Flight Attendant Term Sheet

[IORFA]

I'm afraid you're mistaken...the" vote" was taken away long ago and the Poll tax just cemented it in place. We had no option of voting either for or against the dues requirement. That was implemented by the Board without a membership vote. Do you remember voting on this issue? Thought not.

Either way, it is what it is. Try to change it if you don't like it.

 

[FWAAA]

It just seems to me that on balance what the company realizes is that for the very first time they will NOT have the final say in agreeing to a contract, that in some way the judge will run things down the middle if it indeed gets to that point. Knowing this ahead of time their first offer, and I use that word very loosely, has to be a rock bottom pipe dream so that any bargaining will bring all issues up in terms of pay and benefits.

I'm certain that despite your mistaken beliefs about how section 1113 works, management is not similarly mistaken about the contract abrogation process. If it gets to that point, the judge will either approve or deny the motion to abrogate - management imposes its terms or it doesn't.

 

[jimntx]

FWAAA, I'm glad you pointed that out again. So many flight attendants assume (or were told in the galley) that the judge will be the final arbiter of the new f/a contract.

People, you need to understand that if it comes to Section 1113, the judge will decide for or against abrogation of the current contract. He will have no say in a new contract. If he rules in the company's favor, then we have no contract and the company can impose whatever terms they want to impose. End of story. As far as I know, there is no appeal to a higher court in a contract abrogation decision.

 

[xUT]

FWAAA, I'm glad you pointed that out again. So many flight attendants assume (or were told in the galley) that the judge will be the final arbiter of the new f/a contract.

People, you need to understand that if it comes to Section 1113, the judge will decide for or against abrogation of the current contract. He will have no say in a new contract. If he rules in the company's favor, then we have no contract and the company can impose whatever terms they want to impose. End of story. As far as I know, there is no appeal to a higher court in a contract abrogation decision.

This is not just an f/a mentality but spans across all work groups.
It's a shame that so few paid attention to the BK carnage on the rest of the legacies.
The 'let the judge decide' mentality is quite fool hardy.
Just take the UA IAM M&R vote for the contract to get the ATSB loan.
Voted down then the next Sunday we were in BK.
The BK TA was worse than the ATSB contract but was voted in, go figure... 😛
As it was a 'mutually agreed contract' the judge did not have to abrogate.

If there was not a 'mutually agreed' BK contract, the judge would look at the existing contract and the company demands. I don't have a precedence of that scenario.
IIRC,
B) xUT

 

[ord78]

Please don't misunderstand my previous post as i did not say the judge will have final say, only that the company for the first time has a third party, NMB and Presidential intervention not withstanding, at the table so to speak. The company must have a contract in hand of some sort to offer to the judge to abrogate, no? That contract can be either our current CBA or the one we vote in during the next few months assuming one comes from our negotiators and sent out for ratification. And as many others have belabored the point here and elsewhere if we don't send out a contract for vote, negotiations fail, then the company can indeed petition for abrogation of the current contract. But would, or could, the company 1)agree to a contract, 2) we send it out, 3) it gets approved and THEN 4) the company petitions for that very contract to abrogated? I think not. My point was simply that the term sheet was rock bottom on so many levels for a reason and that is the existence of the third party. And although that third party would not be involved in any contract we vote in, they can be asked to abrogate the current contract if we can't get to an agreement in the first place. This is a first for most employees, contract, management, or otherwise. And while the company would like to perpetuate a bravado of know how and 'it's in the bag' there is a ton of unknowns here for senior management as well. And frankly given the track record of what they have done over the last decade it is enough to make anyone cringe to think these folks think they know what they're doing. While i'm not hopeful it is yet possible that there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. Yeah i know i know, it's the headlight of an oncoming train..but. I'm under no delusions about how horrific this could possibly be, just trying to find some breathing room here.

But does anyone really think the 'term sheet' is reasonable in ANY sense of that word? ANY sense? It's so far fetched, not only from our current contract but from that of our competitors, that it stands out like a red herring. One can read it almost as an 'at will' employee rule sheet, union be damned.

 

[jersey777]

Please don't misunderstand my previous post as i did not say the judge will have final say, only that the company for the first time has a third party, NMB and Presidential intervention not withstanding, at the table so to speak. The company must have a contract in hand of some sort to offer to the judge to abrogate, no? That contract can be either our current CBA or the one we vote in during the next few months assuming one comes from our negotiators and sent out for ratification. And as many others have belabored the point here and elsewhere if we don't send out a contract for vote, negotiations fail, then the company can indeed petition for abrogation of the current contract. But would, or could, the company 1)agree to a contract, 2) we send it out, 3) it gets approved and THEN 4) the company petitions for that very contract to abrogated? I think not. My point was simply that the term sheet was rock bottom on so many levels for a reason and that is the existence of the third party. And although that third party would not be involved in any contract we vote in, they can be asked to abrogate the current contract if we can't get to an agreement in the first place. This is a first for most employees, contract, management, or otherwise. And while the company would like to perpetuate a bravado of know how and 'it's in the bag' there is a ton of unknowns here for senior management as well. And frankly given the track record of what they have done over the last decade it is enough to make anyone cringe to think these folks think they know what they're doing. While i'm not hopeful it is yet possible that there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. Yeah i know i know, it's the headlight of an oncoming train..but. I'm under no delusions about how horrific this could possibly be, just trying to find some breathing room here.

But does anyone really think the 'term sheet' is reasonable in ANY sense of that word? ANY sense? It's so far fetched, not only from our current contract but from that of our competitors, that it stands out like a red herring. One can read it almost as an 'at will' employee rule sheet, union be damned.

I think that one thing that might confuse people is that there is a difference between the judge being an arbitrator on the issues in the contract versus having the power to reject the contract or send the parties back to the bargaining table if he does not see much movement off the original proposals in the 1113 term sheet and determines that they are too onerous to the employees. Now I firmly believe that during these 1113 negotiations that AA management will sit there stone faced on the other side of the bargaining table and at the first opportunity run back to the judge and say that they bargained in good faith and that there was no agreement reached and for the judge to terminate the existing contract. That is where we, the employees, are at the mercy and fairness of the judge to reject the company's motion and send the parties back to the table till a compromise has been reached. Theoretically, this could happen more then once in the process. It is up to the APFA to prove to the judge that the company is not bargaining in good faith and that they have offered proposals that saves the company the money they say is needed and can show proof of it in their proposals.

 

[jimntx]

But would, or could, the company 1)agree to a contract, 2) we send it out, 3) it gets approved and THEN 4) the company petitions for that very contract to abrogated?

No this can not happen. In the first place before a TA could be sent out, the company would have to sign on the bottom line that the TA is acceptable to it. Under the law, if the members then ratify that TA, the company is legally bound to live with what they themselves agreed to.

The only reason the company can petition for 1113 relief is if no agreement is reached at all. The contract to be abrogated would be our current contract. If that happens we are really over the barrel because the company will be free to impose whatever terms they want. AFAIK, these terms would not have to be limited to what's on the current term sheet. They could change almost anything. If anyone knows differently, jump in here.

Now I firmly believe that during these 1113 negotiations that AA management will sit there stone faced on the other side of the bargaining table and at the first opportunity run back to the judge and say that they bargained in good faith and that there was no agreement reached and for the judge to terminate the existing contract. That is where we, the employees, are at the mercy and fairness of the judge to reject the company's motion and send the parties back to the table till a compromise has been reached. Theoretically, this could happen more then once in the process. It is up to the APFA to prove to the judge that the company is not bargaining in good faith and that they have offered proposals that saves the company the money they say is needed and can show proof of it in their proposals.

I think the company lawyers are too smart to risk contempt of court charges from the judge by claiming to have bargained in good faith when they, in fact, have not. Statements made in open court by either party are considered to be "under oath." There are severe penalties for lying to da judge. (Such as, disbarment for instance.) And, there will be a transcript of the negotiations for the judge to review. If there is nothing there except offers from the union and silence from the other side, the judge may not send the parties back for further negotiations. He might simply deny the company's motion for 1113 relief, and the company would be stuck with our current contract. In court is not the place to play games. The company and its lawyers know that.

 

[700UW]

The Creditors Committee and the Judge also have to approve it.

 

[kirkpatrick]

However, now that they have made it public that they intend to eliminate retiree medical, can they legally say that "you can still have it if you leave now?"

They published a wish list. Nothing prevents them from making changes that will be effective as of a certain time. In fact, that's true of every article in every contract.

How did UA do it eight years ago?

MK

 

[bluebird]

...I firmly believe that during these 1113 negotiations that AA management will sit there stone faced on the other side of the bargaining table and at the first opportunity run back to the judge and say that they bargained in good faith and that there was no agreement reached and for the judge to terminate the existing contract. That is where we, the employees, are at the mercy and fairness of the judge to reject the company's motion and send the parties back to the table till a compromise has been reached. Theoretically, this could happen more then once in the process. It is up to the APFA to prove to the judge that the company is not bargaining in good faith and that they have offered proposals that saves the company the money they say is needed and can show proof of it in their proposals.

I don't think that is a bad position to be in "at the mercy and fairness of the judge...". These were contracts. He cannot side with AA on all points. Negotiations are best for both sides.

 

[FWAAA]

I don't think that is a bad position to be in "at the mercy and fairness of the judge...". These were contracts. He cannot side with AA on all points. Negotiations are best for both sides.

Your post reflects a continuing misunderstanding of the process.

If AA files a motion to abrogate (throw out) the contract, the judge is faced with a binary decision: yes or no. The judge does not play the role of mediator or arbiter. The judge will not re-write the company's last offer. The judge will either side with the company (AA gets to impose its terms) or the judge sides with the employees (the contract is not abrogated).

 

[jersey777]

I think that you are making it too black and white. The judge makes the decision based on the facts and if the facts are not on AA's side then he does have the right to tell the parties to keep negotiating until they come to an agreement. That is the only hope we have so get off your bandwagon of semantics and read the railroad labor act and all that annoying stuff about the parties bargaining in good faith. No the judge is not an arbitrator but he must follow the law so pardon our prayers that the judge sees the big picture and realizes that the term sheet the company proposed was way beyond what is needed to make the company profitable.

I am going to try to get a copy of what united originally proposed and what was finally settled on. They did NOT get everything they wanted and that is what most flight attendant's hope and expectation is. By the judge being "fair" I think we all have faith that he won't rubber stamp every motion by AA. MAKING the parties come to an agreement instead of ruling yea or nay is what we want.....something the NMB had no power to do.


Oh and by the way, your patronizing the flight attendants puts you on par with AA management. Let me apologize that the average employee has never been through such an ordeal and that for many their entire livelihood is at stake, so give us a break huh!

 

[jlynne]

I am going to try to get a copy of what united originally proposed and what was finally settled on. They did NOT get everything they wanted and that is what most flight attendant's hope and expectation is. By the judge being "fair" I think we all have faith that he won't rubber stamp every motion by AA. MAKING the parties come to an agreement instead of ruling yea or nay is what we want.....something the NMB had no power to do.

Hope this helps. I think this is what you were looking for:
http://www.unitedafa.org/news/bankruptcy/agreements/2010/comparison/default.aspx

 

[jersey777]

Hope this helps. I think this is what you were looking for:
http://www.unitedafa.org/news/bankruptcy/agreements/2010/comparison/default.aspx

Thank you. My friend told me he had seen a copy of this on one of his flights. Thanks for saving me the time of finding it.

 

[xUT]

I think that you are making it too black and white. The judge makes the decision based on the facts and if the facts are not on AA's side then he does have the right to tell the parties to keep negotiating until they come to an agreement. That is the only hope we have so get off your bandwagon of semantics and read the railroad labor act and all that annoying stuff about the parties bargaining in good faith. No the judge is not an arbitrator but he must follow the law so pardon our prayers that the judge sees the big picture and realizes that the term sheet the company proposed was way beyond what is needed to make the company profitable.

I am going to try to get a copy of what united originally proposed and what was finally settled on. They did NOT get everything they wanted and that is what most flight attendant's hope and expectation is. By the judge being "fair" I think we all have faith that he won't rubber stamp every motion by AA. MAKING the parties come to an agreement instead of ruling yea or nay is what we want.....something the NMB had no power to do.


Oh and by the way, your patronizing the flight attendants puts you on par with AA management. Let me apologize that the average employee has never been through such an ordeal and that for many their entire livelihood is at stake, so give us a break huh!

IIRC,
You may be correct as I vaguely remember Da'Judge sending both parties back to the negotiation table.
I don't remember which group or which bankruptcy.
True the final abrogation decision is binary but getting to the abrogation decision leaves Da'Judge with some latitude to not make an immediate ruling.
JMHO,
B) xUT