I'm not sure if this topic has been addressed or not, but here is my question. The company has only addressed 16 articles that they want to change in the march 22nd term sheet, if the judge does abrogate, then what happens to the other 31 articles in the current CBA? are those still in effect, or do they not get included in the new agreement? Bob Owens, maybe this question would be one that you could answer.
question about abrogation..
- Thread starter skippy525
- Start date
Bob Owens has said that upon abrogation, the entire contract is wiped out, and everything must be negotiated from scratch, as if there has never been an agreement.
I disagree with Owens' interpretation. IMO, the proposed Order AA submitted with its motion sets forth the relief AA seeks, and that is the ability to impose the provisions of the term sheet to over-write the applicable articles, while leaving the others intact. So the 16 articles will be amended, and the other 31 will continue unaffected.
I disagree with Owens' interpretation. IMO, the proposed Order AA submitted with its motion sets forth the relief AA seeks, and that is the ability to impose the provisions of the term sheet to over-write the applicable articles, while leaving the others intact. So the 16 articles will be amended, and the other 31 will continue unaffected.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
I have to agree here. The other 31 would be status quo.
Why would the company NOT include all 47 articles in the term sheets in the event of abrogation?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #5
Because management aren't dummies for starters - they don't want to impose conditions so bad that it will lead to mass departures and risk the airline shutting down. That would defeat the whole purpose of declaring chapter 11. Secondly, much of every groups contracts is run of the mill stuff - union recognition, dues checkoff, etc. The big cost items, pay/retirement/benefits/work rules/scope - are covered by only a portion of the overall contract and that's where the changes will be.
FWAAA and you are right, BTW. Abrogation does not eliminate all parts of the contract that aren't changed. It allows the company to impose the changes it seeks while leaving the rest of the contract untouched.
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #7
"Some" does not equal mass departures. "Some" losing $10 per hour doesn't equal mass departures. If 80-90 percent don't show up for work the day after abrogation/ratified concessions and AA has to cut 75 percent of it's flights, then you'll have mass departures.
I saw it play out in the two US bankruptcies. In the first, after two rounds of consensual pay/benefits/work rule concessions the pilot's MEC approved the termination of the DB pension. There was plenty of talk about "shut it down", but the pilots just showed up for work. Many of those pilots that talked about "shutting it down" after loss of the DB pension then voted to take two more rounds of concessions in connection with bankruptcy II - "get a deal, any deal" became their rallying cry. So I've seen how easy it is to talk tough in the break room, but actually making the choice to leave is much harder and relatively few will take that step.
Jim
Not to cut too fine a note, but, methinks Bob quoted the position of Jim Little who described abrogation as the complete rendering of the current CBA to one that is a first contract.
FWIW, I would prefer Little Jimmy's description because AMR, AA, would no longer be a closed shop and Union membership and the payment of dues would be entirely voluntary.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #9
Well, not to put too fine a note on that but union membership and payment of dues is already voluntary. Nothing prevents you from becoming a non-member and only paying the agency fee.
Under the RLA, nothing will change about your relationship with the union or your choices for membership/dues if the contract is abrogated vs consensually altered.
Jim
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
Correct, however the TWU has some history of having the company fire a employee or two...
- Banned
- #13
That is what you said, not what you put in the reply to me.
The whole relationship changes.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #14
I still don't get what's supposed to be wrong. Anyone can become a non-member and only pay the agency fee. Being a non-member means they don't get to "vote on officers, attend union meetings and you cant vote on a strike nor the CBA" (at least one union, ALPA, allows non-members to attend meetings, they just can't vote. Seems right since the union has to represent non-members as well as members as required by the NMB).
I also said that nothing will automatically change with the union/employee relationship regardless of whether the contract is abrogated or concessions approved by ratification - members will still be members, non-members will still be non-members, you'll still pay dues/agency fees, the contract as amended will still apply, etc.
What specificly is wrong about any of that???
Jim
I also said that nothing will automatically change with the union/employee relationship regardless of whether the contract is abrogated or concessions approved by ratification - members will still be members, non-members will still be non-members, you'll still pay dues/agency fees, the contract as amended will still apply, etc.
What specificly is wrong about any of that???
Jim
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
I for one don't see anything wrong with it.
Agency fee is for negotiating a contract, employee representation during a grievance process and lobbying activiites to secure a contract. It must be paid by law.
By going on agency fee status, you forfeit the rights mentioned above in Boeing Boy's last post.
But that's it.
So, for instance, if you don't want to pay for your specific union's political agenda and disagree with their politics and political canidates, by going on agency fee status, you don't have to fund those things.
Agency fee is for negotiating a contract, employee representation during a grievance process and lobbying activiites to secure a contract. It must be paid by law.
By going on agency fee status, you forfeit the rights mentioned above in Boeing Boy's last post.
But that's it.
So, for instance, if you don't want to pay for your specific union's political agenda and disagree with their politics and political canidates, by going on agency fee status, you don't have to fund those things.
Similar threads
