GREAT NEWS! MN Appeals court rules in AMFA's favor!

[robbedagain]

and I dont think SCRAP METAL AIR should be giving themselves hefty wages at the expense of the employees finman.. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION. THOSE striking employess deserves ever dam bit of dime and penny and nickel from unemployment because SCRAP METAL AIR forced them out instead of actually negogiating

 

[jenny@nw]

Every state has their own criteria for eligibility. Naturally, I don't think a striking worker should be entitled to workers comp, since it basically swings the negotiating power more in favor of the union. I.E., if there is less financial hardship that can come from a strike, then the union members will be more willing to strike, and the state will basically provide the strike fund. Since NWA pays into this system, it's an odd system whereby NWA is basically funding the strike fund (through the state unemployment system) for workers striking against NWA.

Well that's how the system is. If you don't like it go to China.

 

[big jimmy]

Every state has their own criteria for eligibility. Naturally, I don't think a striking worker should be entitled to workers comp, since it basically swings the negotiating power more in favor of the union. I.E., if there is less financial hardship that can come from a strike, then the union members will be more willing to strike, and the state will basically provide the strike fund. Since NWA pays into this system, it's an odd system whereby NWA is basically funding the strike fund (through the state unemployment system) for workers striking against NWA.

Northwest's terms imposed on AMFA members of both crafts constituted 25 percent wage reductions," the Court of Appeals said Tuesday, and determined that all job classes of union members were locked out of jobs.
:down: Can you not read little man?

 

[finman]

Northwest's terms imposed on AMFA members of both crafts constituted 25 percent wage reductions," the Court of Appeals said Tuesday, and determined that all job classes of union members were locked out of jobs.
:down: Can you not read little man?

The FAs are working under a 21% (or somthing like that) imposed wage reduction as we speak. Are you saying that if they all decide to strike tomorrow, it would actually be a lockout because it is close to this 25% cut/lockout mark? I know a lot of director and above level employees that got 25%+ cuts over the last couple years. If they were to quit their job, should they also be entitled unemployment benefits? I know this was a judges ruling on an isolated case, but it begs the questions.

 

[TheRealSaabmeister]

The FAs are working under a 21% (or somthing like that) imposed wage reduction as we speak. Are you saying that if they all decide to strike tomorrow, it would actually be a lockout because it is close to this 25% cut/lockout mark? I know a lot of director and above level employees that got 25%+ cuts over the last couple years. If they were to quit their job, should they also be entitled unemployment benefits? I know this was a judges ruling on an isolated case, but it begs the questions.

I would bet that the F/A's would not be eligible for unemployment benefits. One of the big things that won this appeal for AMFA was a precedent setting court case in which to workers of a company (I believe it was Sun Star Foods) were asked to take a paycut of 25% or more (I dont know the exact percentage), and went on strike. The courts ruled that a paycut of 25% or more is unreasonable, and persons who go on strike are eligible for unemployement benefits (or something to that effect). Also, since the directors and above aren't on strike, they would also not be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Makes you wonder why all the other contracts have been under that magic 25% number...

 

[finman]

I would bet that the F/A's would not be eligible for unemployment benefits. One of the big things that won this appeal for AMFA was a precedent setting court case in which to workers of a company (I believe it was Sun Star Foods) were asked to take a paycut of 25% or more (I dont know the exact percentage), and went on strike. The courts ruled that a paycut of 25% or more is unreasonable, and persons who go on strike are eligible for unemployement benefits (or something to that effect). Also, since the directors and above aren't on strike, they would also not be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Makes you wonder why all the other contracts have been under that magic 25% number...

Good points. Couple items to consider:

1) Pilot took a 38% cut all told, though they obviously agreed to the cuts; but that should not be overlooked.

2) Explain to me again how quitting is different than striking. Remember, unions don't (or at least shouldn't) get special treatment under the unemployment eligibility rules. If I get a 25% cut and decide to quit, I should not be treated any differently in the eyes of the state as a mechanic that strikes (quits) because he doesn't want to accept a 25% cut.

 

[groundcontrol]

Good points. Couple items to consider:

1) Pilot took a 38% cut all told, though they obviously agreed to the cuts; but that should not be overlooked.

2) Explain to me again how quitting is different than striking. Remember, unions don't (or at least shouldn't) get special treatment under the unemployment eligibility rules. If I get a 25% cut and decide to quit, I should not be treated any differently in the eyes of the state as a mechanic that strikes (quits) because he doesn't want to accept a 25% cut.

In the State I live this would be true...You as an employee are not required to stay with an employer who cuts your pay by 25%. You would be eligible for UI while searching for another employer.

I am curious to know if this 25% cut also would include any out of pocket expenses that now has to be applied to medical insurance.

finman, you feel that since a company pays for UI that it shouldn't be honored in most cases. I ask you, if/when NW goes tits up, do you feel you would be entitled to UI? If the company isn't around any longer to pay for it would you expect the benefit?

 

[UAL_TECH]

Good points. Couple items to consider:

1) Pilot took a 38% cut all told, though they obviously agreed to the cuts; but that should not be overlooked.

2) Explain to me again how quitting is different than striking. Remember, unions don't (or at least shouldn't) get special treatment under the unemployment eligibility rules. If I get a 25% cut and decide to quit, I should not be treated any differently in the eyes of the state as a mechanic that strikes (quits) because he doesn't want to accept a 25% cut.

Gee finman, you still do not know the difference between an individual quitting and a ‘United’ group of people striking? If it were not for people acting collectively for their own best interest we would be speaking the Kings English instead of Merican. If you detest the inference of ‘Unions’ and what they stand for then you should introduce a bill to congress to strike out the ‘United’ in the ‘United States’ and be outraged with the ‘State of the Union’ address speeches.

Did you sleep through your political science classes or have an inny?

UT

 

[TheRealSaabmeister]

Good points. Couple items to consider:

1) Pilot took a 38% cut all told, though they obviously agreed to the cuts; but that should not be overlooked.

2) Explain to me again how quitting is different than striking. Remember, unions don't (or at least shouldn't) get special treatment under the unemployment eligibility rules. If I get a 25% cut and decide to quit, I should not be treated any differently in the eyes of the state as a mechanic that strikes (quits) because he doesn't want to accept a 25% cut.

1) However, the pilot's 38% cut wasn't all at once, was it?

2) After I posted earlier, I realized that I wasn't completely sure if the case applies to just union members on strike or people who quit over a 25% paycut. I believe it only applies to striking union members, but I am not entirely sure.

"...a mechanic that strikes (quits) because he doesn't want to accept a 25% cut."

How many times does it have to be said, THE MECHANICS, CLEANERS AND CUSTODIANS DID NOT QUIT! They certainly didn't strike over the paycut, they primarily struck over the job cuts. They still wanted their jobs, and were forced out. Northwest presented them with a contract that had no chance in hell of ever passing, and even when the union met Northwest's cost saving numbers, knowing that the contract would never pass, Northwest said no.

 

[jenny@nw]

quitting and striking are two different terminologies which you like to mish-mash together under one definition (which you have created) and repeat it over and over again.

If one feels unfair that blue collar workers that are unionized could strike, why not start your own union- like PPU (Pencil Pushers Union) or something... :blink:

 

[Bear96]

2) Explain to me again how quitting is different than striking. Remember, unions don't (or at least shouldn't) get special treatment under the unemployment eligibility rules. If I get a 25% cut and decide to quit, I should not be treated any differently in the eyes of the state as a mechanic that strikes (quits) because he doesn't want to accept a 25% cut.

Why not?

Individual versus collective employee action is treated very differently in the "eyes of the state" as reflected in many other areas of the law for various public policy reasons. See, e.g., the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act. Why should unemployment compensation be different?

 

[Mark Inman]

You obviously haven't read the finding. It isn't simply "they're on strike, they get unemployment"

Judge says Mesaba can't impose concessions on unions

MINNEAPOLIS - Mesaba Airlines, a regional feeder carrier for Northwest Airlines, can't impose concessions on its unionized workers, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Gregory Kishel erred in July when he granted the airline the authority to nullify existing labor contracts with its pilots, flight attendants and mechanics.

The unions appealed, and Davis concluded that that Mesaba didn't negotiate in good faith and that it failed a legal test requiring it to be "fair and equitable" in spreading around the pain of its bankruptcy restructuring.Now Northwest has to negotaite fairly or liquidate. See you skabs back on the unemployment line soon.
[/b]

Judge says Mesaba can't impose concessions on unions

MINNEAPOLIS - Mesaba Airlines, a regional feeder carrier for Northwest Airlines, can't impose concessions on its unionized workers, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Gregory Kishel erred in July when he granted the airline the authority to nullify existing labor contracts with its pilots, flight attendants and mechanics.

The unions appealed, and Davis concluded that that Mesaba didn't negotiate in good faith and that it failed a legal test requiring it to be "fair and equitable" in spreading around the pain of its bankruptcy restructuring.Now Northwest has to negotaite fairly or liquidate. See you skabs back on the unemployment line soon.

 

[finman]

quitting and striking are two different terminologies which you like to mish-mash together under one definition (which you have created) and repeat it over and over again.

If one feels unfair that blue collar workers that are unionized could strike, why not start your own union- like PPU (Pencil Pushers Union) or something... :blink:

You can strike until the cows come home. I just don't think you should get special treatment by the state for doing so. If I don't like my compensation or work life, I quit on my own. I certainly don't need a union to make those decisions for me.

 

[limit]

Maybe this can provide some of you with the help you need.

How American Workers Lost the Right to Strike, and Other Tales.

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi...tgersnewarklwps

 

[finman]

Why not?

Individual versus collective employee action is treated very differently in the "eyes of the state" as reflected in many other areas of the law for various public policy reasons. See, e.g., the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act. Why should unemployment compensation be different?

I guess I thought all you liberal types were all for non-discrimination and such when it comes to government assistance? Treating an individual who chooses to not work a union job different from a person who was working a union job when confronted with identical situations (imposed 25% pay cut) is no different than treating a white different than a black. Please explain to me why a union job would be granted this special treatment, without simply saying "because the courts say so". A logical defense would be appreciated and is warranted in this case.