F/a's Receive Company Counterproposal

[RowUnderDCA]

Many on these boards, state that 'the company has not bargained in good faith.' What does that mean? Has the company been found in a court to have not bargained in good faith, technically. If so, how was this characterized. Surely, no court could find the company guilty of not bargaining in good faith, if the company makes a proposal and the union says, 'the concession stand is closed.' I'm not being sarcastic here. I just find that the statement that the company is 'not bargaining in good faith' to be unsupported and undefined and unconvincing with the information on these boards. Did I miss something?

Obviously, the company hasn't been very flexible and hasn't offered anything attractive to labor. Does that constititute failing to negotiate in good faith?

 

[robbedagain]

if there is to be any kind of good faith bargaining then obvisously it should start like mgmt takes a cut that will leave them with no take home pay for the next 10 yrs, no sick time for life, no vacations not even on holidays, they lose all of their defined beneifts and retirements. also we should try to replace them all with a court appointed trustee i know this is a dream but io think that this if it were to happen it may be a start but i dont know!

 

[700UW]

Can you people not understand that the good faith/bad faith only starts with the 1113c process. What happened before is irrelavant.

Some bad faith things is the company not providing unions with relevant information when requested or delaying giving the information.

Another is the company not budgiing at all from their original proposal or increasing the "ask" with all the proposals.

Another is the company not showing up for meetings.

And the IAM is meeting with the company and complying with the 1113c Process.

 

[AP Tech]

The F/A proposed pay cut is 15% and basically recreates a "B" scale for new hires and returning furloughees.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

How can any company justify employee's starting over on pay senority after returning from unvoluntary furlough? Seems to me , "I do not understand", but I would think every so many years the company can have a mass layoff for a few days and bring everybody back as a new hire? Why not just shut the airline down for that slow week in October. What is to stop them from this? Work 25 yrs for the company be furloughed 2 days and start at the bottom. What is your opinion on this 320? :down:

 

[Imamec.itsmyfault]

Many on these boards, state that 'the company has not bargained in good faith.' What does that mean? Has the company been found in a court to have not bargained in good faith, technically. If so, how was this characterized. Surely, no court could find the company guilty of not bargaining in good faith, if the company makes a proposal and the union says, 'the concession stand is closed.' I'm not being sarcastic here. I just find that the statement that the company is 'not bargaining in good faith' to be unsupported and undefined and unconvincing with the information on these boards. Did I miss something?

Obviously, the company hasn't been very flexible and hasn't offered anything attractive to labor. Does that constititute failing to negotiate in good faith?

[post="197827"][/post]​

Are you for real? I mean really, you must need a serious P test! The company has been barginned in good faith, where are you from, MARS??? The very basis of everything we are going through, is based on what has gotten us to this point. To keep it basic; we are not a new airline, nor new hire's. Everything, and I mean everything, is, and will be, based on the fact that we have been employee's of this airline for, how many years? Some, 45. Some, 40. Some, 35. Some of us for only 15. ONLY 15 YEARS!!! This is not a new company, this is not our first round of cuts, this is not a matter of a union, or any employee group being unwilling to work with management. This is a group of management unwilling to work with us!!! Say what you will, THEY are not looking to work with us, THEY are looking to get rid of us! Suck up, wouldn't matter, they'll find a reason why that isn't good enough!

It's real simple for anybody with a brain: THEY don't want us, we're too qualified! THEY want a group of new hires, that they can toss at will, and get no fight from!!!

 

[USA320Pilot]

I recognize emotions are running high, but to suggest the unions will win their motion in court is nonsense during the upcoming S.1113© hearing in a couple of weeks. The court does care about employee pain, but Judge Mitchell is more concerned about the company surviving and the creditors. Mitchell may be sympathetic; however, he has and will likely continue to rule in the company's favor. He has no choice in the matter -- it's the law.

The creditor's are forcing the change and are requiring US Airways employees to have market based contracts.

Do I like it? No, of course not. In fact, it sucks.

What is happening to the AFA is a mirror image of what happened to ALPA. In fact, the company's November 2 AFA proposal is almost identical to the pilot's in regard to vacation, scheduling, dead head pay, duty rigs, health care, profit sharing, post retirement health care, medical benefits, etc.

Each day that goes by you can expect AFA, CWA, and IAM proposals to get worse until there is a TA or "imposition" with a worse contract.

Mitchell has "imposed" new contract changes, ALPA's attorney's believe he will again “imposeâ€￾ contract changes (permanent) and prevent any "self help" option. Any union member who violates the court order to not have "self help" could be held in contempt of the court order and receive personal civil fines and jail time.

It's your choice, but when would now be a god time to limit "pain"?

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

No he has not imposed contract changes he granted 4 months of temporary relief when the company wanted 6 months and the judge did not give the company everything they wanted.

He cannot prevent self-help and no one can be jailed for not going to work. You are really reaching, the RLA Prevents outlawing strikes.

And bad faith negotiations is what the company is doing. UAL did the same thing in regard to 1113 and 1114 healthcare and the judge ruled in the union's favor and ordered UAL to negotiate in good faith.

But once again you do not know what is going on and you are not involved, I am.

 

[USA320Pilot]

A P Tech:

AP Tech asked: “How can any company justify employee's starting over on pay senority after returning from unvoluntary furlough? Seems to me , "I do not understand", but I would think every so many years the company can have a mass layoff for a few days and bring everybody back as a new hire? Why not just shut the airline down for that slow week in October. What is to stop them from this? Work 25 yrs for the company be furloughed 2 days and start at the bottom. What is your opinion on this 320?â€￾

USA320Pilot comments: I do not like it, but the company can ask and then have what they desire “imposedâ€￾. The argument will be that the LCC’s are hiring people at these rates and the company must be competitive to survive. An employee returning from furlough will be like adding a new employee, thus the court must decide if the company can sustain a higher labor cost structure.

Moreover, let’s not forget the judge has limited flexibility during the S.1113© process. The judge can not change the terms of the motion like was done during the S.1113(e) hearing. In this case the judge can either accept the company or union proposal in its entirety. This is a very signficant point.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

700UW:

You continue to mislead employees and your comments are 180 degrees opposite of ALPA’s advisors, who batted 1000% during the pilot negotiations. You are living in denial and you do nobody any service with your baseless drivel.

Judge Mitchell has ruled in favor of virtually every company motion and he does not have the legal ability to change contract proposals, from either the union or company position. He can pick or choose either the union or company proposal and if you believe he will side with labor, I have some swamp land I would like to buy and resell to you.

ALPA’s bankruptcy counsel Richard Seltzer told the MEC that the court has great latitude and would likely prevent a strike. Furthermore, the Washington Post said, “federal strike rules will likely forestall any (US Airways union “self helpâ€￾) action.

See Story

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

The IAM has its own advisors who we are in contact with us on a daily basis our lawyer Sharon Levine ESQ has told us we are free to do self-help upon a contract abrogation.

The same so called experts who told you your pension was safe after you took two rounds of concessions?

See you fail to realize the company does not put a new contract in place, they put new work rules, pay and benefits. Therefore you are free to not to work under them.

And I dont care what Seltzer says, he did not impress me in court.

Levine is one of the most respected and renouned bankruptcy attorney representing labor in airline cases.

You are the one who tries to scare, intimidate and use fear with your constant diatribes of false information and telling other unions and its members what to do when they have the freedome of choice.

You are just scared you will lose your job because the other employee groups are not going to bendover as alpa did.

Like I said, I know what is going on and involved with it. You are not.

I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn for you, with deed and all.

 

[Imamec.itsmyfault]

USA320Pilot;

You know, I can't help but wonder why nobody has shut you down before this??

I mean really, you have the same reply for everything anybody says/asks. You are the quintessential bore! Not to mention, a total a@@.

Oh no! Fear, fear, fear! We're not in Kansas anymore Toto!

Get real, you're fear campaign isn't working in this day of total domination.

Oh right, like I mentioned before, you have no option. SORRY!

 

[ClueByFour]

Many on these boards, state that 'the company has not bargained in good faith.' What does that mean? Has the company been found in a court to have not bargained in good faith, technically. If so, how was this characterized. Surely, no court could find the company guilty of not bargaining in good faith, if the company makes a proposal and the union says, 'the concession stand is closed.' I'm not being sarcastic here. I just find that the statement that the company is 'not bargaining in good faith' to be unsupported and undefined and unconvincing with the information on these boards. Did I miss something?

Obviously, the company hasn't been very flexible and hasn't offered anything attractive to labor. Does that constititute failing to negotiate in good faith?

[post="197827"][/post]​

The Airbus move (having been axed by at least one federal court and the arbitrator) can very easily be construed as not bargaining in good faith.

 

[ClueByFour]

ALPA’s bankruptcy counsel Richard Seltzer told the MEC that the court has great latitude and would likely prevent a strike. Furthermore, the Washington Post said, “federal strike rules will likely forestall any (US Airways union “self helpâ€￾) action.

[post="197857"][/post]​

For the 100th time:

ALPA's attorney's and the Washington Post have no idea what can happen in the event of a post-Lorenzo 1113© motion and self-help--it's never happened. You never seem to address this point, and continue to spout the same line about "preventing self help."

What do you think the IAM will do once the company emerges from BK protection?

 

[repeet]

From
http://dictionary.law.com

good faith
n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person

or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.

So the discussion becomes is the company trying to take unfair advantage of their employees, or just trying to "pass on" bad economic times.

Remember, the answer is whatever you can convince the judge of.

 

[N628AU]

Good point repeet. Just because 700UW and his blind AFL-CIO faith don't like what the company is proposing does not mean it is not "good faith" in the eyes of the law.