Chip Munn,
"...I believe without voluntary restructuring accords, the only question is not will the cuts occur, but will the court order deeper cuts and agree with the company's motion to fine the unions, which are made up of its members.
In addition, union members will not be permitted to vote on a court-imposed vote. It's take it or leave it because with no deal that meets the DIP financing, there is no company..."
Again, it appears that FUD(Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) is being spread by a member of one labor group in an attempt to influence the actions of another labor group.
Mr. Munn has not answered the questions from the first page of this thread relating to any court cases which would fit the current circumstances: A Union member whose compulsory membership in said Union results in the subrogation of fines levied against the Union to the individual members based on the "memberships'" refusal to vacate their LMRDA Rights.
Viewed from another angle: how could a Court levy this speculative fine against Union Memebers that Voted FOR Concessions? How would the court know who they are? Is the Fact that they maintained membership in the Union appropriate justification for the levy though such action would run contrary to the legislative aims and purposes of other significant legislation? Never mind that such membership is required as a term of employment and that the voting was conducted without identification as to the manner in which an individual cast their vote.
Secondly, though there is no vote with respect to the Judges decision; there is a blancing of the potential harms with respect to the Company obtaining financing and the Union potentially walking off the job and the Company shutting down.
The terms of the DIP financing were negotiated, and could be re-negotiated, just as the Company previously stated that the concession packages were non-negotiable but now have stated that they wish to arrive at a negotiated settlement prior to the 10th. No one can know how a judge will come down prior to argument being made.
Mechanics live with their decisions. If you are willing to fly aircraft they maintain based on their ability, why don't you trust them now: why the hard sell? Could it be that if you were in their position you might make a decision as Chip the Mechanic that scares the pooh out of Chip the Pilot?
"...I believe without voluntary restructuring accords, the only question is not will the cuts occur, but will the court order deeper cuts and agree with the company's motion to fine the unions, which are made up of its members.
In addition, union members will not be permitted to vote on a court-imposed vote. It's take it or leave it because with no deal that meets the DIP financing, there is no company..."
Again, it appears that FUD(Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) is being spread by a member of one labor group in an attempt to influence the actions of another labor group.
Mr. Munn has not answered the questions from the first page of this thread relating to any court cases which would fit the current circumstances: A Union member whose compulsory membership in said Union results in the subrogation of fines levied against the Union to the individual members based on the "memberships'" refusal to vacate their LMRDA Rights.
Viewed from another angle: how could a Court levy this speculative fine against Union Memebers that Voted FOR Concessions? How would the court know who they are? Is the Fact that they maintained membership in the Union appropriate justification for the levy though such action would run contrary to the legislative aims and purposes of other significant legislation? Never mind that such membership is required as a term of employment and that the voting was conducted without identification as to the manner in which an individual cast their vote.
Secondly, though there is no vote with respect to the Judges decision; there is a blancing of the potential harms with respect to the Company obtaining financing and the Union potentially walking off the job and the Company shutting down.
The terms of the DIP financing were negotiated, and could be re-negotiated, just as the Company previously stated that the concession packages were non-negotiable but now have stated that they wish to arrive at a negotiated settlement prior to the 10th. No one can know how a judge will come down prior to argument being made.
Mechanics live with their decisions. If you are willing to fly aircraft they maintain based on their ability, why don't you trust them now: why the hard sell? Could it be that if you were in their position you might make a decision as Chip the Mechanic that scares the pooh out of Chip the Pilot?
14 AM 
