IAM Paycuts

[delldude]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/18/2003 12:01:05 PM ual747mech wrote:
[P]I'm not trying to start a controversy. I think Amfa has enough cards. If I was in their shoes I don't think it's a good idea to ask for a representational vote right now. [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P] you guys are stuck with IAM during BK and if you accept an amended contract, for its term.you can vote AMFA in,but they'll be on the outside looking in until your 'amended' contract or BK is up.

 

[ual727fo]

You guys are still whining about paycuts! Pathetic

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/19/2003 1056 AM gatemech wrote:

ual747mech,

Just remember that when they get concessions they will want more. It's never enough. Management will never take the hit we will. United doesn't want to pay for maintenance. Some of it they will have to deal with. Most they can get rid of. Whether we agree to what they want or not they will outsource as much maintenance as they can get away with. I think what you will see in the future is small crews for the terminal at large stations and some crews for overnight service and maybe A & B checks. I also believe Indy, OAK, Jet shop, and most back shops will be gone. Hopefully they will see fit to pay the proper wages for the mechanics when and if they get us out of this mess. The only profitable airline pays their mechanics more than us.

If you give in you will help to destroy the craft of the AMT. This is all a game to rich & powerful people. We are just pieces on a chessboard. Don't give in and stand tall. Just keep doing your job till they hand you your notice. Just never say yes to concessions. Remember that after the next cuts from the courts we will be back to pre 94 wages. That is if they are easy on us. Things can get even worse. I will just keep letting the judge decide. When the wage gets low enough people will leave and never come back. If the other airlines follow then the idea of becoming an aircraft mechanic will die. Some day the airline will pay a premium wage to lure mechanics in. Maybe I'm dreaming. At least when they close the doors or lay me off I will know I didn't just lie down and cave in.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Gatemech, do you have a crystal ball? Can you predict the future? If so, then you're in the wrong field. There's no guarantee that whatever the unions and the company negotiates will be the last concession we will see but why go straight to a bigger paycut because that is what is going to happen if you keep voting it down.

I'll decide on my own whether to accept or reject whatever we will vote on. The unions are right when they say there's a greater impact if the Judge decide to abrogate our contract. Look at what happened at Continental when they got the labor contracts abrogated. Continental imposed 60% wage cuts and drastic benefit changes.

Let's work smart. Don't be a fool. Quit voting "no" because of reasons mentioned by UAL_Tech above. "It's time to dump the bad attitude buddy."

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/19/2003 4:59:13 PM ual727fo wrote:

You guys are still whining about paycuts! Pathetic
----------------
[/blockquote]

Hey be Nice!

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 3:59:39 AM GGpillow wrote:

Bob, sorry, but you need to get a grasp on reality here. Yes we can strike. I don't dispute that. When we do, the DIP financiers will call in their markers and it's buh bye UAL. Everyone with half a brain at this company realizes that. Assuring you a "fair" wage at AA, and for all mech's is indeed a noble cause, and in good times, I could see your point. However, on the brink of ch 7 is not the time to play "I dare ya" cuz the odds are clearly not stacked in our favor. That is the bottom line. Deal with it. I really don't understand your objective here. The reality is, and that you seem oblivious to, is that if any labor group at UA strikes we will "perish". The obvious answer to many here is that you work for AA, who would benefit from UA's death, and, while I can see why people would assume that, they to, are missing the point. If UA dies due to labor strife, AA and all OAL's will institute a crackdown on wages and benefits so quick it will make your head spin. I can hear CAArty now "As evidence by UAL's liquidation, it has become obvious we must make great sacrifices, lest we follow in their footsteps." What union, one month from a UAL ch 7, would strike a company? Our demise would beat down your wages far faster then our continued operation.
----------------
[/blockquote]

The point is not to strike but to hold on to that card. The company is pushing hard for a long term contract set at the worst of times. Why not? They cant lose with a long term contract that guarantees them favorable terms but guarantees you nothing.If you've been in this industry for any length of time then you have seen this before. If you settle for a long term contract and things dont get better the company can and will come back for more, but if the company does well you will be locked into a long term deal that they will not open. You will be told "If you dont like it quit". All this "we are in this together" crap will go right out the window once they start making money. We are only important when they are losing money because airline employees have always been the most reliable source of free capital for the airlines. Seniority, and the hope that things will get better will keep the majority of the workforce from moving. Meanwhile another 6 years of thier lives will have gone by and thier standard of living will have declined.If you try anything the Law will once again support the airlines, you will be told that "you agreed to it". You cant buy judges like the airlines can. What can you offer them other than a clean conscience? Judges are Lawyers, the primary requirement for which is no conscience. I have no doubt that if the IAM did strike over the 13% that it would the end of UAL and be used to push S1327. The flood of thousands of extra workers onto the rolls of the unemployed could embolden other carriers to use the threat of hiring unemployed UAL workers as replacement workers in order to extract concessions from thier workers but to just lie back and get roped into a six year deal when historically airlines go from record losses to record profits in less than three years is just dumb. As long as I've been in this industry its always been feast or famine for the airlines. They exploit the famine times to set labor rates that carry them right through the feasts,in which we never share. We have marginialzed our careers for a false sense of security. Of course you do not want to kill the company but do you want to be a martyr for it or worse a sap who got suckered into a long term contract? In a couple of years when you once again work for a company that is boasting about thier miraculous recovery in the booming economy, and the executives are backslapping each other and gorging on options and bonuses and you are working two jobs in order to get by because you agreed to a long term contract will you just blow it off as a lesson learned again, like in 94 and the eighties? How many times are you going to get burned before you learn to do things differently?

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 1146 AM casual rat wrote:

Bob,Bob,Bob....If a Bankruptcy Judge were to institute wage cuts and work rule changes upon a Union to aid a company during the process, and the Union made noises that striking the company were to be the reaction, don't you think it would be prudent on the part of the Judge to institute a restraining order preventing such action to what the Judge deemed? I think so.
To put it into terms that you might understand (hypothetically of course--no malevolence intended)....If I called you a stupid idiot and hit you over the head with a crescent wrench, I would expect your reaction would be to call me something and hit me back, however; if I knock your ass out cold, then you are restrained from coming back at me. Now do you get it?
I hope AA doesn't go bankrupt, the job market isn't what it used to be. Auto mechanics make $12-$14/hr to start (depending on what the Market bears)....but they do get discounts on cars they can't buy! Maybe if you go back to the AA site and stay there, you can prevent your company from bankruptcy--better hurry!
----------------
[/blockquote]

Well if I knew you were going to hit me then it would be logical that I take some action to protect myself. Using your logic I should just allow you to hit me and hope that you dont hit me that hard.

If the Judge did /could issue a restraining order stopping you from striking how long would it remain in effect? Six years? I doubt it. Your labor is your property. UAL is a for profit corporation, there is no civic liabilty applied to airline workers to provide their labor under terms that they do not accept to a for profit corporation. Your family is not obliged to sacrifice to ensure that creditors are safguarded. I still feel that your union is in on the deal and they have chosen not to legally challenge the judges order, that if the Union were to threaten to strike that he would have no legal grounds to restrain for any considerable length of time the right to strike that the RLA gives to workers once the status quo has been violated. The Judge is perverting the Law and violating the Democratic principles that he is supposed to be enforcing. It is not the Judges perrogative to make laws, just interpret and enforce them. The RLA, a law that has been in place since 1926 says that when the staus quo has been violated you can resort to self help. While the judge can stall things, maybe, he cant change the law.

 

[GGpillow]

Bob, I don't dispute, or disagree, that a 6yr plan is going to far. I think the maine issue I disagree with you on is your "not to strike, but to hold the card" statement. You are advocating a bluff. That's all well and good, however, I have always been of the opinion that, a bluff or a threat is worthless if you have no intention in the world of following thru with it. I do not believe for a second that any Union here at UAL is prepared to follow up with that threat. Hollow threats, at this level of bargaining, are nothing if not amusing to the other negotiating party. Were I the lead negotiator for UAL and say th IAM mentioned the word strike, I would be hard pressed not to laugh in their face. Even more, I bet a good lawyer could use the threat of strike in ch 11 negotiations as a basis for showing the IAM (or whichever union in question) was not negotiating in "Good Faith" and pursue a contract abrogation. The bottom line is that once we filed ch 11 we lost a good imho 90% of our bargaining power.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 2:02:22 AM ual747mech wrote:

Hey Bob! Are you guys going to challenge the pay freeze American is implementing? Are you guys going to strike? "I doubt it". You suggest things that will actually make things worst. The unions here says that there's nothing we can do to stop concession. All we can do is minimize the impact of bankruptcy on our contracts thru negotiations with the company. Management have as much to lose as the Unions. Nobody wants another Eastern. The fact is you don't know what you are talking about. Under what section of the RLA did you say to back up what you are saying? Come on we're all waiting here..
----------------
[/blockquote]

American is implementing a pay freeze? I bet the APFA sure isnt aware of it, they just got a raise on Jan 1. Ours is due March 1. If they ask for a freeze my vote is NO. I still have not fully thawed out from the freeze of the 90s. Your Union says that there is nothing they can do about your pay cuts? Well what have they tried? The reason why they cant do nothing about it is probably because they more than likely agreed to it. The union is the custodian of the contract and they can change the agreement without a vote. Show me where it says that the judge can impose new rates of pay. I've read that he can abrogate the contract but I dont see where he can set new terms. Could he force Shell to sell UAL fuel at a discounted price? Could he force vendors to sell UAL their goods and services at below cost? Could he force passengers to pay more for their tickets? So where in the law does it say that he can force you to work for less? Sure he can say this and if it goes unchallenged then he got away with it. Thats why I beleive that your union is in on the deal. The fact is you are covered under the RLA. Has the IAM appealed to the NMB to inform them that a major dispute exists? The company writes the checks. They solicted the judge to change the rates of pay. The website nmbfacts.org has a flowchart. On that chart there are blocks. The first block is;"Bargaining Relationship Established". The next is;"Bargaining Proposals Exchanged", next "Direct Bargaining". From here there are 4 paths. 1; Full Agreement, 2; Interest Arbitration, 3;"Conference Terminated without mediation request and 4;NMB Mediation Invoked by either party or the NMB. Right now you are on the "Conference terminated without mediation" the next block says "Self Help Permissable".With the approval of the judge the company has resorted to self help by imposing new rates of pay. Has the IAM appealed to the NMB?Why would the IAM simply resign themselves to the jurisdiction of the BK court and not try thier luck with the NMB? The whole basis of the RLA is that the status quo is maintained. Even though UAL is in C-11 they and you are still bound under the RLA.When the Judge authorized the change in the rates of pay and UAL implemented them they abrogated the contract. That is unless of course the IAM agreed to the cuts so long as other provisions, such as "checkoff" remain in place.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/19/2003 9:03:32 PM Bob Owens wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
I still have not fully thawed out from the freeze of the 90s. ----------------
[/blockquote]

So did you guyz strike when they froze your wages at American in the early or mid 90s? "No" huh? Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. I think you better worry about what's going on over there at your company. Looks like you guyz got your own set of problems over there.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/19/2003 8:28:48 PM GGpillow wrote:

Bob, I don't dispute, or disagree, that a 6yr plan is going to far. I think the maine issue I disagree with you on is your "not to strike, but to hold the card" statement. You are advocating a bluff. That's all well and good, however, I have always been of the opinion that, a bluff or a threat is worthless if you have no intention in the world of following thru with it. I do not believe for a second that any Union here at UAL is prepared to follow up with that threat. Hollow threats, at this level of bargaining, are nothing if not amusing to the other negotiating party. Were I the lead negotiator for UAL and say th IAM mentioned the word strike, I would be hard pressed not to laugh in their face. Even more, I bet a good lawyer could use the threat of strike in ch 11 negotiations as a basis for showing the IAM (or whichever union in question) was not negotiating in "Good Faith" and pursue a contract abrogation. The bottom line is that once we filed ch 11 we lost a good imho 90% of our bargaining power.
----------------
[/blockquote]
What do you consider "good faith bargaining"? The company is saying that they want huge concessions that will last much longer than the period of distress that the company is now in. The fact that the union did not walk out when the cut was imposed showed more than good faith bargaining, it showed aquiescence while the company violated the agreement. Just because the company is hurting and is in C-11 it does not mean that whatever they ask for is reasonable. Six years is completely unreasonable. Just keeping things exactly as they are, with the option of engaging in self help immediately should the company's finances improve beats entering into a long term agreement that is only binding upon you. Its not a bluff, its having an Ace, your opponent knows you have it, and not giving it up. The company is violating your agreement, you know it, they know it and you can act upon it at any time, a time when you choose to, not the NMB, not Bush, not Congress. If the company does anything, the union can strike. Why give that up for a contract that is even less binding towards the company than the one they are presently violating?
If things get worse for the company the six year agreement, or any other agreement, will not protect you. They will use the same threats to come back for more. All that a new contract can do is hold you back if things get better.

If you prefer to think of it as a bluff then consider this. You may not be prepared to act upon it now but if things improve in a year or so will you be prepared to fight then? If you sign a long term agreement now you will have forfieted that right for the term of the contract.

 

[aircraft_artificer]

I see much banter to pros and cons of what is happening to the mechs at UAL as well as other airlines. The question to those that advocate this course of action would simply be "What is in it for those that sacrifice when times get good again?" Of all the proposals and actions is there a single one that rewards those for giving when times get better? The fact is it is not only the same but actually worse than the pay scams of the late eighties and early nineties. If management now wants 15% from the workers they should be willing to give at least 25% themselves with guarantees that if(when) times get better those on the lower level get for what they have given FIRST. This is not happening so therefore I as well as many of my peers say "shove it". I will now take full advantage of lay off and go to school to leave the industry as well as recommend that anyone interested go elsewhere. Gods speed on your next "outsourced maint. flight" and good luck.

 

[ualdriver]

Just keep in mind that as you read Bob Owens posts, he is an American Airlines employee and stands to benefit, both directly and indirectly, from a Chapter 7 liquidation or a weaker United Airlines.

 

[ual06]

Bob, BobBob, Bob Bob, Bob.. Everyone on this board knows why you post in the manner you do. Why do you waste your valuable time? AA, your airline, needs your help. Seems as though you need to sing -


Sung to the tune of "Old McDonald Had A Farm":

Me MeMe Me Me Me
Me Me Me Me Me
Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me
Me Me Me Me Me
With a Me Me Here and a Me Me there
Here a Me there a Me
Everywhere A Me Me
Me MeMe Me Me Me
Me Me Me Me Me

 

[ual06]

One question. What Union represents "Management" employees"?

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/19/2003 9:03:32 PM Bob Owens wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
Your Union says that there is nothing they can do about your pay cuts? Well what have they tried? The reason why they cant do nothing about it is probably because they more than likely agreed to it. The union is the custodian of the contract and they can change the agreement without a vote. Show me where it says that the judge can impose new rates of pay. I've read that he can abrogate the contract but I dont see where he can set new terms. Could he force Shell to sell UAL fuel at a discounted price? Could he force vendors to sell UAL their goods and services at below cost? Could he force passengers to pay more for their tickets? So where in the law does it say that he can force you to work for less? Sure he can say this and if it goes unchallenged then he got away with it. Thats why I beleive that your union is in on the deal. The fact is you are covered under the RLA. Has the IAM appealed to the NMB to inform them that a major dispute exists? The company writes the checks. They solicted the judge to change the rates of pay. The website nmbfacts.org has a flowchart. On that chart there are blocks. The first block is;"Bargaining Relationship Established". The next is;"Bargaining Proposals Exchanged", next "Direct Bargaining". From here there are 4 paths. 1; Full Agreement, 2; Interest Arbitration, 3;"Conference Terminated without mediation request and 4;NMB Mediation Invoked by either party or the NMB. Right now you are on the "Conference terminated without mediation" the next block says "Self Help Permissable".With the approval of the judge the company has resorted to self help by imposing new rates of pay. Has the IAM appealed to the NMB?Why would the IAM simply resign themselves to the jurisdiction of the BK court and not try thier luck with the NMB? The whole basis of the RLA is that the status quo is maintained. Even though UAL is in C-11 they and you are still bound under the RLA.When the Judge authorized the change in the rates of pay and UAL implemented them they abrogated the contract. That is unless of course the IAM agreed to the cuts so long as other provisions, such as "checkoff" remain in place.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. What you are quoting above has nothing to do with bankruptcy. It is what the union and the company follows for negotiating a new contract after it becomes amendable. What the unions and the company are following right now is under this guideline.


Sec. 1113. Rejection of collective bargaining agreements

-STATUTE-
(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.

-SOURCE-
(Added Pub. L. 98-353, title III, Sec. 541(a), July 10, 1984, 98
Stat. 390.)

-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
The Railway Labor Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is act May 20,
1926, ch. 347, 44 Stat. 577, as amended. Title I of the Railway
Labor Act is classified principally to subchapter I (Sec. 151 et
seq.) of chapter 8 of Title 45, Railroads. For complete
classification of this Act to the Code, see section 151 of Title 45
and Tables.



You asked to show you where it says the judge can impose a new wage rates. Look at paragraph(e). Btw the only time we can strike is after the contract gets rejected.

If the rejection of a labor Contract is approved, it leads to the debtor’s implementation of its last offer to the Union. The Union then has the right to strike.