Plan To Ask Court For Pay Cuts

[Rico]

Companies may request abrogation of the labor agreement but it must meet the following nine (9) distinct requirements:

1. The debtor in possession must have made a proposal to the union.
2. The proposal must be based upon the most complete and reliable information available at the time of the proposal.
3. The modification must be necessary to permit reorganization.
4. The modification must provide that all affected parties be treated fairly and equitably.
5. The debtor must provide the union with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.
6. The debtor must have met with the collective bargaining representative at the reasonable times subsequent to making the proposal.
7. The debtor must have negotiated with the union concerning the proposal in good faith.
8. The union must have refused to accept the proposal with good cause.
9. The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement.

Just curious, which of the above items (in your opinion 700UW) has the company not already addresssed (or will do so as soon as you are forced to the table)...?

I mean, reading through the list, and rereading the legal briefs the company has already submitted, they have already have a strong case. The Items that have not been completed are due to IAM's unwillingness to negotiate (not exactly something the judge is going to blame the company for).

That leaves the IAM, or the remaining unions, the burden to prove the modifications were:

1. Unnecessary, or
2. Unequitable, or
3. Not in "Good Faith"

IMO the company, surviving only with cash on hand, with obvious competitive threats, and liquidation as the only remaining option can make a great case for "Necessary"

IMO, the fact that fellow mainline employees at MDA are already working at/blo what is being asked for (by the company), pay and rules that your very same unions agreed to... Means that the comapny has a great case the cuts are fair + equitable...

IMO, the actions of the company so far will be viewed BY THE JUDGE as being in "Good Faith". Remember it is his opinion that matters, not the union's. It is a tough thing to prove a "Lack of Good Faith" (to the judge) from a company that is surviving only with cash on hand, with obvious competitive threats, and liquidation as the only remaining option...


Seriously, I am curious since you keep throwing these 9 items out, which of them you feel the company will have difficulty with...?

 

[700UW]

Rico,

The steps have to be file in Bankruptcy, not before, during after the company files their 1113 motion seeking a contract abrogation.

How many times do I have to post that.

Can you understand, that is the process to be followed after a chapter 11 section 1113 motion.

The judge will order the parties to sit down and negotiate.

For example UAL wanted to eliminate the medical retirees insurance and after 30 days of negotiations the company filed to abrogate and the judge refused it saying the company had not negotiated in good faith as they never changed their position from day one of negotiations.

 

[Rico]

So are you trying to say that your only hope is that the company will not negotiate in "good faith"...?

That seems a little slim. "Good faith" in UAL's situation, is a lot differnet than a company surviving on cash-on-hand, facing looming liquidation.

Although I agree that all of the conditions must be met, IMO it is not that hard for a desperate company to show "good faith" with mininum effort.

IMO the most important item, and the one that will make the judge's mind up will be #9

The balance of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the agreement

Remember, liquidation will abrogate your contract too. But it will also leave you unemployed. Thus the balance of equities in this case (not UAL's), favor rejection of your agreement. Survival favors the union membership as well as the company.


Just being realistic.

 

[cavalier]

700UW Wrote:

Cav, just remember I know. And if you don't like it the board has a great feature called ignore, why don't you use it if you cant add substance to the topic.


What is this, a threat and to what?

Guess what wise a-z-z I know more.

My name is not cav just like your antics are not real.

Listen to Rico because that person makes more sense then you obviously are capable of comprehending.

 

[usfliboi]

700, wasnt it you that spouted USAIRWAYS cant file vol BK!?

 

[High Iron]

Remember, liquidation will abrogate your contract too. But it will also leave you unemployed.

So will the "going forward/transformation plan".

Just being realistic

Absolutely. It makes more economic sense to ride it out till the end, plan "B" being acted upon at such a time, since it pays less for a time. There is also the tertiary benefit of satisfaction of not enabling the hidebound crowd at fort fumble, however slim.

This is no more selfish than one asking another to throw hisself under the bus so that one may survive a bit longer.

This is what happens when you push people into lose-lose situations.

 

[Decision 2004]

Most employees show up to ready work daily!! Regardless of how poorly manangement has handled the company. We don't let our emotions rule how we treat our customers. Never have, never will. It would be unprofessional to take our stresses out on our customers. That being said, many of us will be happy when it all ends.

[post="181731"][/post]​

So, if employees will still do their jobs professionally despite payscales and benefits that resemble a more unprofessional career field, then why shouldn't the Airline Exec's use BK to bust down the pay and benefits of Airline Workers? And more importantly, why do you call that mis-management?

It appears there is no limit that an airline employee will go down to, because they "love to provide" for the customer so much, pay and benefits for doing so appear to be low on the priority list.

 

[delldude]

:mf_boff: :mf_boff: :mf_boff:
couldn't have said it better

 

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

700, wasnt it you that spouted USAIRWAYS cant file vol BK!?

[post="181978"][/post]​

yes, your correct, Fliboi. Remeber, though.....700 knows EVERYTHING!!! LOL,, Hey! just ask him, he'll tell you!! <_<

 

[700UW]

US could not file a voluntary petition without being in violation of the ATSB loan covenants, they negoiated a new deal, therefore waiving that convenant.

Ask Boeing Boy if you do not believe me.

Obsession:
Pronunciation: äb-'se-sh&n, &b-
Function: noun
Date: 1680
1 : a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation <an obsession with profits>
2 : something that causes an obsession
- ob·ses·sion·al /-'sesh-n&l, -'se-sh&-n&l/ adjective
- ob·ses·sion·al·ly adverb

 

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

US could not file a voluntary petition without being in violation of the ATSB loan covenants, they negoiated a new deal, therefore waiving that convenant.

Ask Boeing Boy if you do not believe me.

Obsession:
Pronunciation: äb-'se-sh&n, &b-
Function: noun
Date: 1680
1 : a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation <an obsession with profits>
2 : something that causes an obsession
- ob·ses·sion·al /-'sesh-n&l, -'se-sh&-n&l/ adjective
- ob·ses·sion·al·ly adverb

[post="182015"][/post]​

Hey, everyone!!!! check it out!!! Now 700 is also a Freaking walking/talking dictonary!!!!!!!! Good job, 700