Mechanics Have Reason To Be Upset

[j7915]

----------------
On 5/15/2003 8:36:06 PM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------

On 5/13/2003 5:51:30 AM RV4 wrote:



What is the status of the New York lawsuit over the illegal ratification of the mechanic agreement?


----------------​

We notified the court that we are going forward.


Waiting on the date.

----------------​

Just what are you trying to accomplish?

If the court does agree with you there may be a re-vote. Then what? If it is yes, what has changed? If the vote turns out no, then the company can file for BK as proposed, or the court could vacate only the contract of those who reject it at this late date.

As I see it right now, it will make the creditors nervous, and will satisfy some egos, neither will pay the bills, either the companies or the employees.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/16/2003 2:29:28 AM j7915 wrote:


Just what are you trying to accomplish?

If the court does agree with you there may be a re-vote. Then what? If it is yes, what has changed? If the vote turns out no, then the company can file for BK as proposed, or the court could vacate only the contract of those who reject it at this late date.

As I see it right now, it will make the creditors nervous, and will satisfy some egos, neither will pay the bills, either the companies or the employees.




----------------​

Why if the court agrees, that could open the door to getting the AMFA to represent the mechanics that remain at what is left of AA. And that spells "victory", even if the "death toll" is inordinatly high.

 

[RV4]

What if the vote is NO?

Regardless, the law is law, the Constitution is the Constitution, and the By-Laws are the By-Laws!

Maybe you should review why the LMRDA was past into law to begin with...


Declaration of Findings, Purposes, and Policy
(29 U.S.C. 401)

SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds that, in the public interest, it continues to be the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect employees' rights to organize, choose their own representatives, bargain collectively, and otherwise engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection; that the relations between employers and labor organizations and the millions of workers they represent have a substantial impact on the commerce of the Nation; and that in order to accomplish the objective of a free flow of commerce it is essential that labor organizations, employers, and their officials adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in administering the affairs of their organizations, particularly as they affect labor-management relations.
(B) The Congress further finds, from recent investigations in the labor and management fields, that there have been a number of instances of breach of trust, corruption, disregard of the rights of individual employees, and other failures to observe high standards of responsibility and ethical conduct which require further and supplementary legislation that will afford necessary protection of the rights and interests of employees and the public generally as they relate to the activities of labor organizations, employers, labor relations consultants, and their officers and representatives.
© The Congress, therefore, further finds and declares that the enactment of this Act is necessary to eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of labor organizations, employers, labor relations consultants, and their officers and representatives which distort and defeat the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, and the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and have the tendency or necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (1) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (2) occurring in the current of commerce; (3) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods into or from the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (4) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing into or from the channels of commerce.

 

[RV4]

SEC. 201. (a) Every labor organization shall adopt a constitution and bylaws and shall file a copy thereof with the Secretary, together with a report, signed by its president and secretary or corresponding principal officers, containing the following information-
(1) the name of the labor organization, its mailing address, and any other address at which it maintains its principal office or at which it keeps the records referred to in this title;
(2) the name and title of each of its officers;
(3) the initiation fee or fees required from a new or transferred member and fees for work permits required by the reporting labor organization;
(4) the regular dues or fees or other periodic payments required to remain a member of the reporting labor organization; and
(5) detailed statements, or references to specific provisions of documents filed under this subsection which contain such statements, showing the provisions made and procedures followed with respect to each of the following: (A) qualifications for or restrictions on membership, (B) levying of assessments, © participation in insurance or other benefit plans, (D) authorization for disbursement of funds of the labor organization, (E) audit of financial transactions of the labor organization, (F) the calling of regular and special meetings, (G) the selection of officers and stewards and of any representatives to other bodies composed of labor organizations' representatives, with a specific statement of the manner in which each officer was elected, appointed, or otherwise selected, (H) discipline or removal of officers or agents for breaches of their trust, (I) imposition of fines, suspensions, and expulsions of members, including the grounds for such action and any provision made for notice, hearing, judgment on the evidence, and appeal procedures, (J) authorization for bargaining demands, (K) ratification of contract terms, (L) authorization for strikes, and (M) issuance of work permits. Any change in the information required by this subsection shall be reported to the Secretary at the time the reporting labor organization files with the Secretary the annual financial report required by subsection (B).
(B) Every labor organization shall file annually with the Secretary a financial report signed by its president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers containing the following information in such detail as may be necessary accurately to disclose its financial condition and operations for its preceding fiscal year-
(1) assets and liabilities at the beginning and end of the fiscal year;
(2) receipts of any kind and the sources thereof,
(3) salary, allowances, and other direct or indirect disbursements (including reimbursed expenses) to each officer and also to each employee who, during such fiscal year, received more than $10,000 in the aggregate from such labor organization and any other labor organization affiliated with it or with which it is affiliated, or which is affiliated with the same national or international labor organization;
(4) direct and indirect loans made to any officer, employee, or member, which aggregated more than $250 during the fiscal year, together with a statement of the purpose, security, if any, and arrangements for repayment;
(5) direct and indirect loans to any business enterprise, together with a statement of the purpose, security, if any, and arrangements for repayment; and
(6) other disbursements made by it including the purposes thereof, all in such categories as the Secretary may prescribe.
© Every labor organization required to submit a report under this title shall make available the information required to be contained in such report to all of its members, and every such labor organization and its officers shall be under a duty enforceable at the suit of any member of such organization in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in the district court of the United States for the district in which such labor organization maintains its principal office, to permit such member for just cause to examine any books, records, and accounts necessary to verify such report. The court in such action may, in its discretion, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.
(d) Subsections (f), (g), and (h) of section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, are hereby repealed.
(e) Clause (i) of section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, is amended by striking out the following: "and has at the time the agreement was made or within the preceding twelve months received from the Board a notice of compliance

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 5/16/2003 2:29:28 AM j7915 wrote:

Just what are you trying to accomplish?

We want it done right. We hope that when this is brought back to a new vote, one that is a fair vote not so easily subject to tampering, it will be rejected and we will revert to our old contract.

If the court does agree with you there may be a re-vote. Then what? If it is yes, what has changed? If the vote turns out no, then the company can file for BK as proposed, or the court could vacate only the contract of those who reject it at this late date.

If after a fair vote, where all members are allowed to exercise their right to vote and it is voted Yes then we will have to accept that. If it turns out to be a NO the company may declare BK. So what? UAL and USAIR went through BK, they were in worse shape than us yet they (their mechanics) came out of it better than we did. Time is on our side, the fare increase stuck, Iraq calmed down, fuel came down, the government granted relief on cockpit door mods and security fees, and bookings are up. A lot could change in the next few weeks. Why not keep our options open?

An added bonus to rejection is the system protection would revert back to March 1 2001. That would put a stop to the mess that the company has created with the juniority lists and the bump and rolls.

Yea the court could vacate the contract and we can utilize self help, and our guys would, with or without the International.

As I see it right now, it will make the creditors nervous, and will satisfy some egos, neither will pay the bills, either the companies or the employees.

Where do you live? The present deal will not pay the bills either, and we are stuck with it for 5 1/2 more years.




----------------​

 

[RV4]

5850 Total Signed Election Authorization Cards

 

[Buck]

I care!

 

[twaokc]

RV4


Who cares??????????????

 

[1AA]

I CARE!!!

 

[F4ams]

I care!!!

 

[RV4]

I Care!!!!

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 5/9/2003 203 AM j7915 wrote:

----------------

Bob , please explain how MRTC is a conspiracy to screw the unions? It eliminated some seats that were going empty most of the time, remember the low load factors? It probably eliminated empty middle seats in exchange for more legroom.

I did not say that MRTC was a conspiracy to screw the unions however it did turn out to that the program overstates our costs per ASM. By eliminating the amount of seats available it drives up the costs per seat. This was in turn used as part of the arguement that our labor costs were higher than some competitors.

Do you really believe that AA will run itself into the ground to screw the unions? That means loosing market share and revenue. An individual owner may do that, but I seriously doubt that the institutional investors in AMR will tolerate that, they may not like unions, but the like their equity more. They also probably benchmark airlines against SWA, just like the most airline's management does and SWA is almost completely unionized.

Institutional investors do not meddle into the affairs of companies as much as you seem to believe, except perhaps in bankruptcy. Remember Enron? Institutional investors did nothing to stop that disaster.

Would AA run itself into the ground? Well past incidences says Yes, the company would make radical moves to gain more leverage over its Unions. Remember the APA Reno incident? The company was flat out wrong but they did it anyway. Remember the APFA strike? AA flew the Airplanes empty. In both cases the company lost more money than they would have if they had just paid them what they wanted. In March of 2001 the company cancelled all flights in or out of JFK for 24 hours in order to try and get a restraining order on its mechanics. Even the Judge was amazed. In this industry every surge in profits has followed record losses. In this industry it sometimes pays to lose money.

When did American and United change their names? If you want to go back to where I think you are going, then why have so many other companies changed their names?

AA and UA changed their names after the Federal government banned them from ever doing business with the government again following a scandal where they ripped of the government back in the 1930s.

As to exploiting the deaths, I would be more outraged at the write offs, and extraordinary income entries in finance books when the insurance pays for a hull loss that also involves fatalities. That could be called callous and calculating, but is a fact of life. You are working in a low yield industry, that happens to be almost a public utility, or so it is claimed when the planes don't fly. So let the greater community help us out when we are in trouble, not entirely thru our own fault.

Are you in the Insurance business?
They exploited the deaths of the victims of Sept 11 to get long term concessions from their workers and to get the government to pay for security changes that they successfully lobbied against for years.

I remember the statement. It was based on the fact that Braniff was trying to raise cash flow desperately, but was also killing AA in the process. But then NWA is notorious for trying to beggar its neighbors, and hoping to have a few more pennies left then everyone else. With all the contracting out NWA may just succeed.

The fact is that our laws greatly promote the interests of business at the peoples expense. One example is Goodwill. The company increased its losses by nearly 30% above actual by writing off $988 million dollars in "Goodwill". However despite the fact that the laws favor the interests of business the airlines frequently still can not stay on the right side. What AA did was illegal. The call was made to Continental not Branniff.

As far as NWA contracting out it appears that our strategy is to work for less to avoid contracting out. This is the type of thinking that Unions have struggled against since the very beginning. At what point do we say "No, that rate is unacceptable and if you feel that you can replace all of us at once then go ahead and try"?

----------------​

 

[RV4]

FWAAA,
It also gets real tiring when someone like yourself turns a thread into a debate that doesn't match the topic!

Go ahead and defend poor management decisions all you want! Fact is, there are over 20 years of documented employee concessions at AA on the record and we somehow still find ourselves in this situtation? Why is that?

Concessions from Labor do not appear to be the answer!

 

[FWAAA]

The call was to Braniff, not Continental.

You know, it''s enjoyable to debate ideas. It gets tiring when one side is a little short on the facts. Having to constantly prove facts to you (rather than to debate ideas and opinions) in the middle of discussions makes me wish you brought more to the table.

You keep harping on the goodwill writeoff. How did that writeoff affect the negative cash flow that was, until last month, threatening AA''s survival??

It has nothing to do with the current financial crisis. It represents an accounting write-off of what was never a valuable asset. Did the writedowns of the F-100s, ATR42s and SAABs have a detrimental impact on the company''s finances? No, for the same reason.

AA''s CASM would suck whether MRTC existed or not. Add back 7% more coach seats and do the calculation. CASM is an artificial construct that really doesn''t tell the true picture. There are several other measurements that give a more clear view that AA''s costs were too damn high. Not too damn high in 1998, nor in 1999, nor in 2000. But they were too damn high for 2002 and 2003, and harping about goodwill writedowns and MRTC somehow worsening the picture is ignoring reality.

UAL has laid off lots and lots and lots of Mechanics (not to mention lots of flight crews and other workers). Did they run UAL into the ground so they could fire those workers and send maintenance overseas?

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 5/17/2003 918 AM FWAAA wrote:

The call was to Braniff, not Continental.

You're right, it was Braniff, the point is not changed. What Crandall did was illegal.

You know, it's enjoyable to debate ideas. It gets tiring when one side is a little short on the facts. Having to constantly prove facts to you (rather than to debate ideas and opinions) in the middle of discussions makes me wish you brought more to the table.

What more would you like?

You keep harping on the goodwill writeoff. How did that writeoff affect the negative cash flow that was, until last month, threatening AA's survival??

Dealing with negative cash flows are part of the challenge of being a manager. They should have been better prepared and dont dwell on 9-11, they got plenty of handouts from the government to cover that. If 9-11 had happened in 1998 it would not have put the industry in the condition it claims to be in now. The fact is the airlines managed their affairs poorly in the 90s. They spent recklessly while paying their employees poorly. They knew the bill was due and they did not prepare for it.

What that write off did was project an unaccurate picture of the companies losses. It overstated actual losses by nearly a third. These losses were used to fool some employees into agreeing to long term concessions. We saw a similar stunt in the early 90s when the airlines used a recently approved accounting gimmick to exaggerate losses and win long term concessionary contracts then.

It has nothing to do with the current financial crisis. It represents an accounting write-off of what was never a valuable asset. Did the writedowns of the F-100s, ATR42s and SAABs have a detrimental impact on the company's finances? No, for the same reason.

AA's CASM would suck whether MRTC existed or not. Add back 7% more coach seats and do the calculation. CASM is an artificial construct that really doesn't tell the true picture. There are several other measurements that give a more clear view that AA's costs were too damn high. Not too damn high in 1998, nor in 1999, nor in 2000. But they were too damn high for 2002 and 2003, and harping about goodwill writedowns and MRTC somehow worsening the picture is ignoring reality.

The reality is things are not good, but things are likely not as bad as the airlines claim either. What is a good CASM? How does that figure compare to other forms of transportation? Are the current numbers more or less than in the past? The selling point of air travel should be that its safe and saves time are airline workers obliged to insure that its cheaper also?

UAL has laid off lots and lots and lots of Mechanics (not to mention lots of flight crews and other workers). Did they run UAL into the ground so they could fire those workers and send maintenance overseas?

They ran it into the ground with their insatiable greed and incompetance. Traits that have been epidemic among the executives of this industry.

----------------​