question about abrogation..

[TWU informer]

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 when unchallenged is a hoax.
To really stop paying for those items that are non-germaine to contract bargainging, contract enforecement, and administration of the agreement, you would have to challenge to calculations of any Union. They lie on these expenditures just like they lie about everything else. Which is the ulitmate the reason they are failing, because they lie, cheat, steal, and are always like a defense attorney representing the obviously guilty criminal. Any organization participating in something they must lie about to continue makes them a target for no future and failure. Politicians and Unions are one in the same in this category.

 

[Hopeful]

Agency Fee when unchallenged is a hoax.
To really stop paying for those items that are non-germaine to contract bargainging, contract enforecement, and administration of the agreement, you would have to challenge to calculations of any Union. They lie on these expenditures just like they lie about everything else. Which is the ulitmate the reason they are failing, because they lie, cheat, steal, and are always like a defense attorney representing the obviously guilty criminal. Any organization participating in something they must lie about to continue makes them a target for no future and failure. Politicians and Unions are one in the same in this category.

Couldn't agree more....Like keeping two sets of accounting books!

 

[Bob Owens]

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.

When did I say that? I said if it was abrogated we have no contract, no CBA, thats what we were told by the lawyers, however terms of employment remain, the company has asked to modify terms unilaterally. So while terms remain there is no Collective Bargaining Agreement. You can play semantics if you like by claiming that terms are a contract, therefore even mechanics at Delta have contracts, but when we talk "contract" we are talking CBA.

The fact is what happens next is still yet to be written. The appelate court in their desire to please their corporate masters made a huge blunder at Northwest. Their ruling threw in a lot more questions, they should have allowed the FAs to strike, as they allow ALL other workers subject to abrogation, but in order to deny us our rights and get around the RLA and Status Quo they said that if a contract under the RLA is abrogated in BK that its as if the contract never existed so there is no status quo to violate. They said its as if the Union just came on the property and we have to Negotiate under Section 6 as if the terms that were abrogated never existed. By saying they never existed, which is a pure lie, they went around the RLAs language that allows us to engage in self help upon unilteral changes to pay and working conditions. The AFA screwed up by not going forward to the Supreme Court or by simply striking anyway.



The RLA also allows for contracts to be abrogated, after release and a 30 day cooling off period, provided it does not go to a PEB, then if there is no resolution it could be put before Congress. What the Appelate court did was create a new law that would allow the company to abrogate but deny Airline workers their rights as provided by the RLA, the right to self help upon unilateral changes to the terms and a major dispute due to the violation of the CBA.

Basically what the Appellate Court did was say that the company is free to engage in self help, limited to the ask I'm assuming, but that has yet to be clarified by the court, but the union can not do the same.

The "amended" CBA arguement falls flat on Judge Lane's statement in court, that if he abrogates we still have to negotiate, if the court grants the companys motion and the contract is just considered to be amended and not abrogated then there would be no need to negotiate because as you have claimed before we would have a new amendable date. Now you are the one who claims to be a lawyer, not me but if the company could impose a new amendable date then they would not have to continue to negotiate. Even that f----d up appelate court said that negotiations would resume under Sect 6 of the RLA post abrogation as if its the first contract.

Another question is Dues. Our CBA, unlike the pilots, require that members pay dues as a condition of employment. We have at least one mechanic who does not pay dues because the TWU denies him membership however under those condistions the union and the company can not terminate employment because the mechanic has never refused to become a member, and pay dues. Since the terms were not agreed upon collectively, therfore no CBA exists, just terms of employment, is it legal for a company to force the payment of dues to an organization that does not have a CBA in place? In other words we legally agree to pay dues to the union by agreeing to the collective bargaining agreement, but since there is no CBA and we are working under terms, similar to non-union workers what is the legal basis for a company to impose dues payment absent a CBA? Has it ever happened before? Dont most unions in a just organized workplace start mandatory dues collection upon ratification of the CBA? If the contract never existed, therefore no status quo violation, then how can the company impose dues payments? Sure they may be in the terms but is it legal for a company to unilaterally impose Dues payments in its terms when there is no CBA? I thought that was one of the things they outlawed when they tried to abolish "Company Unions"?

My recommendation is regardless of how one feels about the quality of representation is to continue to pay the dues if it comes to that rather than take the risk that the court will rule that compulsory dues payment as a condition of employment when there is no CBA is legal. Maybe you can give an opinion on that FWAAA, you being a lawyer and all.

The thing about "Law" is that nobody can say with absolute certainty what the ruling would be, so everything is an "opinion", Lawyers "practice" law, and even if there is a ruling it can be appealed and even if it goes to the highest court in the land legislators can write a new law for the courts to reinterpret as they have C-11 and the RLA and start the cycle all over again. Workers dont have the time or resourses that corporate America has and the alternate route to Justice is civil disobedience and disruptions to commerce. Since we cant afford to buy the legislators or Judges like they can thats the most expedient and efficient path , indeed the only path that we have been left, for us to take.

If workers continue to believe that Justice lies within the walls of a courtroom absent the very real threat of civil disobedience and massive disruptions to commerce then they may as well still believe in Santa Clause. The ruling from the appelate court in the NWA-APA case along with the even more outrageous decisions from the Supreme Court should be an awakening to all as to how corrupted the system has become. Its almost pointless to elect legislators because even if they write laws like 1113 and the RLA it only takes a couple of Judges to rewrite the whole intent by issueing a ruling thats taylored to the needs of their corporate masters.

 

[PITbull]

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.

If I remember correctly, during our USAirways BK, the company presented their term sheet, and wanted the f/as to accept the new provisions in order to achieve a certain cost savings. We had an opportunity to tweek it or come up with something that would give USAirways that cost savings they needed. The threat they used for us to agree to certain changes to our contract was ABROGATION, which meant the entire contract. That was the gun to the head for all of us....that threat.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The threat they used for us to agree to certain changes to our contract was ABROGATION, which meant the entire contract. That was the gun to the head for all of us....that threat.

The question is what the term sheet said. "Eliminate the contract" or "These are the sections we want to change"?

Frank Lorenzo is the last airline CEO that I know of that used bankruptcy to eliminate the contract entirely, and we all know what eventually happened because of that - he was barred from involvement in any airline and the bankruptcy law was changed.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

The question is what the term sheet said. "Eliminate the contract" or "These are the sections we want to change"?

Frank Lorenzo is the last airline CEO that I know of that used bankruptcy to eliminate the contract entirely, and we all know what eventually happened because of that - he was barred from involvement in any airline and the bankruptcy law was changed.

Jim

IMO it depends on what you mean by "contract". To most of us it means a CBA. Pretty much all workers who are employed have a form of a Contract and all those contracts have terms but not all are written and the terms may simply be implied, understood, verbally agreed to etc. Written contracts are of course the most desirable as they are easier to enforce legally. Even non-union companys have terms of employment which is a form of a contract. The Judge is being asked to abolish the CBA and allow the company to impose terms it claims it needs. People are forgetting that a contract is supposed to be held in high esteem and normally the courts uphold contracts, especially written ones, the company is the one seeking to get out of the deal here. 1113 was written because the courts felt that Labor contracts deserved special consideration, in part because Unions have no option to get out of a bad deal while all other creditors also have the option to file BK. So a company supposedly has to meet a higher standard in order to get out of a labor contract. One thing they have to do is tell the court what terms it proposes to change when the CBA is abrogated. If the court determines those changes are not reasonable they reject the motion. So while there are terms, which could be considered a "contract" its not a CBA.

 

[TWU informer]

AA and the TWU have agreed that all Articles of the Labor Agreement other than those being modified by the 1113 motion will remain status quo.

I have seen that in more than one company communication but none from the TWU.

Legally the TWU keeps claiming the contract will be non-existant, but practically the other Articles will remain status quo.

Just as the TWU keeps claiming that there is nothing in the BK Law that requires consensual agreements to emerge, while practically speaking Judge Lane has expressed otherwise. It is really sad when your own Union twist the facts to obtain the company demand all the while claiming to "fight like hell".

 

[BoeingBoy]

IMO it depends on what you mean by "contract". To most of us it means a CBA.

That's the sense I used the word in. The Judge will most likely give AMR the relief it seeks if he abrogates the contracts (CBA's). Now in theory, AMR could ask that the contract could be entirely replaced with AMR's terms but that isn't what AMR is asking for. It's only asking that certain sections be modified.

As I said earlier, the only CEO that I know of who filed a motion to void the contract was Lorenzo.

Jim

 

[olderguyAMT]

That's the sense I used the word in. The Judge will most likely give AMR the relief it seeks if he abrogates the contracts (CBA's). Now in theory, AMR could ask that the contract could be entirely replaced with AMR's terms but that isn't what AMR is asking for. It's only asking that certain sections be modified.
Jim

and....now the new deadline for abrogation is Aug 15, which is only 6 short weeks from the standalone business plan deadline. With Doug Parker waiting in the wings with a plan of his own, there is pressue on the co. to deal. Negotiations will continue in the interim with APFA and TWU. If there is an Agreement with one of these unions, there could very well be another extension in our future, which will come even closer to the standalone deadline unless there is an extension on that too. The Me Too clause will be validated with ratification after an agreement, of course. I wonder if the APFA have a MTC????

 

[FWAAA]

and....now the new deadline for abrogation is Aug 15, which is only 6 short weeks from the standalone business plan deadline. With Doug Parker waiting in the wings with a plan of his own, there is pressue on the co. to deal. Negotiations will continue in the interim with APFA and TWU. If there is an Agreement with one of these unions, there could very well be another extension in our future, which will come even closer to the standalone deadline unless there is an extension on that too. The Me Too clause will be validated with ratification after an agreement, of course. I wonder if the APFA have a MTC????

AA and the UCC have already agreed to move for an extension to 12/27/12.

 

[WantFriesWithThat?]

That's the sense I used the word in. The Judge will most likely give AMR the relief it seeks if he abrogates the contracts (CBA's). Now in theory, AMR could ask that the contract could be entirely replaced with AMR's terms but that isn't what AMR is asking for. It's only asking that certain sections be modified.

As I said earlier, the only CEO that I know of who filed a motion to void the contract was Lorenzo.

Jim

I thought I read in another topic that Northwest tried to void the flight crew contract

 

[skippy525]

So if the company does do away with the other articles and enforces an agreement with just the 16 articles that they addressed in the term sheet, won't they be achieving way more than the now only 17% in cost savings?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I thought I read in another topic that Northwest tried to void the flight crew contract

I don't remember that but I didn't keep up with the NW bankruptcy that closely - with DL, UA, and NW in bankruptcy at the same time it was too much to keep up with the day to day action. What NW did do is go through the section 1113 process and the FA's held a hard line so the judge allowed abrogating the contract. The FA's threatened to strike but NW filed suit to stop them and the 2nd Circuit appeals court ruled in NW's favor, reasoning that it was as though the previous contract had never existed. That left the amended contract standing and the FA's without a legal right to strike.

Jim

 

[Hopeful]

As I said earlier, the only CEO that I know of who filed a motion to void the contract was Lorenzo.

Jim

And it is because of Lorenzo, most Chapter 11, 1113 rules are what they are today..

 

[FWAAA]

So if the company does do away with the other articles and enforces an agreement with just the 16 articles that they addressed in the term sheet, won't they be achieving way more than the now only 17% in cost savings?

No, the company has asked the court to permit it to impose the term sheet provisions to amend those 16 articles but the other 31 will remain status quo.