IAM Mechanic & related 3/7-3-14

[av60]

Who else is there?

Dewey, Cheatem, Enhow

 

[700UW]

They didnt threaten chapter 11, they filed, they were in it and used section 1113 to abrogate the CBA.

 

[700UW]

Never met Tom.

How can we ever forget, "chapter 11 gun to the membership's head and the judge abrogated and the membership ratified the final offer.", despite "industry leading contract", "scope", "strength in numbers"?

Since the NC never reached and agreement with US (they couldn't do thier job), why don't they return thier paychecks for that period? Were they not paid to negociate and return to the membership with advice be it yes/no?

Why is it always the judge, company, or the membership?

The NC did do their job, a full comprehensive proposal from the NC was given to the company, the company refused it, just like they refused everything the NC from M&R and Fleet gave to the company.

Were you there? I was!

 

[Planemx]

They didnt threaten chapter 11, they filed, they were in it and used section 1113 to abrogate the CBA.

Company in chapter 11 + judge voiding a CBA + final offer from Company + iam NC = members getting a deal they didn't want by the representation that 'could do nothing about it'. The company got what they wanted, the iam got what they wanted - not the members, the iam. Smells like a backrrom deal.....and everybody comes out squeaky clean - except the members who were just short of being violated. Thanks 700 for setting the record straight.

 

[700UW]

You are making things up.

There was no backroom deal, the IAM did not get what they want.

The IAM could never agree to a TA with the company that eliminated 50% of the jobs.

Dont put words into my posts.

 

[Tim Nelson]

They didnt threaten chapter 11, they filed, they were in it and used section 1113 to abrogate the CBA.

700, when the IAM and its negotiators explained the first concession back in August of 2002, didn't Sharon Levine and the IAM tell the members that the 1113 letters would protect them from future concessions in bankruptcy? How was it possible that the company used section 1113 to then abrogate?

How many Local Chairman and negotiators bought that lie about the 1113 letters? Were you on that negotiations team?

regards,

Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[Planemx]

You are making things up.

There was no backroom deal, the IAM did not get what they want.

The IAM could never agree to a TA with the company that eliminated 50% of the jobs.

Dont put words into my posts.

No backroom deals? I don't buy that for a second. Give up 50% of the jobs or lose 100%....hmmmmm., tough call I imagine. I don't like the 'greasy' way that you project the iam always coming out being the 'good guy'. The union is in this for the union - how many pages of the current CBA can you read before you throw up?

 

[700UW]

Nope I was not on the first bankrupcty NC.

There was no backroom deal, the judge abrogated and the company threw a final offer on the table, the membership ratified so everyone is stuck with it for the time being.

a)
The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by title I of the Railway Labor Act, may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(B)

(1)

Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section ''trustee'' shall include a debtor in possession), shall -

(A)

make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably; and

(B)

provide, subject to subsection (d)(3), the representative of the employees with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.

(2)

During the period beginning on the date of the making of a proposal provided for in paragraph (1) and ending on the date of the hearing provided for in subsection (d)(1), the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement.

©

The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that -

(1)

the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1);

(2)

the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and

(3)

the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.

(d)

(1)

Upon the filing of an application for rejection the court shall schedule a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days after the date of the filing of such application. All interested parties may appear and be heard at such hearing. Adequate notice shall be provided to such parties at least ten days before the date of such hearing. The court may extend the time for the commencement of such hearing for a period not exceeding seven days where the circumstances of the case, and the interests of justice require such extension, or for additional periods of time to which the trustee and representative agree.

(2)

The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing. In the interests of justice, the court may extend such time for ruling for such additional period as the trustee and the employees' representative may agree to. If the court does not rule on such application within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing, or within such additional time as the trustee and the employees' representative may agree to, the trustee may terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pending the ruling of the court on such application.

(3)

The court may enter such protective orders, consistent with the need of the authorized representative of the employee to evaluate the trustee's proposal and the application for rejection, as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of information provided to such representative where such disclosure could compromise the position of the debtor with respect to its competitors in the industry in which it is engaged.

(e)

If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor's business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.

(f)

No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section.

 

[av60]

The NC did do their job, a full comprehensive proposal from the NC was given to the company, the company refused it, just like they refused everything the NC from M&R and Fleet gave to the company.

Were you there? I was!

Did the NC negociate and recomend or not?
Or did they only negociate, with no recomendation?
Did they or did they not RECOMEND to the membership (MEMBERSHIP THAT PAID THEM) how to vote?
Or did they fail at their assigned task and let the membership vote without a recomendation? If that is the case then the membership was cheated for what they paid for.

 

[av60]

700, when the IAM and its negotiators explained the first concession back in August of 2002, didn't Sharon Levine and the IAM tell the members that the 1113 letters would protect them from future concessions in bankruptcy? How was it possible that the company used section 1113 to then abrogate?

How many Local Chairman and negotiators bought that lie about the 1113 letters? Were you on that negotiations team?

regards,

Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

Now hey tim
I enjoy the banter with R but don't go stirring our pot, keep to bs ing your own.
The 1113 letters only meant that it would keep us from further harm during BK1 and everyone was made aware of it.
BK2 all agreements were off.
Go back to your precious fleet thread with this thought in mind "stike in 1992" thanks for all the support.
But hey at least you got your union job!!!!!!
Aren't you a "U" employee?
Do any "U" M&R still work in ORD?
Isn't all the M&R in ORD West?
Again thanks for the support!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Planemx]

After seeing a display of Hemmingway's complete and total hatred and disgust for working people, and knowing how the IAM operates, I say we skip this foreplay and grease up and brace ourselves for the 2009 full on negotiations.

Oh yeah, the highlight sheet..........I'm all warm and fuzzy over that.

Seriously though, what on earth could we get out of a "cost neutral" negotiation? It's just moving the same cookies around the table. We get nothing. In fact some will lose to "even" things up across the board. So remember: if you "get" something, you more than likely also "lost" something. If you didn't lose anything, good for you, but somebody else in the rank and file did.

The company does not want the West in the current East contract...that is why they are at the table. The company wants to transition the members (read as remove CIC language) and extend the concessions for 3 yrs before it is amendable which would take another 2-3 yrs to neg. with this union....

While this merger may not be a CIC - you can bet your sweet a$$ that the next one will be and that language will cost them the game.

 

[skinvalve]

The WEST contract does not have a profit shaing provision yet they will reap a larger portion of the money per person than those of us on the EAST. The EAST contract does have a heavy maintenance provision, in house work, yet how many AWA (WEST) aircraft have been sent to PIT or CLT for heavy maintenance? ZILCH. This is the second year of this crap and all you mutt's can #### about is 1113, and bankruptcy, and YOU voted for this, etc. CRAP CRAP CRAP. Wake the mother f'er up! We are taking it up every orifice and then some. Okay I'll go to bed now.

 

[fanlube]

The WEST contract does not have a profit shaing provision yet they will reap a larger portion of the money per person than those of us on the EAST. The EAST contract does have a heavy maintenance provision, in house work, yet how many AWA (WEST) aircraft have been sent to PIT or CLT for heavy maintenance? ZILCH. This is the second year of this crap and all you mutt's can #### about is 1113, and bankruptcy, and YOU voted for this, etc. CRAP CRAP CRAP. Wake the mother f'er up! We are taking it up every orifice and then some. Okay I'll go to bed now.

Maybe someone who works in CLT heavy can answer but I beleive there are/have been some West 737 work done in the hanger. And if there has been 737 from the West brought in why hasn't the IAM been screaming to have the West Airbus brought in, just a question.

 

[MerlinMagician]

Maybe someone who works in CLT heavy can answer but I beleive there are/have been some West 737 work done in the hanger. And if there has been 737 from the West brought in why hasn't the IAM been screaming to have the West Airbus brought in, just a question.

In PIT they are working on I think the 4th West Airbus bridge check. The bridge check is to bring the West airbus in line with the current East Mtc program. They run around 2-3 week checks. Also they have done many 757 c-checks that the company is allowed to farm out but have brought them to PIT heavy. No screaming needed. Fanlube I don't no where you work but a simple phone call will bring you up to speed as to whats being done and where.For that matter check DECS and see for yourself. As of today looks like CLT is pretty busy with work. Is every Airbus from the West being worked on by the East? No but it's a start.

 

[700UW]

Did the NC negociate and recomend or not?
Or did they only negociate, with no recomendation?
Did they or did they not RECOMEND to the membership (MEMBERSHIP THAT PAID THEM) how to vote?
Or did they fail at their assigned task and let the membership vote without a recomendation? If that is the case then the membership was cheated for what they paid for.

The final offer was explained to anyone at the ratification meetings, the NC did not give a reccomendation as it was not a TA, the membership was told to vote how they felt.

The IAM cannot insist the west planes be brought in-house yet as the West is still covered under the TWU/HP CBA.