More Pain, Less Pay For Us Airways Employees

[Bear96]

If an employee does not like the potential 23% pay cut then you should complain to your union.

[post="187134"][/post]​

Why is that? I thought the mantra was that unions shouldn't stand in the way of management because they'll just get it in the courts of the unions don't agree.

And if a union does try to listen to their members and vote against further cuts, you'll be leading the charge to get criminal charges filed against them to get them thrown in jail, make them lose their homes through lawsuits, etc.

So explain exactly why someone should complain to their unions? People like you seem to want unions out of the picture altogether, and have employees happily work for whatever wages management imposes unchecked. Because of course we can trust management not to overreach and not take any more than is necessary, right?

 

[Bear96]

I am pretty confiddent that on Oct. 7, the judge will NOT approve the company's motion of 23%. He will consider the arguements of the labor lawyers and they will express that the judge will in fact, create a ground swell of personal BK if the employeees stay and keep these jobs with a 23% pay cut imposed..

[post="187148"][/post]​

PITbull,

I am afraid you are pretty naive about the process. The judge will most likely give the company whatever they are asking for in this case.

When UA did this, the mechanics seemed to be in denial too. UA was asking for a 13% paycut-- guess what, the judge imposed a 14% pay cut on the mechanics. (This was around early 2004, I believe-- don't remember if they were IAM or AMFA then.)

A judge does not care about personal bankruptcies. And as someone else has pointed out, AFA has already agreed to severe paycuts for some of its U members with MDA. I am not "blaming" anyone for that, but as someone else has pointed out, it is hard for AFA to now say a 23% paycut is absolutely impossible, when they agreed to a similar amount not too long ago for some.

The court will not be swayed by diatribes about evil greedy management, or by how much has already been given, or how unfair life is. The bankruptcy court sees a very sick company on the brink of going out of business, and creditors who want their $$$, and sees that extreme emergency measures are necessary, and will act accordingly. The court will not care that F/A has to sell her house and move back in with her parents.

I guess we'll see, but I would count on management getting all, or very nearly all, of what they are asking for.

 

[UseYourHead]

PITBull,

It is about the CREDITORS, not you. We shall see how right you are, I expect the judge to approve payment and working conditions on par or less than the low fare competition, now that we are in BK.

One way or another, we are all going to have to suck-it-up...YOU are doing a dis-service to your membership, IMHO, to be telling them anything other than that.

Shame on you...then again, you have wanted no part of pay consessions, and would rather shut the company down, something the majority of the membership does not want.

Go apply for a job where you daughter was just hired if you don't like what is coming down the pike here.

I am pretty confiddent that on Oct. 7, the judge will NOT approve the company's motion of 23%. He will consider the arguements of the labor lawyers and they will express that the judge will in fact, create a ground swell of personal BK if the employeees stay and keep these jobs with a 23% pay cut imposed..

[post="187148"][/post]​

 

[unit4clt]

It appears all of the posters who thought that the company would win the Airbus arbitration, also believe that the judge will give the company anything they ask for. They were wrong about the airbus arbitration, and like I have stated before this BK is entirely different than the 1st BK. As far as management -labor relations.

There is no justifacation on what the co. is asking some groups to give up after getting only 10% cut from another group.

The Airbus ruling makes management look even more incompetent.

 

[Bear96]

It appears all of the posters who thought that the company would win the Airbus arbitration, also believe that the judge will give the company anything they ask for.

[post="187199"][/post]​

If you are including me in that sweeping generalization, for the record I never indicated an opinion one way or the other what I thought the outcome of the Airbus arbitration would be. I had no idea.

But the two are completely incomparable. Different legal issues, different rules of law, different courts, different everything. For example, in a labor arbitration, it is all about labor-- the labor agreement and associated issues of equity are all that the arbitrator has to consider. In a BK setting, it is NOT all about labor. As others have been pointing out, the BK court has to consider many other factors, like creditors, the ATSB, the PBGC, etc.... being "fair" to labor is far down on the list.

If you are saying because management lost the Airbus arbitration they will also not get what they want out of the BK court, you are employing the same sharp legal logic A320 does to justify his wacky thinking.

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

Chicago Express makes less than any other carrier, much less than MAA.

I wouldn't call my opinion naive and your comment astute. I am just trying to use reasonable deduction.

There are folks in this country that live on Welfare, and those who live off min. wage jobs. I don't think the judge will be conteplating his decision on how others live in this country on much, much less. BTW, Labor is considered "unsecured creditor" and has seats on the creditors committee.

I'm no lawyer, but you might be...

I know that UYH believes he is a lawyer and a judge, just like many on here.

I think that what unit4clt is implying is that everyone here is speculating...I am no different than others on here who claim "to know".

 

[Bear96]

Bear,

Chicago Express makes less than any other carrier, much less than MAA.

So that would seem to be MORE evidence that a paycut down to that level is not as "unliveable" as AFA is claiming, no?

I wouldn't call my opinion naive and your comment astute. I am just trying to use reasonable deduction.

Sorry, didn't mean to come across like a jerk calling you naive. You are right, no one, including me, knows what will happen for sure, no matter what they may claim. My main point is that I hope AFA isn't saying they have a great chance to thwart any further cuts and the judge is likely to take AFA's side and refuse to grant U's motion. That would be very unlikely IMO, and I hope AFA's advisors are communicating that.

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

I'm not trying to compare the airbus issue and the BK issue as being similar.

The only similarity I can draw, is my thinking on both. I knew the 50 year heavy maintenance contract language was good solid language for the IAM. However, I thought that the odds were stacked against IAM winning that case even on the first court hearing in Pittsburgh. Being that U just got out of BK and threatening for more cuts.

Then when the Appalla court ruled to take it to Sytems arbitration, Because of where U is today, I thought the arbiter would split the baby. (have IAM win the case, but no money award). However, contrary to many on here who opposed the IAM posters beliefs...THEY WON IT ALL!

My point is, you and I and everyone can only speculate what the judge will do in a second BK setting. I think that the burden of proof that U has a winning business plan will be stacked heavily against U's attorneys this time. The creditors have imput as well, and they will have to be convinced. The "unsecured creditors" don't have a whole lot of leverage in this...labor being some of them. Don't forget the secured creditors are backed by the ATSB. The ATSB will pull the plug if they believe U is just limping along.

Some think that going to the same judge will help U, because during BK 1, U was convincing that 2 concessions would do it. They were wrong.

I think that going to the same judge this time, could hurt the company's argument that they have been "negotiating in good-faith". INcreasing the numbers for all of labor every week, is more strategic labor pressuring than company need.

Keep in mind too, that U made a $34 million profit the second quarter AFTER paying off 2 execs $7 million.

I am speculating that the company, this time will have a tougher argument to show credibility. I don't believe a judge wants to screw the creditors either by allowing U to limp along until there is no cash left for the creditors.

If there is temporary relief, does not mean the judge will allow those cuts for 6 months either. He may only allow certain cuts for 3 months to see where U is at that point.

Who knows.

 

[B.N.]

If the Judge is there to protect creditors, which I agree is the case, how does it help if a 23% across the board pay cut will: A. Lead to a strike, and a shutdown of the company or B. Cause such poor morale in labor, leading to a shutdown of the company? Either there is another solution or the company is doomed. What they are asking for will not be approved, as this will quickly spell the demise of U, and a loss for the creditors.

 

[28yrsnojob]

good they cost me my job and about 90000.00.these people have to be
nuts to work for a management team i this.they woll bleed you into your own personal bk.

 

[hadEnuff]

The Judge will grant whatever the company ask. You are only kidding yourself if you think otherwise!!!!!! If the company didn't think they could get an agreement on 23 per cent then they would not have filed for 23 per cent. Oct 7 will not be a bargaining session!!!!!

 

[PITbull]

The Judge will grant whatever the company ask. You are only kidding yourself if you think otherwise!!!!!! If the company didn't think they could get an agreement on 23 per cent then they would not have filed for 23 per cent. Oct 7 will not be a bargaining session!!!!!

[post="187391"][/post]​

hadnuff,

See, and I see the 23% as another company "trump" card to pressure labor into coming to a T/A in 1 week vs. dragging it out for more months.

Jerry Glass is a "pro" and these strategies... " the- last- second- threats"... is what he does best. And just look how it works to put the fear of God in employees and union leaders.

If managment has any inclination of what the morale is out there now with 2 concessions and the threat of more furloughs....23% will shatter morale to the point where the employees will cease to be productive.

Apathy is worse than anger.

 

[cavalier]

Pitbull wrote:


Apathy is worse than anger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For the unlearned in the audience, seems there are a ton lately 😛

ap·a·thy (apÆÃ th"), n., pl. -thies.
1. absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2. lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.
3. Also, ap·a·thei·a, ap·a·thi·a (apÅÃ th"ÆÃ). Stoicism. freedom from emotion of any kind.
[1595–1605; (< F) < L apath#a < Gk apátheia insensibility to suffering, equiv. to apathe- (s. of apath£s) unfeeling (a- A-6 + pathe-, var. s. of páthos PATHOS) + -ia -IA]
—Syn.1. coolness. 2. See indifference.
—Ant.1. ardor, fervor.



an·ger (angÆgÃr), n.
1. a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath; ire.
2. Chiefly Brit. Dial. pain or smart, as of a sore.
3. Obs. grief; trouble.
–v.t.
4. to arouse anger or wrath in.
5. Chiefly Brit. Dial. to cause to smart; inflame.
–v.i.
6. to become angry: He angers with little provocation.
[1150–1200; ME < Scand; cf. ON angr sorrow, grief, akin to OHG angust (G Angst fear), L angor anguish]
—anÆger·less, adj.
—Syn.1. resentment, exasperation; choler, bile, spleen. ANGER, FURY, INDIGNATION, RAGE imply deep and strong feelings aroused by injury, injustice, wrong, etc. ANGER is the general term for a sudden violent displeasure: a burst of anger. INDIGNATION implies deep and justified anger: indignation at cruelty or against corruption. RAGE is vehement anger: rage at being frustrated. FURY is rage so great that it resembles insanity: the fury of an outraged lover. 4. displease, vex, irritate, exasperate, infuriate, enrage, incense, madden.

 

[Seatacus]

Pain is such a rush.

[post="187128"][/post]​

"...............it hurts so good" J.C. Mellencamp

 

[hadEnuff]

All you say and have said about management is true. It is academic they do not care about employees and if we decide to leave that is just fine with them because then they really get just what they want.... a bottom scale employee. They are telling each work group loud and clear they DO NOT want career employees. Just come for 3-4 years and then go somewhere else because they do not want to pay anything for an employee but a cheap wage. They do not care if we are loyal because there will be so much automation for customer service they will have only a few employees. Most average cities will have2 maybe 3 at the ticket counter and 1 at the gate. The kisok will become contracted out with curb side operation and I think is one reason they want that right to contract out in the contract. Same with the ramp. Management is focusing strictly on this industry as transportation only and forget about ethe service side. They took all the fun out of the job and now they are taking all the money so ther isn't a lot of reason for staying.