more IAM fleet service committeemen recommending a ''no'' vote
- Thread starter autofixer
- Start date
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/9/2003 12:30:53 PM Tim Nelson wrote:
Question 3
You suggest that management will break its promise backed up in a binding letter and run back to the judge if we vote no.
Now the facts.
1. No Judge has thrown out an 1113 letter from an airline in chapter 11. Nuff said.
2. But precedents are set so for arguments sake, let's say our current management lies again and convinces the judge to throw the 1113 out.
Now you have a work force that is free to do alot of things and it will present troubles to investors of this company, ie., the investors want signed contracts to protect their intere$t, the last thing they want is a "majorly" pissed off and disgruntled work group that is free to take "legal" self help actions at any time.
How does that protect the investment community?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oh, somebody is in for a rude shock this morning, Tim. http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/20...-pay-cuts_x.htm
I believe that was in response to an 1113(e) motion. In bankruptcy, as has been shown, contracts, letters, and the like are not worth the paper they are printed on if the judge believes they are not in the best interest of the creditors.
As for "self-help" action:
If that happens, the company is free to replace the group taking self help, if I'm reading things correctly. Something to consider.
----------------
On 1/9/2003 12:30:53 PM Tim Nelson wrote:
Question 3
You suggest that management will break its promise backed up in a binding letter and run back to the judge if we vote no.
Now the facts.
1. No Judge has thrown out an 1113 letter from an airline in chapter 11. Nuff said.
2. But precedents are set so for arguments sake, let's say our current management lies again and convinces the judge to throw the 1113 out.
Now you have a work force that is free to do alot of things and it will present troubles to investors of this company, ie., the investors want signed contracts to protect their intere$t, the last thing they want is a "majorly" pissed off and disgruntled work group that is free to take "legal" self help actions at any time.
How does that protect the investment community?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oh, somebody is in for a rude shock this morning, Tim. http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/20...-pay-cuts_x.htm
I believe that was in response to an 1113(e) motion. In bankruptcy, as has been shown, contracts, letters, and the like are not worth the paper they are printed on if the judge believes they are not in the best interest of the creditors.
As for "self-help" action:
If that happens, the company is free to replace the group taking self help, if I'm reading things correctly. Something to consider.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 2,319
Frankly, I'm kind of looking forward to the show. If these TA's are voted down, the respective union attourneys will be doing the carpet dance in BK court. It should be interesting to watch the cart moved back around behind the horse. Then we will see who holds the keys to the doors at U.
A320 Driver
A320 Driver
C
chipmunn
Guest
Biff:[BR][BR]The company and unions have signed the S.1113 letter, but the court doesn't have to honor them. The court has a responsibility to the creditors first and as USADispatcher's union attorney said, "[SPAN class=BodyFont]As far as the 1113 letter. According to our union president all of the Attorneys told their respective unions that the 1113 protection was only good as long as the Company's plan worked. If the plan failed the Judge would have the ability to throw out the 1113 letter and any work rules or scope as he deemed necessary."[BR][BR]A320driver, you're right it will be interesting to see the "tap dancing" by the naysyers if their TA's are not ratified.[BR][BR]Chip [/SPAN]
The judge for United Airlines IAM just threw out the 1113 letter and imposed wage cuts and opened the contract. If you are stupid enough to think this airline has time to negotiate with the IAM any more you are fooling yourself and everyone else. A no vote will result in one of two things, either chapter 7 and you have nothing including no health care as of the day they shut the door, (no Cobra look at National Airlines) or the airline will have the judge remove the 1113 letter as United did and impose what they want, and I guarentee you it will be worse than this. Wake up before it is too late!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/10/2003 9:53:14 AM a320av8r wrote:
UAL's bk judge just threw out 1113 letter Tim!.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ok please tell the whole story. These are temporary cuts! The IAM and United are in negotiations NOW!
----------------
On 1/10/2003 9:53:14 AM a320av8r wrote:
UAL's bk judge just threw out 1113 letter Tim!.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Ok please tell the whole story. These are temporary cuts! The IAM and United are in negotiations NOW!
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 2,319
HELLO TIM????
USADispatcher
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
As far as the 1113 letter. According to our union president all of the Attorneys told their respective unions that the 1113 protection was only good as long as the Company's plan worked. If the plan failed the Judge would have the ability to throw out the 1113 letter and any work rules or scope as he deemed necessary. In a small union you hear more information sometimes.
This is your vote, good luck. The only reason I am adding my two cents is because your vote could mean Chapter 7 and cost all of us our jobs. We were equally pissed at our union and the deal. After our union finally brought back a letter from our attorney who has been through this process, I decided I did not want to vote NO and hurt ourselves by being placed in front of a judge who will make certain the business plan works in the interest of the creditor, not employee. And when the judge does this we are told he normally extracts another pound of our flesh to make certain the plan works. Or the Company files Chapter 7.
By the way, we told our attorney there was no way the Company would file Chapter 7 on 150 Dispatchers. Although he could not answer that question he told us the two alternatives. Both alternatives were worse than accepting the deal in front of us. That actually applies to any size group. We had asked our union what would happen if you turned your deal down, because your deal as ours, sucked. We were told the larger the group the greater the potential for chapter 7 considering RSA's involvement.
Something to think about from a lonely Dispatcher. This is not meant to be argumentative. I am just passing on what our union told us from an attorney.
This is your vote, good luck. The only reason I am adding my two cents is because your vote could mean Chapter 7 and cost all of us our jobs. We were equally pissed at our union and the deal. After our union finally brought back a letter from our attorney who has been through this process, I decided I did not want to vote NO and hurt ourselves by being placed in front of a judge who will make certain the business plan works in the interest of the creditor, not employee. And when the judge does this we are told he normally extracts another pound of our flesh to make certain the plan works. Or the Company files Chapter 7.
By the way, we told our attorney there was no way the Company would file Chapter 7 on 150 Dispatchers. Although he could not answer that question he told us the two alternatives. Both alternatives were worse than accepting the deal in front of us. That actually applies to any size group. We had asked our union what would happen if you turned your deal down, because your deal as ours, sucked. We were told the larger the group the greater the potential for chapter 7 considering RSA's involvement.
Something to think about from a lonely Dispatcher. This is not meant to be argumentative. I am just passing on what our union told us from an attorney.
[P align=center] United Airlines Update[BR]January 10, 2003[/P]
[P align=left]Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Wedoff issued a ruling today accepting United Airlines’ application to impose an emergency, temporary 13 percent wage reduction, retroactive to January 1, 2003, on IAM-represented employees. United Airlines’ Pilots, Flight Attendants, Meteorologists and Dispatchers have previously ratified temporary wage cuts.[BR][BR]Because United Airlines requested the wage reductions be retroactive to January 1, 2003, Judge Wedoff has ordered that from January 10, 2003, to May 1, 2003 IAM-represented employees’ wages will be reduced by 14 percent. This equates to a 13 percent pay reduction from January 1, 2003 to May 1, 2003. Each of the other unions at United will also have additional reductions for the same period as a result of their agreements with United Airlines.[BR][BR]The reductions will be applied to each factor that makes up total hourly pay, including base rates and all individual premiums. [BR][BR]As a result of Judge Wedoff’s ruling, United will withdraw its December 27, 2002 application to reject collective bargaining agreements. However, United has indicated that it will re-submit its application on March 15, 2003 for any union that is unable to negotiate and ratify terms for participation in the long-term recovery plan needed for United to successfully restructure and emerge from bankruptcy.[BR][BR]The wage reductions ordered today will remain in effect until (a) an agreement is negotiated, ratified and approved by the bankruptcy court, or (B) the collective bargaining agreements are terminated by the bankruptcy court, at which time United would be able to impose additional terms on employees.[BR][BR]Separately, negotiations with United Airlines regarding the carrier’s strategy for a long-term restructuring of the airline began this week in Chicago. Discussions took place with representatives from United’s benefits department regarding proposed modifications to our members’ health and welfare benefits.[BR][BR]United also made a presentation to all the unions regarding its vision for a subsidiary airline to compete with low cost carriers. [BR][BR]Discussions with the company will continue next week in Chicago. The membership will be advised of any developments that occur. [/P]
[P align=left]Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Wedoff issued a ruling today accepting United Airlines’ application to impose an emergency, temporary 13 percent wage reduction, retroactive to January 1, 2003, on IAM-represented employees. United Airlines’ Pilots, Flight Attendants, Meteorologists and Dispatchers have previously ratified temporary wage cuts.[BR][BR]Because United Airlines requested the wage reductions be retroactive to January 1, 2003, Judge Wedoff has ordered that from January 10, 2003, to May 1, 2003 IAM-represented employees’ wages will be reduced by 14 percent. This equates to a 13 percent pay reduction from January 1, 2003 to May 1, 2003. Each of the other unions at United will also have additional reductions for the same period as a result of their agreements with United Airlines.[BR][BR]The reductions will be applied to each factor that makes up total hourly pay, including base rates and all individual premiums. [BR][BR]As a result of Judge Wedoff’s ruling, United will withdraw its December 27, 2002 application to reject collective bargaining agreements. However, United has indicated that it will re-submit its application on March 15, 2003 for any union that is unable to negotiate and ratify terms for participation in the long-term recovery plan needed for United to successfully restructure and emerge from bankruptcy.[BR][BR]The wage reductions ordered today will remain in effect until (a) an agreement is negotiated, ratified and approved by the bankruptcy court, or (B) the collective bargaining agreements are terminated by the bankruptcy court, at which time United would be able to impose additional terms on employees.[BR][BR]Separately, negotiations with United Airlines regarding the carrier’s strategy for a long-term restructuring of the airline began this week in Chicago. Discussions took place with representatives from United’s benefits department regarding proposed modifications to our members’ health and welfare benefits.[BR][BR]United also made a presentation to all the unions regarding its vision for a subsidiary airline to compete with low cost carriers. [BR][BR]Discussions with the company will continue next week in Chicago. The membership will be advised of any developments that occur. [/P]
To this date no section 1113 has ever been thrown out AA tried last year against the TWA employees and the judge said no, US has signed 1113 letters including section (E) which would prohibit them from seeking court abrogation of the 1113 letters.
I just came from the voting. can you believe our union refuses to let current DUES paying members have the opportunity to vote on their employment.
These workers were furloughed on sunday and the union refuses to let them vote!!!
These workers were furloughed on sunday and the union refuses to let them vote!!!
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/10/2003 3
25 PM unit4clt wrote:
[P]I just came from the voting. can you believe our union refuses to let current DUES paying members have the opportunity to vote on their employment.[BR] These workers were furloughed on sunday and the union refuses to let them vote!!![BR][BR][BR][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]which union....[BR]i believe that all current employess...active or furlough with the exception of alpa..gets to vote..[BR]that was the response i got from aaa when called to get voting info.[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/10/2003 3
25 PM unit4clt wrote: [P]I just came from the voting. can you believe our union refuses to let current DUES paying members have the opportunity to vote on their employment.[BR] These workers were furloughed on sunday and the union refuses to let them vote!!![BR][BR][BR][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]which union....[BR]i believe that all current employess...active or furlough with the exception of alpa..gets to vote..[BR]that was the response i got from aaa when called to get voting info.[BR][BR]
callgirlcindie
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 0
I am a vol furloughed CWA memeber, I was able to vote
W:EXCH:INVOL
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 171
- Reaction score
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/10/2003 10
18 AM chipmunn wrote:
Biff:
The company and unions have signed the S.1113 letter, but the court doesn't have to honor them. The court has a responsibility to the creditors first and as USADispatcher's union attorney said, "[SPAN class=BodyFont]As far as the 1113 letter. According to our union president all of the Attorneys told their respective unions that the 1113 protection was only good as long as the Company's plan worked. If the plan failed the Judge would have the ability to throw out the 1113 letter and any work rules or scope as he deemed necessary."
A320driver, you're right it will be interesting to see the "tap dancing" by the naysyers if their TA's are not ratified.
Chip [/SPAN]
----------------
[/blockquote]
It will also be interesting to see what kind of "dancing" happens when a good portion of U mainline system goes express.
INVOL
----------------
On 1/10/2003 10
18 AM chipmunn wrote: Biff:
The company and unions have signed the S.1113 letter, but the court doesn't have to honor them. The court has a responsibility to the creditors first and as USADispatcher's union attorney said, "[SPAN class=BodyFont]As far as the 1113 letter. According to our union president all of the Attorneys told their respective unions that the 1113 protection was only good as long as the Company's plan worked. If the plan failed the Judge would have the ability to throw out the 1113 letter and any work rules or scope as he deemed necessary."
A320driver, you're right it will be interesting to see the "tap dancing" by the naysyers if their TA's are not ratified.
Chip [/SPAN]
----------------
[/blockquote]
It will also be interesting to see what kind of "dancing" happens when a good portion of U mainline system goes express.
INVOL
