IAM Paycuts

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/22/2003 5:00:17 PM eolesen wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/21/2003 356 PM ual747mech wrote:

Looks like American hired a bankruptcy attorney.

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

Does everyone who talks to a divorce lawyer file for divorce?...
----------------
[/blockquote]

Hey I'm just messing with our hardheaded friend Bob

 

[wts54]

ual747mech,once a contract is changed by the
company you are free to strike although
it may not be wise nonetheless you are free
to engage in self help at that point.
Ive been reading the us air pilots who
encouraged everyone else to just bend over
and take it are now being bent over themselves
and are talking like they might strike.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/23/2003 9:29:50 AM wts54 wrote:

ual747mech,once a contract is changed by the
company you are free to strike although
it may not be wise nonetheless you are free
to engage in self help at that point.
Ive been reading the us air pilots who
encouraged everyone else to just bend over
and take it are now being bent over themselves
and are talking like they might strike.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Yes, I agree with you that we can strike. But we still have to go through a process before we can. At this time we have to exhaust all the steps of Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code before we can. Look at how long the process was when we were negotiating for a new contract before a threat of strike was even mentioned. If no agreement before the contract becomes amendable we go to the nmb and it's up to them to release the parties, peb might or might not be invoked, another peb might come in and if we turn it down congress might impose the peb decision on us and might not even get to strike at all if congress does that. It took us over two years to get a contract, a lenghty process we can do without. That's why I kinda like Sen. McCain's idea. It will definitely speed things up. He's right the RLA is outdated and needs to be overhauled. The only thing I don't like about that bill is the fact that the arbitrator will either take the company's proposal or the union's proposal, no splitting the difference(in the PEB's case the arbitrator sided mostly with union's proposals). Unlike the PEB though, the arbitrator's decision is final and there's nothing we can do about it. You know what forget that idea.

 

[casual rat]

Does everyone who talks to a divorce lawyer file for divorce?...
----------------

I think that there must be something non-arbitrary going on if they are!

WE'RE PAWNS!
VOTE WITH FEET
GO RAIDERS

 

[wts54]

I wonder if ual will now come after
the pilots pension like they are at u??
seems u wont have much choice but to
do a distress termination.

 

[UnitedChicago]

They very well may...but UA has much more time than U to try and come to a solution as U is on "fast track" emergence.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/23/2003 7:17:14 PM wts54 wrote:

I wonder if ual will now come after
the pilots pension like they are at u??
seems u wont have much choice but to
do a distress termination.
----------------
[/blockquote]

That's a good possibility. Check out this story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

United Airlines, which filed for bankruptcy Dec. 9 and is losing $20 million a day, also may be forced to make some tough decisions about its pension funds. The pension agency is one of United's largest creditors and holds a seat on the unsecured creditors committee.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/22/2003 6:03:14 PM ual747mech wrote:


Hey I'm just messing with our hardheaded friend Bob . I give him all the references in the world but still won't listen. I hope American doesn't file but they seem to be in trouble as well as everybody else in this rotten economy. Damn Bush keeps talkin bout war that's why.... Weren't we in this predicament back in the early to mid 90's with Bush senior? "Yup" I think most of the airlines took paycuts back then too. Oh well.. It's those vote counter's fault who favored Bush in Florida. And I thought those kind of things only happened in third world countries [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]


Hardheaded, well I'd rather be hard-headed than "soft in the head".
Well you just blew your freindship with my coworker from Tulsa when you criticized the Republicans because according to him they can do no wrong.
Its sad that you can remember taking pay cuts in the nineties yet you are willing to step into another 6 years of paycuts. Didnt you learn anything?
Never agree to a long term contract during the bad times. As I said in an earlier post, if things dont get better they can and will come back for more but if things get better you are stuck for the duration with a bad deal. What guarantees can you get by agreeing to a long term contract? The same that you got with the one you agreed to last year?

 

[RV4]

[STRONG]Short Memories are in fashion?[BR][/STRONG][BR]It was William [EM]Zipper[/EM] Clinton and a majority of other Donkeys that were in office while most airline employee concessions happened in the 90's.[BR][BR]I am not blaming them, I am just wondering why with all those labor friendly democrats in office, our leaders didn't make gains to adjust for the previous back slide.[BR][BR]My paycheck is showing and the TWU continues to claim, the biggest pay raise in our history happened with Bush 43 in office. If fact it was the Bush 43, P.E.B. that prohibited a strike, that concluded in the industry's largest financial gain for mechanics. And if it wasn't for that occurance and the Bush Tax cut, your current pay concessions would not still equate to a raise compared to Clinton days.[BR][BR][STRONG]You folks are very good liberals....[BR][BR]"IT IS ALWAYS SOMEBODY ELSES FAULT!!!!"[/STRONG]

 

[RV4]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/21/2003 8:53:07 AM eolesen wrote:[BR][BR]For someone who claims to be as well voiced on union issues as you are, surely you realize the National Labor Relations Board determines representation eligibility issues, and not the NMB or the RLA. The NLRB is the group who determined that Airtran's front-line supervisors were eligible for union representation, and also determined that AA's front line supervisors were not.[BR][BR]Surely you knew that as well, Dave.
[P][/P]
[P align=left]----------------[BR][BR][BR]Eric, who made the determination eligibility regarding the AA Supervisors when they signed Teamster authorization cards in the '90's?[BR][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/24/2003 10:32:58 PM Bob Owens wrote:

[/blockquote]


Hardheaded, well I'd rather be hard-headed than "soft in the head".
Well you just blew your freindship with my coworker from Tulsa when you criticized the Republicans because according to him they can do no wrong.
Its sad that you can remember taking pay cuts in the nineties yet you are willing to step into another 6 years of paycuts. Didnt you learn anything?
Never agree to a long term contract during the bad times. As I said in an earlier post, if things dont get better they can and will come back for more but if things get better you are stuck for the duration with a bad deal. What guarantees can you get by agreeing to a long term contract? The same that you got with the one you agreed to last year?
----------------
[/blockquote]

So how do we stop concession Bob? If you look at history, everyone who resisted concessions ended up getting a far worse deal. In fact, I haven't found anybody who's been able to stop concession when you're dealing with a carrier who's in financial trouble. Unless you're so angry that you would rather see your company fold than give concession, like what happened at Eastern, I suggest you folks follow what your Unions tell you over there at American. In order for the company to convince the Unions, they have to show proof that it is needed. If your company needs the employees help and the Unions says they really do, I say do it because you folks are better off keeping your company out of bankruptcy. I hope that doesn't happen over there. All I'm telling you is you wouldn't want to learn the hard way. I think if we were to do things all over again the majority would rather try to save the company from bankruptcy because bankruptcy creates more paycuts with longer terms, benefit changes and job losses. I'm as angry and bitter as everyone else but I don't want to make it any worse than necessary.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 7:46:03 AM RV4 wrote:

Eric, who made the determination eligibility regarding the AA Supervisors when they signed Teamster authorization cards in the '90's?

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

NMB handled the dispute and rendered the decision, but quoted the NRLB manual when discussing eligibility of supervisors for representation. The recent Airtran decision rendered by the NMB also quoted the NLRB language, and not the NMB's.

Aside from the obvious differences in contract expiration and the mediation process required under the RLA, many of the guidelines surrounding representation are identical between the NLRB and the NMB. That's why you'll see cross references like this one.

Looking at the NMB manual (rev 11/02), they now have identical language defining management. Without a 5 year old copy, I can't say if eligibility was covered to that degree in the NMB's manual, but I'll guess it wasn't. If you want, ask one of your sources to check an older print version to see what the language was in 1997.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 1:32:41 PM ual747mech wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
So how do we stop concession Bob? If you look at history, everyone who resisted concessions ended up getting a far worse deal. In fact, I haven't found anybody who's been able to stop concession when you're dealing with a carrier who's in financial trouble. Unless you're so angry that you would rather see your company fold than give concession, like what happened at Eastern, I suggest you folks follow what your Unions tell you over there at American. In order for the company to convince the Unions, they have to show proof that it is needed. If your company needs the employees help and the Unions says they really do, I say do it because you folks are better off keeping your company out of bankruptcy. I hope that doesn't happen over there. All I'm telling you is you wouldn't want to learn the hard way. I think if we were to do things all over again the majority would rather try to save the company from bankruptcy because bankruptcy creates more paycuts with longer terms, benefit changes and job losses. I'm as angry and bitter as everyone else but I don't want to make it any worse than necessary.




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

Didnt UAL show the need in 94? Things change rapidly in this industry. To agree to six years of concessions would be foolish. If you want to help your company go to work and be as productive as you possibly can. Yea this might enable the company to lay more people off but at least they will have something worth coming back to. Tilton didnt go to UAL to perform a charitable act, he is demanding and getting what he feels he is worth. You hope and expect that he will work hard to make UAL a success. Your attitude should be the same, work hard, but get your price, the price that you bargained and agreed to, just like Tilton is doing. Why should you be willing to give more than him?

 

[ual747mech]

Bob, you make me laugh. First of all, you didn't answer my question. How do we stop concession and tell me who's been able to do it in the past? As far as I can see, nobody's been able to stop concession except the people at Eastern. Look at what they had to sacrifice to do it though.

Look, I don't want to give up any paycuts for any lenght of time but given the alternative we don't have any choice unless management demand an unreasonable changes to our contract then we might have to create war with them like what the IAM did at Eastern.

Look at this article, it tells you how much leverage the Unions got when you're dealing with bankruptcy. Like I said, you can not stop concession when you are dealing with a bankrupt carrier, all you can do is try to minimize it and that's it.


United's unions risk losing it all
January 21, 2003

BY FRANCINE KNOWLES Business Reporter

United Airlines, in the midst of renegotiating long-term concessions with its unions, may attempt to void its contracts if those talks fail--an action that likely would be successful, if history is any guide.

Workers at four of United's five unions earlier this month agreed to interim pay cuts ranging between nine and 29 percent, and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Wedoff ordered the airline's machinists union to take a 14 percent interim wage cut after the union's leaders rejected a company proposal.

The interim cuts by all of the unions will reduce United's operating costs roughly $280 million, or $70 million a month over four months, and temporarily held off lenders from seeking liquidation.

Here's a look at some key bankruptcy cases and how union contracts were affected both before and after passage of Section 1113, which was designed to ensure unions were treated more fairly:

PRE-SECTION 1113

Kevin Steel Products Inc. v. Shopman's Local Union No. 4555

The employer, a steel fabricator, attempted to cut labor costs by making unilateral changes in its collective bargaining agreement. After the union responded by filing unfair labor practice charges, the employer filed under Chapter 11 and sought and received permission to void the contract. The court said contract rejection couldn't be based solely on the debtor's financial condition, but requires thorough scrutiny and a careful balancing of the equities on both sides.

REA Express Inc. v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship Clerks

The freight carrier sought rejection of a pair of collective bargaining agreements guaranteeing supplemental unemployment benefits and restricting the carrier's power to consolidate its operations. The carrier considered these provisions obstacles to reorganization, and successfully sought to void the contract after filing Chapter 11. The court ruled that union contracts could be rejected if that's the only way a debtor can avoid liquidation.

Bildisco and Bildisco v. National Labor Relations Board

The building supplies distributor failed to remit pension and benefit contributions and to comply with other Teamsters union contract obligations. The union filed unfair labor practice charges. Meanwhile, Bildisco filed for Chapter 11, and afterward refused to pay wage increases as they became due under the contract. The company sought and received permission to reject the contract.

The court ruled that before acting on a petition to modify or reject a union contract, the bankruptcy court should be persuaded that reasonable efforts to negotiate a voluntary modification have been made and are not likely to produce a prompt and satisfactory solution. The court also ruled that breaching the contract first and seeking bankruptcy court approval for rejection afterward was allowable.

POST-SECTION 1113

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America

The West Virginia-based steelmaker filed for Chapter 11. It presented a proposal to the union to reduce wages to $15.20 an hour from $21.40 for a five-year period. The union refused, arguing the pay cuts were unnecessary. The company sought and received court approval to void the contract. The court found that the wage cuts would enable the union to successfully reorganize, that all parties were treated fairly, and that the equity favored rejection.

American Provision Co. v. Teamsters Local 638

The company filed Chapter 11 and failed in its effort to have the union contract rejected. The bankruptcy court denied rejection because the company had only met once with the union to discuss the proposal, the projected savings from rejecting the contract only amounted to 2 percent of the company's total monthly expenses and the agreement was due to expire in eight months. The judge said several elements were needed to reject a contract, including making a proposal to the union that contains modifications necessary for successful reorganization, providing the union with complete and reliable information to make a decision, treating all parties fairly and equitably and bargaining in good faith. The court also said a contract could be voided if the union rejected the proposal without good cause.

TWA v. the Association of Flight Attendants

After TWA filed for bankruptcy in 1992, the flight attendants reached agreement to defer wage increases until 1995. In 1994, after determining TWA wouldn't be able to pay scheduled wage increases, flight attendants negotiated a second concessionary contract that remained in place until 1999. In 2001, TWA sought bankruptcy protection again. When it was acquired by American, the union agreed its contract could be changed to mirror American Airline's labor agreements.

Compiled by Francine Knowles

COST CUTTING TO SOLVENCY

United Airlines has won the following interim pay cuts in concessions from its unions. Longer-term concessions are being negotiated or will be imposed.

*Pilots: 29 percent (ratified by workers).

*Flight attendants: 9 percent (ratified by workers).

*Flight dispatchers: 13 percent (ratified by workers),

*Meteorologists: 13 percent (ratified by workers)

*Mechanics/ramp workers/customer-service agents: 14 percent (imposed by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Eugene Wedoff).

Source: United Airlines' unions.

But to win a federal guarantee of desperately needed loans and to emerge from bankruptcy, the carrier is seeking longer-term $2.4 billion in annual labor cost savings, or $200 million a month.

That could be more difficult for the unions to swallow and may ultimately lead the court to trash some or all of United's labor contracts.

Recent changes in bankruptcy law have made it harder for companies in Chapter 11 to abrogate collective bargaining agreements with their employees, but more often than not bankrupt companies still have been able to do just that, labor and legal experts say.

"The law now makes it a little more difficult," said Robert Bruno, an assistant labor professor at the University of Illinois. "You have to show a good faith effort to negotiate. There are additional steps, but it's still a pretty easy thing to do."

Added Lake County-based bankruptcy attorney David Leibowitz, "If the debtor does all the things it is supposed to do, more often than not [companies] are going to be successful."

A study published in the Santa Clara Law Review that looked at every bankruptcy court decision reported between July 1984 and July 1993 in which companies sought to ditch union contracts found that companies were successful 58 percent of the time, or in 22 cases. Denial occurred in 15 cases. The bankruptcy court didn't rule in one case, according to the study, conducted by Christopher Cameron, currently an associate dean and professor of law at Los Angeles-based Southwestern University School of Law.

The survival rate of collective bargaining agreements has improved in bankruptcy proceedings since the enactment of Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code occurred in 1984. Prior to that, between 1975 and 1984, rejections were granted in 36 cases out of 54 studied--67 percent--according to Cameron's research. Denial occurred just under 28 percent of the time, or in 15 cases. The courts didn't rule in three cases.

So the rate of rejection declined about nine percentage points between the pre-and post Section 1113 time periods examined in the study.

Section 1113 was adopted by Congress as a protection for organized labor after decisions in several high profile bankruptcy cases that were deemed an abuse of bankruptcy law and unfair to unions. Among them was Continental Airlines' 1983 bankruptcy filing. After buying Continental, Frank Lorenzo took the company into Chapter 11 when he failed to get concessions from unions. In bankruptcy court, Lorenzo succeeded in voiding the collective bargaining agreements.

For Continental's flight attendants, that led to a 60 percent cut in wages and drastic reductions in vacation, sick and other benefits, according to the Association of Flight Attendants.

Machinists' pay levels were cut 50 percent, significant layoffs occurred, and Continental was able to sub-contract out a lot of work, said Robert Roach, general vice president for transportation with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Pilots took 50 percent pay cuts across the board and were hit with work rule changes, said John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association.

"That was the first time an airline had tried to fly through bankruptcy," Mazor said. "Lorenzo filed bankruptcy with the intent of using that to abrogate union contracts."

Another key case pitted the National Labor Relations Board against building supplies distributor Bildisco and Bildisco . The company was successful in voiding its collective bargaining agreement. Bildisco refused to make pension and benefit contributions, which prompted the Teamsters to file unfair labor practices against the company.

The company filed Chapter 11, and then refused to pay wage increases as they became due. A bankruptcy court granted rejection of the contract, and the case, which landed in the U.S. Supreme Court, led to a ruling that the bankruptcy court could modify or reject a collective bargaining agreement. However, the bankruptcy court could act only if it was persuaded that reasonable efforts to negotiate voluntary modifications weren't likely to produce a prompt and satisfactory solution.

The court also ruled that breaching a union contract first and seeking bankruptcy court approval afterward is allowable.

"All of organized labor was up in arms," Mazor said. "We lobbied for change."

It came in the form of Section 1113. It requires that in order for a contract to be rejected, the debtor must first make a contract proposal that contains changes necessary to reorganize the company and that are fair and equitable to all other affected parties. It also requires that the debtor negotiate in good faith, provide the union with all relevant information necessary to evaluate the proposal, and that a hearing take place.

Section 1113 allows for rejection of a contract if unions reject a proposal without good cause and the balance of the equities favors rejection of the contract.

"This meant that it was no longer a rubber stamp action by the bankruptcy court," said Mazor. "The judges have a set of standards they have to apply," and which can be reviewed for fairness and legality by a higher court.
But labor attorneys note Section 1113 is not as effective as labor interests desired, and they stress that while it provides a process, it still permits contracts to be voided.

A Chicago-area attorney, who didn't want his name used, has handled about a half a dozen bankruptcy cases in the past year. He said in half those cases, employers were successful in getting contracts tossed.

Said U of I labor professor Bruno: "Despite the slight improvement in labor's position, the law doesn't significantly deter companies from petitioning the bankruptcy court or give the court greater incentive or inducement [not to reject contracts].

"That's particularly true when a company is very large, with significant capital, a large number of employees and in an industry where it's playing a large role. United fits all of those. When you add it all together, the law is just a mild barrier on the road to abrogation."

Mazor acknowledges bankruptcies present problems for unions, regardless of Section 1113.

Section 1113 is "not an all encompassing shield," he said. "Labor ends up taking its lumps along with everybody else."

But he said Section 1113 has served as a deterrent in preventing a corporation from filing bankruptcy simply "as a means to rid itself of labor contracts."

 

[Bob Owens]

UAL747mech;
I have to wonder if you in fact are a mechanic at all. At what point would you say no? When Lorenzo just kept coming back for more and more the IAM, under Charlie Bryan finally said enough is enough. We all owe him and his members a debt of gratitude for what they did. They helped stem the rapid decline of our standard of living. After displying such pro-company/anti union rhetoric, in effect blaming the union for the demise of EAL which was inevitable from the day Texas air purchsed them its clear why you hide under an alias. Just because some reporter writes his opinion that does not neccesarily make it fact. The corporate press has been known to be a little one sided. Do you still believe that our press presents us with an unbiased opinion? These papers survive not by the 50cents that you pay for it but from the millions that corporations pay for advertisements. If they can hide corporate propaganda behind a story and call it news, well all the better for building good will with a good customer.The fact is the company and thier courts will do whatever they can get away with. The courts have nearly always ruled in favor of thier corporate benifactors, its only when large groups of people resist do they become honest. If you guys threatened to walk they would change thier tune. Last week we celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. If King had laid down before Judges and courts then Black Americans would still have to sit in the back of the bus. It was the movement of people who were willing to break the law that forced the hand to change the law. Laws or Judgements that are unjust should be resisted. If you feel that the you are overpaid and not worth what you bargained for then the Judge is justified in cutting your pay. If you feel that you are worth the full value of what you negotiated for then you must also feel that what is being done to you is an injustice. The question is not whether or not the judge can do this or that, its what amount of injustice you will tolerate.