Don''t Do It

[synchronicity]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/28/2002 9:49:14 AM wts54 wrote:

Looks to me like all your agreements didnt help them.

1.original contract

2.Concession contract #1 (retoactive paycuts no less)

3.Now they want concession contract #2

Siegel wont be happy until you pay him to work there.

At what point will you guys say enough is enough?


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

I've been lurking on these boards for a while, and have read the above comment often enought that I feel I have to chime in.

wts54 (And anyone else who has is using the argument of "USAirways shows concessions won't help, they'll just want more"), do you realize that the difference between the situation at USAir and the current situation at UAL is that USAir ALREADY is in BANKRUPTCY (and was when they initially received concessions from their mechanics, although we all know about that fiasco, with the "confused mechanic" re-vote from IAM)?! Do you see that USAir is a prime example of why you want to AVOID bankrupcty? Once a company is in BK, they will ask for deeper cuts because they are essentially being run primarily for the benefit of CREDITORS?

Yes, it's true that agreeing to cuts now won't guarantee that UAL will avoid BK later down the road, or that more "concessions" might not be necessary later. But turning down concessions now makes it 100% certain that UAL will file for BK by December 16 (the drop dead date for the $375M loan payment). In BK you will be "offered" an agreement far worse than what you just turned down. And, Bob Owens' comments notwithstanding, if that agreement gets turned down, UAL WILL petition the BK judge to abrogate the CBA, and the contract will be dissolved. (Feel free to speak with some corporate bankruptcy attorneys on this issue, please. I have, and they laugh at arguments such as the one that just because a contract offer is for 5.5 years it is by definition "unfair" or not an "offer in good faith").

I'm sure you can imagine what life would be like at a bankrupt carrier with no CBA for employees who will be viewed (fairly or unfairly) as the group that took such a carrier into BK.

I realize that you are mad at management, don't trust them, and can point to years of bad faith actions by them. I realize that you also don't trust IAM leadership much, and many of you want to see AMFA take over from them. I realize that there is plenty of blame to go around for getting United to this point.

But think about exactly what you are doing and the likely outcome. Also, to those people saying "well, I've got other opportunities out there, so I don't care", then why don't you leave and go to those opportunities? I'm not saying this in a nasty fashion, but because I honestly don't understand. Many of you have said that you don't like the working conditions, are earning less than you could elsewhere, and have more difficult schedules than you would elsewhere. So why the heck do you stay? If it's for the flight benefits, then your "total compensation" really wouldn't be better elsewhere. If it's because "I like the guys I work with", well, who's to say you wouldn't like the people at a new job? And does good co-workers override all the other negatives? If the balance of the job is predominantly negative and you believe it won't change and there are better opportunities elsewhere, why wouldn't you take them?

To sum it up: yes, the current agreement is not good, and yes, there's a possibility that things could get worse. But guess what, a "new agreement" you'll be offered before BK (if any) will be substantially the same in duration and wage cuts. If you turn that down, then it is CERTAIN that conditions in BK will be much worse. If you really don't believe that BK will be much worse, then you are in for a rude awakening.

-synchronicity

 

[synchronicity]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/28/2002 9:49:14 AM wts54 wrote:

Looks to me like all your agreements didnt help them.

1.original contract

2.Concession contract #1 (retoactive paycuts no less)

3.Now they want concession contract #2

Siegel wont be happy until you pay him to work there.

At what point will you guys say enough is enough?


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

I've been lurking on these boards for a while, and have read the above comment often enought that I feel I have to chime in.

wts54 (And anyone else who has is using the argument of "USAirways shows concessions won't help, they'll just want more"), do you realize that the difference between the situation at USAir and the current situation at UAL is that USAir ALREADY is in BANKRUPTCY (and was when they initially received concessions from their mechanics, although we all know about that fiasco, with the "confused mechanic" re-vote from IAM)?! Do you see that USAir is a prime example of why you want to AVOID bankrupcty? Once a company is in BK, they will ask for deeper cuts because they are essentially being run primarily for the benefit of CREDITORS?

Yes, it's true that agreeing to cuts now won't guarantee that UAL will avoid BK later down the road, or that more "concessions" might not be necessary later. But turning down concessions now makes it 100% certain that UAL will file for BK by December 16 (the drop dead date for the $375M loan payment). In BK you will be "offered" an agreement far worse than what you just turned down. And, Bob Owens' comments notwithstanding, if that agreement gets turned down, UAL WILL petition the BK judge to abrogate the CBA, and the contract will be dissolved. (Feel free to speak with some corporate bankruptcy attorneys on this issue, please. I have, and they laugh at arguments such as the one that just because a contract offer is for 5.5 years it is by definition "unfair" or not an "offer in good faith").

I'm sure you can imagine what life would be like at a bankrupt carrier with no CBA for employees who will be viewed (fairly or unfairly) as the group that took such a carrier into BK.

I realize that you are mad at management, don't trust them, and can point to years of bad faith actions by them. I realize that you also don't trust IAM leadership much, and many of you want to see AMFA take over from them. I realize that there is plenty of blame to go around for getting United to this point.

But think about exactly what you are doing and the likely outcome. Also, to those people saying "well, I've got other opportunities out there, so I don't care", then why don't you leave and go to those opportunities? I'm not saying this in a nasty fashion, but because I honestly don't understand. Many of you have said that you don't like the working conditions, are earning less than you could elsewhere, and have more difficult schedules than you would elsewhere. So why the heck do you stay? If it's for the flight benefits, then your "total compensation" really wouldn't be better elsewhere. If it's because "I like the guys I work with", well, who's to say you wouldn't like the people at a new job? And does good co-workers override all the other negatives? If the balance of the job is predominantly negative and you believe it won't change and there are better opportunities elsewhere, why wouldn't you take them?

To sum it up: yes, the current agreement is not good, and yes, there's a possibility that things could get worse. But guess what, a "new agreement" you'll be offered before BK (if any) will be substantially the same in duration and wage cuts. If you turn that down, then it is CERTAIN that conditions in BK will be much worse. If you really don't believe that BK will be much worse, then you are in for a rude awakening.

-synchronicity

 

[Steiner]

Will it matter in BK court that the government, through the PEB, set the wages for the UAL mechanics?

 

[Steiner]

Will it matter in BK court that the government, through the PEB, set the wages for the UAL mechanics?

 

[synchronicity]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/28/2002 259 PM wts54 wrote:

The majority of the mechanics have spoken with their
vote I dont think they need anyone give us these
endless speeches about what bk means.They are aware
of it I'm sure.I stood in the international ready room
trying to explain exactly what you have said and maybe
2 out of 10 agreed with me.Dont think they dont understand
they do.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Then why did 57% vote no to the agreement? Again, I'm not saying this in a nasty way, I'm just trying to understand. Voting yes means you suffer, but voting no means you'll suffer a LOT more. I know, it's an awful choice, and nobody likes it. But then why would they vote no, understanding that it means getting screwed worse than ever and losing what little control they might have over the process? That's what I don't understand.

Like I said, I understand being ticked off and unhappy about the current situation. I don't understand voting in a way that guarantees to make it far worse. Can you (or anyone) give me any insight into that? Is it just "we're mad as heck and want to make a statement".

Follow up questions: A) give that any agreement, one way or another, will have similar paycuts and similar duration, what sort of things could, hypothetically, make for a "tweaked" agreement that could pass, and B) with regard to work conditions and schedules, what is the exact difference between a "6 and 2" schedule and a "4 and 2" schedule? Many mechanics on this board have complained about this.

thanks,

-synchronicity

 

[wts54]

In my opinion and Im not a lawyer it wont matter who
or what gave us the raise.In bk court the creditors have
all the sway with the judge I believe.

 

[wts54]

The majority of the mechanics have spoken with their
vote I dont think they need anyone give us these
endless speeches about what bk means.They are aware
of it I'm sure.I stood in the international ready room
trying to explain exactly what you have said and maybe
2 out of 10 agreed with me.Dont think they dont understand
they do.

 

[wts54]

The majority of the mechanics have spoken with their
vote I dont think they need anyone give us these
endless speeches about what bk means.They are aware
of it I'm sure.I stood in the international ready room
trying to explain exactly what you have said and maybe
2 out of 10 agreed with me.Dont think they dont understand
they do.

 

[will fix for food]

That leads up to a question I have. If UAL were to file tomorrow, would the judge review all the contracts, i.e. pilots, ramp, etc, or would he just review the contracts that were with the work groups that hadn/t come to an agreement? Meaning the mechanics? What do the laws say?

 

[wts54]

synch,I got this off the yahoo message board.These arent my words so no
rocks please.




I too feel that BK is the only FAIR option for the AMT's. In BK everyone will contribute to the restructuring of UAL and not just the IAM again. Stockholders, bond holders, aircraft leases, passengers, mangement, as well as employees.
Let us not forget the unfair conditions of the ESOP. Pilots need UAL to expand. When times are good and UAL expands pilots jump seats. A 737 co-pilot moves to a 757, or Captian of 737, each step is a pay raise. Soon his initial paycut of 18% is erased and earns more than before the paycut.
Management has the ability to change their titles, each time giving themselves a pay raise for doing the same job. The flight attendants were not part of the original ESOP, and did not give up one penny. In their latest deal they are only giving up 3% big deal! That leaves the IAM with a concession for 8 long years.
The AMT's will not carry the airline on their backs again, while everyone else enjoys the riches. In Bankruptcy everyone will pay equally to save UAL. Management will be forced to lean out their ranks, and not protect their jobs with our concessions.
Bankruptcy may be a good thing here? It is about time Pilots ($340,000 yr), Ramp(90k year w/ot), Cleaners($20 per hr to pick up newspapers), Stores($90-$100k per year w/ot), and an excessive amount of management be reduced to realistic levels.
The AMT's will probably do worse in Bankruptcy court. However, this way everyone will have to feel the pain, And not just the Mechanics!

 

[UnitedChicago]

"I too feel that BK is the only FAIR option for the AMT's. In BK everyone will contribute to the restructuring of UAL and not just the IAM again. Stockholders, bond holders, aircraft leases, passengers, mangement, as well as employees."

That may be true...but the machinists would still most likely take a larger pay cut and be subject to more work-rule changes in BK.

 

[totobird]

When I started this post I told you how terrible it was to be in BK court but some people refuse to listen but I want you to keep one thing in mind.
The BK judge does not work for you. His only concern and job is to make sure the company creditors get a return on their investment no matter how it is done.
He doesn't care one bit that Little Johnny won't have any Christmas presents under the tree because his Dad or Mom was laid off.
I can't stress enough that everyone needs to be aware that BK court should be the last avenue. Give the cuts a chance. Without at least attempting to turn the airline around you've given up more than you realize.
As I stated before I work for USAirways and maybe I shouldn't care what happens to United as it might help us out but it hurts to see all the lives turned upside down and I for one want to see it stop.

 

[mastermechanic]

And guess where your airplanes and airline is going to be....sitting. Come and get us, beat us up a little more, we'll see what happens. We've been seeing alot more "shorts" in 777 wiring. Are any of you going to "swim through a sea of wiring" to find it...better yet, do you know how. Oh, and btw, most of these "shorts" are factory defects or from OSV mods. Keep jacking with your mechanics United

 

[UnitedChicago]

mastermechanic:

I have great respect for all of UA's mechanics. You all do a superb job.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/28/2002 4:03:04 PM will fix for food wrote:

That leads up to a question I have. If UAL were to file tomorrow, would the judge review all the contracts, i.e. pilots, ramp, etc, or would he just review the contracts that were with the work groups that hadn/t come to an agreement? Meaning the mechanics? What do the laws say?
----------------
[/blockquote]
"It's a new ball game will." UA or their trustee would request for a rejection of all contract and it's up to the judge whether to accept or deny that request, after he looks at the current condition of the company of course. Check out my post about "rejection of collective bargaining agreement" on 11/26.