PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Mrplanes,
I think your synopsis you gave in your post is exactly the issue. We shall see how the Judge interpretes the law. This ruling will also set a precedent. From what I have read, the Defined Pension benefits in America are in trouble with many many companies presently.
So, the outcome will be interesting at best.
From reading the ALPA Code-a-phone messages and some of the motions presented to the Judge, I am disturbed by what I read. I think the ALPA MEC needs to understand that IAM and AFA have subsidized their own pensions with the severe concessions that have been given. The concessions given by these specific groups was not given for "charity" for this co. but to ensure that our pensions were secure. By paying for our pensions and medical benefits, has brought down the co. liability substantially. In that respect, it was definitely a "cost savings" to this co. THE ISSUES in the summer were three issues only...
a) the pnsion liability
B) the RJ issue and implementing a LCC to compete
c) qualifying for the ATSB loan to prevent bankruptcy
That's it. I have not forgotten this. Somewhere between then and now, this management got cocky and greedy and went after what they WANTED; no more what they needed.
They saw all our weaknesses, and new that the environent was "ripe" for raiding contracts. I realize the pilots gave a tremedous amount as well, but the Liability on your pensions was so great, according to the co., that they can not fund it presently. I believe they should wait until the liability is due in 2004. See what will happen by then. If the economy improves, even slightly, could change everything.
I must admit, as a unionist, it is a great thing to see the "collective" spirit, persistance, and perseverance alive and well for the pilots as they pursue thier resolve on THE most important issue of their lives. I will not critisize their retorhic of strength...as you know, this management views these boards. The pilots have bent over and over for this management and gave them unprecedented concessions. They have an issue, that's for certain and have finally reached their "threshold". I wish them a "sound", fair resolution, no matter how they have to get there.
I think your synopsis you gave in your post is exactly the issue. We shall see how the Judge interpretes the law. This ruling will also set a precedent. From what I have read, the Defined Pension benefits in America are in trouble with many many companies presently.
So, the outcome will be interesting at best.
From reading the ALPA Code-a-phone messages and some of the motions presented to the Judge, I am disturbed by what I read. I think the ALPA MEC needs to understand that IAM and AFA have subsidized their own pensions with the severe concessions that have been given. The concessions given by these specific groups was not given for "charity" for this co. but to ensure that our pensions were secure. By paying for our pensions and medical benefits, has brought down the co. liability substantially. In that respect, it was definitely a "cost savings" to this co. THE ISSUES in the summer were three issues only...
a) the pnsion liability
B) the RJ issue and implementing a LCC to compete
c) qualifying for the ATSB loan to prevent bankruptcy
That's it. I have not forgotten this. Somewhere between then and now, this management got cocky and greedy and went after what they WANTED; no more what they needed.
They saw all our weaknesses, and new that the environent was "ripe" for raiding contracts. I realize the pilots gave a tremedous amount as well, but the Liability on your pensions was so great, according to the co., that they can not fund it presently. I believe they should wait until the liability is due in 2004. See what will happen by then. If the economy improves, even slightly, could change everything.
I must admit, as a unionist, it is a great thing to see the "collective" spirit, persistance, and perseverance alive and well for the pilots as they pursue thier resolve on THE most important issue of their lives. I will not critisize their retorhic of strength...as you know, this management views these boards. The pilots have bent over and over for this management and gave them unprecedented concessions. They have an issue, that's for certain and have finally reached their "threshold". I wish them a "sound", fair resolution, no matter how they have to get there.
lav:
You are incorrect regarding self-help. Read the BK code. Specifically section 1113.
76dr:
I do know what ALPA will do under a given scenario. I cannot know what each and every pilot will do when that scenario is presented to each and every member. But after 25 years here I see more solidarity today than at any time in the past. Substantially more.
What is troubling to me is how the other employee groups want to cast blame on the pilot group for this fix. Dave and we agreed to pension givebacks in December. And he agreed to specific BENEFITS in the event the existing DB plan is terminated. Then when he decided he needed to terminate he came up with new benefits that were not even close to what he ageed to in December. That is the difference between need and want. Had he committed to his original agreed benefits ALPA would not have opposed the termination. Yet, it is now our fault. That is foolish. And if he does not realize it he is truly a fool. It's like the peaceniks calling Bush the evil guy and to stop the war. Yet, not one of them has even a sign telling Saddam to destroy is weapons. Just WHO is the enemy here? Dave or ALPA. Bush or Saddam? If you can't discern the difference you are allowing your emotion to rule your intellect.
mr
You are incorrect regarding self-help. Read the BK code. Specifically section 1113.
76dr:
I do know what ALPA will do under a given scenario. I cannot know what each and every pilot will do when that scenario is presented to each and every member. But after 25 years here I see more solidarity today than at any time in the past. Substantially more.
What is troubling to me is how the other employee groups want to cast blame on the pilot group for this fix. Dave and we agreed to pension givebacks in December. And he agreed to specific BENEFITS in the event the existing DB plan is terminated. Then when he decided he needed to terminate he came up with new benefits that were not even close to what he ageed to in December. That is the difference between need and want. Had he committed to his original agreed benefits ALPA would not have opposed the termination. Yet, it is now our fault. That is foolish. And if he does not realize it he is truly a fool. It's like the peaceniks calling Bush the evil guy and to stop the war. Yet, not one of them has even a sign telling Saddam to destroy is weapons. Just WHO is the enemy here? Dave or ALPA. Bush or Saddam? If you can't discern the difference you are allowing your emotion to rule your intellect.
mr
You can only seek self-help in section 6 negotiations which you are not in, the RLA has no bearing when the bankruptcy process, the bk codes and ERISA laws take presidence.
Go ahead and strike, it will be a wild cat and you will be working to pay the company off for the rest of your lives.
Go ahead and strike, it will be a wild cat and you will be working to pay the company off for the rest of your lives.
I know section 1113 very well as I attended a seminar on it given by Sharon Levine, esq. If you know it so well show me where self-help is in 1113, it is not, it is covered in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) in Section 6 negotiations. And the courts have all ready ruled BK code takes precidence over the RLA, and ALPA and US are not in traditional negotiations. And the company will be using 1113 e, just like UA did. Maybe you need to go familarize yourself with the laws a little bit more.
Levine also went over all the procedures and steps in the bankruptcy codes. One item she covered in depth is the 1113 letter, which refers to the section of code that ensures that a company negotiates with the union before they seek abrogation of the labor agreement. When a company seeks protection, the agreement remains in effect. When a union negotiates an 1113 letter it secures an agreement with the company showing that the company will not seek further cuts from labor. To this date, no company that has had an 1113 letter negotiated has ever asked the court to abrogate it.
Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:
1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.
Levine also noted that bankruptcy is not the preferred course for your contract.
Ask yourself this, the judge in the UA bk case, ruled on an 1113(e) and imposed a paycut on all IAM represented employees, were they allowed self-help? No they were not. So I hope you read and learn.
Levine also went over all the procedures and steps in the bankruptcy codes. One item she covered in depth is the 1113 letter, which refers to the section of code that ensures that a company negotiates with the union before they seek abrogation of the labor agreement. When a company seeks protection, the agreement remains in effect. When a union negotiates an 1113 letter it secures an agreement with the company showing that the company will not seek further cuts from labor. To this date, no company that has had an 1113 letter negotiated has ever asked the court to abrogate it.
Companies that request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:
1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.
Levine also noted that bankruptcy is not the preferred course for your contract.
Ask yourself this, the judge in the UA bk case, ruled on an 1113(e) and imposed a paycut on all IAM represented employees, were they allowed self-help? No they were not. So I hope you read and learn.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/20/2003 5:59:24 PM LavMan wrote:
I know section 1113 very well as I attended a seminar on it given by Sharon Levine, esq. If you know it so well show me where self-help is in 1113, it is not, it is covered in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) in Section 6 negotiations. And the courts have all ready ruled BK code takes precidence over the RLA, and ALPA and US are not in traditional negotiations. And the company will be using 1113 e, just like UA did. .
----------------
[/blockquote]
You need to get a refund on that seminar. ;-)
1. The motion before the court is not invoking Section 1113.
2. Self help is also allowed under the RLA in a *MAJOR* dispute. I personally would consider termination of the pension plan rising to the level of a major dispute, but ALPA has stipulated in its formal objection that the issue is a "minor" dispute.
3. The bankruptcy code does not eliminate the option for self-help. Plenty of cases I could cite. In fact, the threat of a subsequent strike is one of the factors that a BK judge will consider in a Section 1113 motion to reject a CBA.
4. Section 1113(e) is only for temporary relief. You're thinking of Section 1113©.
5. US Airways agreed not to use Section 1113 to amend the pilots contract in a pre-petition agreement, and as you stated, no such agreement has ever been overturned.
6. Again, the motion before the court is not a Section 1113 issue. That is why I believe the judge MUST rule in ALPA's favor.
The law is most certainly not on the side of US Airways on this issue. If the judge rules in management's favor, an appeal is guaranteed.
Andy S.
----------------
On 2/20/2003 5:59:24 PM LavMan wrote:
I know section 1113 very well as I attended a seminar on it given by Sharon Levine, esq. If you know it so well show me where self-help is in 1113, it is not, it is covered in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) in Section 6 negotiations. And the courts have all ready ruled BK code takes precidence over the RLA, and ALPA and US are not in traditional negotiations. And the company will be using 1113 e, just like UA did. .
----------------
[/blockquote]
You need to get a refund on that seminar. ;-)
1. The motion before the court is not invoking Section 1113.
2. Self help is also allowed under the RLA in a *MAJOR* dispute. I personally would consider termination of the pension plan rising to the level of a major dispute, but ALPA has stipulated in its formal objection that the issue is a "minor" dispute.
3. The bankruptcy code does not eliminate the option for self-help. Plenty of cases I could cite. In fact, the threat of a subsequent strike is one of the factors that a BK judge will consider in a Section 1113 motion to reject a CBA.
4. Section 1113(e) is only for temporary relief. You're thinking of Section 1113©.
5. US Airways agreed not to use Section 1113 to amend the pilots contract in a pre-petition agreement, and as you stated, no such agreement has ever been overturned.
6. Again, the motion before the court is not a Section 1113 issue. That is why I believe the judge MUST rule in ALPA's favor.
The law is most certainly not on the side of US Airways on this issue. If the judge rules in management's favor, an appeal is guaranteed.
Andy S.
Slam&Click
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/20/2003 1:59:33 PM chipmunn wrote:
Slam&Click:
With all due respect, if you are going to publicly insult somebody, do you have the courage to honestlyidentify yourself? Personally, I doubt you do.
Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
I do believe that we've had this discussion on this very subject before, Chip. Just because you've chosen to use your nickname and surname does not constitute courage. Most message board users adopt a nom de plume for identification. Given the fact that identity theft is at an all time high, I have chosen the common sense mode of not using my name, and I will continue to use "Slam&Click" as my nom de plume for as long as I am a registered member of this forum. I suppose that we define courage in different ways. I choose to protect my identity and maintain the safety of my family over massaging my ego on a daily basis.
As for publically insulting you, puleez, give me a break. If I had called you an @$$, that would be insulting, however I intimated that you have a large ego, big deal ... what are you going to do to me, make me stand in the corner because I chose to challenge your sources and statements? That is why we participate in this forum: corresponding and opposing view points -- if you are incapable of accepting that, then move on.
----------------
On 2/20/2003 1:59:33 PM chipmunn wrote:
Slam&Click:
With all due respect, if you are going to publicly insult somebody, do you have the courage to honestlyidentify yourself? Personally, I doubt you do.
Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
I do believe that we've had this discussion on this very subject before, Chip. Just because you've chosen to use your nickname and surname does not constitute courage. Most message board users adopt a nom de plume for identification. Given the fact that identity theft is at an all time high, I have chosen the common sense mode of not using my name, and I will continue to use "Slam&Click" as my nom de plume for as long as I am a registered member of this forum. I suppose that we define courage in different ways. I choose to protect my identity and maintain the safety of my family over massaging my ego on a daily basis.
As for publically insulting you, puleez, give me a break. If I had called you an @$$, that would be insulting, however I intimated that you have a large ego, big deal ... what are you going to do to me, make me stand in the corner because I chose to challenge your sources and statements? That is why we participate in this forum: corresponding and opposing view points -- if you are incapable of accepting that, then move on.
That is because you can't seek self help and there will be no section 6 negotiations as the RLA is not the code, they BK code is, and section 6 is the notice the company and the union provide to each other 60 prior to a labor agreement becoming amendable.
And as for ALPA's arguements, it is all in the spin. Anyone with good spin doctors can make you believe anything, but the judge is the one who makes the final determination, and like a certain pilot on this board has said, Judge Mitchell has not turned down one company motion yet.
The PBGC has said to the court to ensure does a detailed financial review of US and does not have the money to pay the $2.1 billion obligation it will go along with the distress termination of the pension.
And as for ALPA's arguements, it is all in the spin. Anyone with good spin doctors can make you believe anything, but the judge is the one who makes the final determination, and like a certain pilot on this board has said, Judge Mitchell has not turned down one company motion yet.
The PBGC has said to the court to ensure does a detailed financial review of US and does not have the money to pay the $2.1 billion obligation it will go along with the distress termination of the pension.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
Lavman,
I did not see anything that would DENY the right to "self-help" in the UA settlement. To my knowledge it wasn't even discussed. I don't know the exact "code" in which it is contained, but I remember plainly that any group upon which a settlement is "imposed" has the right to "self-help". A major issue right now is just what is allowed under "collective bargaining" rules. Even the PBGC, in their statement, indicated that action could not be taken unilaterally by them due to the collective bargaining agreement with ALPA. I believe that ALPA's position on this is that if an agreement is imposed, it nullifies their contract, which would immediately start the section 6 negotiating process. Their argument sounds pretty convincing to me.
I did not see anything that would DENY the right to "self-help" in the UA settlement. To my knowledge it wasn't even discussed. I don't know the exact "code" in which it is contained, but I remember plainly that any group upon which a settlement is "imposed" has the right to "self-help". A major issue right now is just what is allowed under "collective bargaining" rules. Even the PBGC, in their statement, indicated that action could not be taken unilaterally by them due to the collective bargaining agreement with ALPA. I believe that ALPA's position on this is that if an agreement is imposed, it nullifies their contract, which would immediately start the section 6 negotiating process. Their argument sounds pretty convincing to me.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
My guess is, even if Judge Mitchell makes a ruling, it won't be right away. This particular issue could become a precedent setter, and the last thing he wants is to be listed in a bunch of law books for making a crummy decision (especially if it's likely to be appealed). I'll bet he takes all the info from both sides and sets a date, say, april 30th (these types of decisions can take years, not just months for a judge to decide). That would force the company to negotiate with ALPA over a new plan (something they HAVE NOT done, which is also one of the requirements for an imposed settlement). This could solve the entire matter, especially if Dave wants this thing out of chapter 11 by March 31st.
lav man, where is the prohibtion against self-help in section 1113 ?
There is none the law is silent on self-help one way or the other.My friend
saw Ms Levine and she did say you could strike after your contract has
been voided.She said she couldnt remember off hand a case where it
happened.It seems to me if all the unions at UAL were broken for example the IAM would still represent you as an employee,but the employees with their union could strike the carrier the minute the judges
ink is dry.I dont want to get into what benefit you could gain from it or
if you dont like it quit.I was merely referring to the law.In my humble
opinion you maybe right but I dont think so.
There is none the law is silent on self-help one way or the other.My friend
saw Ms Levine and she did say you could strike after your contract has
been voided.She said she couldnt remember off hand a case where it
happened.It seems to me if all the unions at UAL were broken for example the IAM would still represent you as an employee,but the employees with their union could strike the carrier the minute the judges
ink is dry.I dont want to get into what benefit you could gain from it or
if you dont like it quit.I was merely referring to the law.In my humble
opinion you maybe right but I dont think so.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
Lavman,
are you a lawyer that does lavs, or a lavman that does law? Just wanted to clear things up! Also, your assumption that just because a company is in bankruptcy that it is not covered by the RLA is just plain wrong. The airlines and other transportation entities are covered by it in lieu of other labor laws. If the RLA doesn't apply, then other labor laws would, and they are even more accepting of strikes, even allowing such things as wild cat strikes without repercussions. That drivel about NOT falling under the RLA is ludicrous, even in chapter 11.
are you a lawyer that does lavs, or a lavman that does law? Just wanted to clear things up! Also, your assumption that just because a company is in bankruptcy that it is not covered by the RLA is just plain wrong. The airlines and other transportation entities are covered by it in lieu of other labor laws. If the RLA doesn't apply, then other labor laws would, and they are even more accepting of strikes, even allowing such things as wild cat strikes without repercussions. That drivel about NOT falling under the RLA is ludicrous, even in chapter 11.
I bet with Chip banging the "We'll strike, and thus burn the house down" drum, and his recent postings telling everyone to get resumes ready, those higher ups in CCY management are really letting him on inner circle decisions.
Chip, why have you not used your obviously vast resources to come up with a "unique" or "interesting" solution to the pension funding issue?
Chip, why have you not used your obviously vast resources to come up with a "unique" or "interesting" solution to the pension funding issue?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/20/2003 7:58:05 PM wts54 wrote:
lav man, where is the prohibtion against self-help in section 1113 ?
There is none the law is silent on self-help one way or the other.My friend
saw Ms Levine and she did say you could strike after your contract has
been voided.She said she couldnt remember off hand a case where it
happened.It seems to me if all the unions at UAL were broken for example the IAM would still represent you as an employee,but the employees with their union could strike the carrier the minute the judges
ink is dry.I dont want to get into what benefit you could gain from it or
if you dont like it quit.I was merely referring to the law.In my humble
opinion you maybe right but I dont think so.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That is great for your second hand information, but I attended the workshop and then the road show meetings, so I saw it and heard it first hand.
If you have no contract, you are an employee at will and have no right to strike. Self-help is not allowed under bankruptcy, self-help is in the railway labor act. And I saw Mrs Levine at the chairman's conference where she gave us an indepth session on 1113 and 1114.
----------------
On 2/20/2003 7:58:05 PM wts54 wrote:
lav man, where is the prohibtion against self-help in section 1113 ?
There is none the law is silent on self-help one way or the other.My friend
saw Ms Levine and she did say you could strike after your contract has
been voided.She said she couldnt remember off hand a case where it
happened.It seems to me if all the unions at UAL were broken for example the IAM would still represent you as an employee,but the employees with their union could strike the carrier the minute the judges
ink is dry.I dont want to get into what benefit you could gain from it or
if you dont like it quit.I was merely referring to the law.In my humble
opinion you maybe right but I dont think so.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That is great for your second hand information, but I attended the workshop and then the road show meetings, so I saw it and heard it first hand.
If you have no contract, you are an employee at will and have no right to strike. Self-help is not allowed under bankruptcy, self-help is in the railway labor act. And I saw Mrs Levine at the chairman's conference where she gave us an indepth session on 1113 and 1114.
