U employees who picketed the U ALPA headquarters in PIT in 1996--demanding the pilots accept the RJs, among other now unpopular issues. Now you are reaping the whirlwind. Good luck, you are going to need it! [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]by the sounds of this you might also........[BR][BR][img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/10.gif']

 

[Severed-N-Happy]

what the heck is a "pen" number? I have heard of a PIN nbr not a PEN.
Is there a diff or is this a doubly made typo?

 

[wheels]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/2/2003 9:39:59 PM chipmunn wrote:
[P]If the airline liquidates over rejected TA's, which have been endorsed by every union, how would any active, potential furloughee, or furloughed employee be better off?[BR][BR]Chip[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Looks like,at least the CWA had a gun to its head Chip.[/P]

 

[Robc98]

I also agree with James Root's comments.....As a board member of another local I feel that these demands by the company are too excessive for what is needed to succeed and if they want to give our jobs away to skycaps and SAR's then a NO vote should be mandated..The mainline jet flying back into express and MDA cities could be allowed provided the company make a better offer to the wage and benefit scales currently being offered....The dignity of every agent with more than 10yrs is at stake here...when is enough enough....this is like a game to this mgmt team...they'll rape us until we die if we let them....I feel that this company has enough to obtain the loan and they will not let this company go under after all the cuts and changes that were obtained...if they truly want to keep this company alive then I feel they should stop trying to grab the brass ring and focus their energies on making money for this company.....The CWA members have voted yes and accepted these horrendous changes that were forced upon us....Now its time to say Enough!......

 

[chipmunn]

If the airline liquidates over rejected TA's, which have been endorsed by every union, how would any active, potential furloughee, or furloughed employee be better off?[BR][BR]Chip

 

[Sidelined_03]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/2/2003 9:39:59 PM chipmunn wrote:
[P]If the airline liquidates over rejected TA's, which have been endorsed by every union, how would any active, potential furloughee, or furloughed employee be better off?[BR][BR]Chip[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P] Endorsed? "Accept this or we'll close the place down" is hardly endorsed.

 

[AP Tech]

Still waiting on the informational meeting for the latest IAM givebacks to be announced. I see on the website we are scheduled to vote on the 10th of January. Maybe the meeting on what exactly we are voting on will be scheduled thereafter......I just wish the IAM would have taken the same interest and presented the facts like they are currently doing with UAL. I guess we don't matter to them! With war on the horizon and the question marks in the proposal with regards that language I have no choice but to vote "NO".

 

[No Limit]

I think James is only telling like it is. With that I can only add to the story. [BR][BR]
[DIV]
[DIV][FONT face=Arial]Putting the gun to your employee's heads only works for so long. "[FONT face=Rockwell] A Collective Bargaining Agreement and the 2002 Restructuring Agreement was proposed by US[BR]Airways under the threat of Bankruptcy Chapter 7, Liquidation and shutdown of the airline" [/FONT][FONT face=Arial]cannot be called a result of “good faithâ€￾ bargaining between US Airways and the it's union groups. This type of treatment people are sick of and after U gets out of Bankruptcy, things will come to a head.( [STRONG][FONT color=#ff0000]No Respect [/FONT][/STRONG])[/FONT][/FONT][/DIV]
[DIV][FONT face=Arial][/FONT][/DIV][BR]
[DIV][FONT face=Arial]The Management team of U is starting to think that the employee's groups have lost[FONT color=#cc0000][STRONG] [FONT color=#ff0000]all Trust and Respect[/FONT] [/STRONG][/FONT]for them. A little late that happen long ago. That some people may just VOTE No for that reason only. [BR][/FONT][BR][/DIV]
[DIV][FONT face=Arial]Not only does U have it's Management team posting on this board but also running around, hub cites trying to get people to [STRONG][FONT color=#ff0000]Trust [/FONT][/STRONG]them again "not in this life time" is the line I hear from the rank and file. [BR][/FONT][BR][/DIV]
[DIV][FONT face=Arial]I for one think that U will pull the Severance pay from it's employees right after the first shot is fire in GULF WAR II or at the first chance they get. (See how the[FONT color=#993300] [/FONT][STRONG][FONT color=#ff0000]NO Trust & Respect [/FONT][/STRONG]thing works) [/FONT][BR][/DIV]
[DIV][FONT face=Arial][/FONT][FONT color=#ff0000][STRONG]Give No Trust & Respect get none ! [/STRONG][/FONT][/DIV]
[DIV][FONT face=Arial][/FONT][/DIV]
[DIV][FONT face=Arial]

 

[smallstFSA]

If either the CWA or IAM vote their T/A's down can Siegel ask the judge to abrogate such contract. It seems that the restructuring is too far along the road and too many big players involved to let a fraction of total labor decide the fate of the company unless that's the outcome that Dave and Dave really want.

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/2/2003 9:39:59 PM chipmunn wrote:

If the airline liquidates over rejected TA's, which have been endorsed by every union, how would any active, potential furloughee, or furloughed employee be better off?

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------

That's the $64,000 question - will the airline liquidate over a rejected T/A?

Over the ALPA T/A? Sure, they would.

IAM mech? Probably

CWA or fleet? Here, it gets trickier. No DBRP's involved, not a bunch of money. if you look at my thread First the Facts, you can see it works out to about a buck and a half wage cut per employee. Would they liquidate over chicken feed?

The notion RSA gets their money in Chapt 7 needs to be looked at a little closer. Who are they going to sublet aircraft to? They are in the best position possible amongst creditors, but it's not an enviable position. They are surely in the catbird's seat, but they miss the chance at the big casino if they liquidate.

And here's the thinking on the part of the grunts.

1. U may liquidate anyway - so far, management has given us no indication they are using our concession dollars wisely.

2. Mechs voted no the first time, improved their hand a bit, and got a revote.

3. ALPA needs to think like fleet for a minute. If ALPA had their DBRP frozen and converted to a 401k, had been given increased responsiblilities such as cleaning the a/c or loading it while taking staff and paycuts, AND could go out into the marketplace with an expectation they could replicate a large portion of the wage U is currently offering, ALPA would be thinking about a no vote, as well. If I were a pilot, I would most definitely vote yes.

4. With the war contingency language, there is no guarantee of severance.

5. The last argument is, how can you vote those of us who wish to remain out of a job? If I knew liquidation was a lead pipe cinch, I'd vote yes, just for that reason. But it's not a cinch. Could U liquidate? Yes. Will they? I, nor anyone else on this board, knows.

Still gathering the facts; will make a decision by the 10th.

Good luck to us all.

 

[MrAeroMan]

I feel that this company has enough to obtain the loan and they will not let this company go under after all the cuts and changes that were obtained...if they truly want to keep this company alive then I feel they should stop trying to grab the brass ring and focus their energies on making money for this company.....The CWA members have voted yes and accepted these horrendous changes that were forced upon us....Now its time to say Enough!......
----------------
[/blockquote]
Based on what information do you feel the company has enough to obtain the loan? Have you talked with the ATSB? What exactly did they say to you? Did they discuss revenue projections with you? NOT!!
Root is nothing more than an agent that won an election and found himself in way over his head. He dropped the ball in the negotiations just like all the other local Presidents did and didn't fight for the rank and file. Now he's trying to cover his butt to save face just like all the other local Presidents are. What is the deal with the $14 million he said the CWA offered the company? He's been saying that all over CLT and the fact is it isn't true. Who's lying to who? You're playing a game here that you can't win and once again you're in way over your head. I guess all that training pulling tickets and quoting fares has prepared you to do financial analysis as well. Good luck to you in your next endeavor

 

[Biffeman]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/3/2003 8:30:12 AM smallstFSA wrote:
[P]If either the CWA or IAM vote their T/A's down can Siegel ask the judge to abrogate such contract. It seems that the restructuring is too far along the road and too many big players involved to let a fraction of total labor decide the fate of the company unless that's the outcome that Dave and Dave really want. [BR][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]Both the CWA and both groups at the IAM have section 1113 protection, the company cannot go back to court to seek abrogation or support another party that would try.[BR][BR]This is from the M&R agreement:[BR][BR]
[P]The Company agrees that if a petition for bankruptcy is filed with respect to either US Airways Group, Inc. or US Airways, Inc., during the calendar year 2002 (the "Filing"):[/P]
[P align=justify][/P]
[OL]
[LI]Neither the Company nor any affiliate will file or support any motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 1113, 1113 (e), 1114, 1114 (h) or any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking rejection or modification of, or relief or interim relief from, the IAM Restructuring Agreement.(a "Motion").
[P align=justify][/P]
[LI]The Company and its affiliates will actively oppose any such Motion if filed by another party.
[LI]It is expressly recognized and agreed that if the IAM Restructuring Agreement is not completely and unconditionally effective, and the 1995 Mechanical and Related Agreement therefore remains effective without the Modifications, the above two paragraphs are inapplicable and have no force or effect, and the Company may make or refrain from opposing any such Motion with regard to the 1995 Mechanical and Related Agreement. [/LI][/OL]
[P align=justify][/P]
[P] [/P]
[P]In the event that the Company files a petition for bankruptcy and US Airways determines to request additional modifications to the IAM Restructuring Agreement to support reduced cash flows, to secure debtor-in-possession financing, and/or attract capital, the Company and IAM will meet to negotiate regarding such additional modifications to the mutual satisfaction of both parties within fifteen days of such determination. Neither party will be required to reach agreement regarding such modifications and the failure to reach such agreement will not affect the commitments in this letter.[/P]

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/3/2003 8:30:12 AM smallstFSA wrote:

If either the CWA or IAM vote their T/A's down can Siegel ask the judge to abrogate such contract. It seems that the restructuring is too far along the road and too many big players involved to let a fraction of total labor decide the fate of the company unless that's the outcome that Dave and Dave really want.

----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------

That seems to be the case. If a group votes no, we could be taking our chances with the judge. Then we'll see if those 1113 letters amount to anything. But for many, a chance with the judge doesn't seem to be worse than the realities within the latest proposal.