Dark Wrench
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Chip
“Without the IAM-M target numbers to meet the contractual requirements above, which require a $154 million annual IAM-M cost reduction, how can the company gain access to these funds to continue to operate and reorganize?â€
I do not know how they can gain access to these funds.
With all these business school grads that Dave and Friends want to keep and pay big money to, they should have your answer. If they don’t why are they still here?
I do know this for me to access any funds like a mortgage, the loan company wants to know what I’m making now, not what I plan to negotiate in the future.
“Without the business plan cost savings identified in the DIP financing plan and the ATSB loan guarantee applications, how can the airline continue to operate without these financial resources?â€
Again I do not know how the airline can continue to operate without these financial resources.
But let me refer you to the business school grads that Dave and Friends want to keep and pay big money to, they should have your answer.
“If you were going to prepare written and oral arguments against your September 10 S.1113 hearing, where the company is seeking relief from your CBA, how would you prepare your defense for a company in default?â€
Our membership under the CBA on Aug 28th voted 57% no to a proposal that was finalized approx. an hour after the union leadership received a call from the company that it was going to file for bankruptcy within hours. Under duress to finalize this agreement and to put it to our membership for a vote “we took parts of this agreement from the to be negotiated table†and put it with amendments already agreed upon.
“By voting no and understanding you will be summoned to appear against this motion, what is your motivation?â€
Who needs motivation to vote no against lower wages and benefits, and certain layoff for junior employees.
For one to vote no, I believe the voter must believe they can get a better deal. Would you explain how this would now occur?â€
You can believe or assume what you want, but as of right now I have a better deal then what was voted on.
“What would you do to convince Judge Mitc**** you deserve more than the company's final proposal instead of the bankruptcy court imposing deeper cuts, per the company's request?
Refer the court to the current agreements @ United, American, Northwest, Delta, and Southwest. Refer the court also to our current agreement containing “Pay Parity†a company negotiated concept Which Usairways uses to set our wages and benefits.
THERE NOW ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED!!!!!!!!
You may not like them.
But then again who the **** do you think you are meddling in the IAM memberships affairs.
When ALPA was voting did the iam membership tell you how to vote?
After ALPA voted did the IAM membership question you to death?
Did the IAM membership look down our noses with a “holier then thou†attitude?
I voted NO and will always vote NO to any agreement that contains concessions.
I was looking for a job when I took this one, so court imposed concessions don’t scare me either.
“Without the IAM-M target numbers to meet the contractual requirements above, which require a $154 million annual IAM-M cost reduction, how can the company gain access to these funds to continue to operate and reorganize?â€
I do not know how they can gain access to these funds.
With all these business school grads that Dave and Friends want to keep and pay big money to, they should have your answer. If they don’t why are they still here?
I do know this for me to access any funds like a mortgage, the loan company wants to know what I’m making now, not what I plan to negotiate in the future.
“Without the business plan cost savings identified in the DIP financing plan and the ATSB loan guarantee applications, how can the airline continue to operate without these financial resources?â€
Again I do not know how the airline can continue to operate without these financial resources.
But let me refer you to the business school grads that Dave and Friends want to keep and pay big money to, they should have your answer.
“If you were going to prepare written and oral arguments against your September 10 S.1113 hearing, where the company is seeking relief from your CBA, how would you prepare your defense for a company in default?â€
Our membership under the CBA on Aug 28th voted 57% no to a proposal that was finalized approx. an hour after the union leadership received a call from the company that it was going to file for bankruptcy within hours. Under duress to finalize this agreement and to put it to our membership for a vote “we took parts of this agreement from the to be negotiated table†and put it with amendments already agreed upon.
“By voting no and understanding you will be summoned to appear against this motion, what is your motivation?â€
Who needs motivation to vote no against lower wages and benefits, and certain layoff for junior employees.
For one to vote no, I believe the voter must believe they can get a better deal. Would you explain how this would now occur?â€
You can believe or assume what you want, but as of right now I have a better deal then what was voted on.
“What would you do to convince Judge Mitc**** you deserve more than the company's final proposal instead of the bankruptcy court imposing deeper cuts, per the company's request?
Refer the court to the current agreements @ United, American, Northwest, Delta, and Southwest. Refer the court also to our current agreement containing “Pay Parity†a company negotiated concept Which Usairways uses to set our wages and benefits.
THERE NOW ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED!!!!!!!!
You may not like them.
But then again who the **** do you think you are meddling in the IAM memberships affairs.
When ALPA was voting did the iam membership tell you how to vote?
After ALPA voted did the IAM membership question you to death?
Did the IAM membership look down our noses with a “holier then thou†attitude?
I voted NO and will always vote NO to any agreement that contains concessions.
I was looking for a job when I took this one, so court imposed concessions don’t scare me either.
Great post dark, Chip has been drinking too much koolaide, he need to get deprogramed. He is just scared that is golden cow will die, he does not care about anyone else except himself. Look at chip answer this, saying the company is suing the union for $5 million, cause we voted no. He has no clue, no one can sue a union for the MEMBERSHIP excersing their democratic right to vote
C
chipmunn
Guest
Lakerguy said: Look at chip answer this, saying the company is suing the union for $5 million, cause we voted no. He has no clue, no one can sue a union for the MEMBERSHIP excersing their democratic right to vote
Chip comments: Lakerguy, you misquoted me. I said, “In addition, the company is seeking over $5 million per month for six months in damages from the IAM-M. If the court agrees with management’s motion, I believe it is doubtful the IAM has budgeted this expense; therefore, the financial penalty could be assessed to the membership. If the IAM or its members refuse to pay court ordered damages, the union and its members could be held in contempt, just like the pilots at American Airlines.â€
Chip continues: Lakeguy, the company has filed a motion seeking damages from the IAM-M and the court could agree with the company and order the damages be paid to the plaintiff. Do you agree with this statement? If the court orders the penalty, the IAM-M would be forced to pay the claim or would be held in contempt of court. I doubt the IAM has over $30 million “hanging aroundâ€, thus like every other assessment the union would need to access its members to pay the fine. Where else would the money come from?
Lakeguy, I did not file the claim and the company is seeking deeper cuts, just like they said they would. Will this claim end up in damages paid, probably not, but the legal action is pending and the IAM-M will have to prepare a defense. I suspect the IAM and the company will reach an agreement or there will be a court-imposed contract, which could have deeper cuts and the company’s claim for damages will be part of the final accord, which now may come from the court.
What’s important to note is that the IAM-M members elected to not accept a voluntary restructuring accord with full knowledge the company would seek to abrogate the mechanic/union contract and the damage claim is part of the process because the RLA does not apply in Chapter 11. Under a RLA negotiation your comments would be accurate, but in litigation I believe you are mistken.
By the way, today the judge agreed with the company to give the lease companies a haircut against their wishes. I wonder if this could bean indication of what could happen to the CWA and IAM-M next Tuesday, September 10 without voluntary accords?
Darkwrench and Lakeguy, I would like to personally talk with regarding this thread. Would you post your identities so I can contact you?
Chip
Chip comments: Lakerguy, you misquoted me. I said, “In addition, the company is seeking over $5 million per month for six months in damages from the IAM-M. If the court agrees with management’s motion, I believe it is doubtful the IAM has budgeted this expense; therefore, the financial penalty could be assessed to the membership. If the IAM or its members refuse to pay court ordered damages, the union and its members could be held in contempt, just like the pilots at American Airlines.â€
Chip continues: Lakeguy, the company has filed a motion seeking damages from the IAM-M and the court could agree with the company and order the damages be paid to the plaintiff. Do you agree with this statement? If the court orders the penalty, the IAM-M would be forced to pay the claim or would be held in contempt of court. I doubt the IAM has over $30 million “hanging aroundâ€, thus like every other assessment the union would need to access its members to pay the fine. Where else would the money come from?
Lakeguy, I did not file the claim and the company is seeking deeper cuts, just like they said they would. Will this claim end up in damages paid, probably not, but the legal action is pending and the IAM-M will have to prepare a defense. I suspect the IAM and the company will reach an agreement or there will be a court-imposed contract, which could have deeper cuts and the company’s claim for damages will be part of the final accord, which now may come from the court.
What’s important to note is that the IAM-M members elected to not accept a voluntary restructuring accord with full knowledge the company would seek to abrogate the mechanic/union contract and the damage claim is part of the process because the RLA does not apply in Chapter 11. Under a RLA negotiation your comments would be accurate, but in litigation I believe you are mistken.
By the way, today the judge agreed with the company to give the lease companies a haircut against their wishes. I wonder if this could bean indication of what could happen to the CWA and IAM-M next Tuesday, September 10 without voluntary accords?
Darkwrench and Lakeguy, I would like to personally talk with regarding this thread. Would you post your identities so I can contact you?
Chip
Chip if you read the section 1113 motion, they are seeking an additional $5.1 million in concessions from the employees, not the union.
Read this
After the company filed for bankruptcy protection on August 11th, US Airways presented District 141-M with another proposal, the 1113 proposal (also referred to as the post-petition proposal), which contained terms that are substantially worse than the proposal that is currently before the membership for ratification. This proposal is not being voted on by the membership, but is what US Airways intends to present to the bankruptcy court judge if their current proposal is rejected.
The 1113 proposal calls for the following …
Wage Rates
Wages to be cut by 19% retroactive to July 1st through April 1, 2003 (i.e. top of scale base rate for mechanics goes to $21.08). After that, the scale will be set at rates 6.8% below current rates through July 1, 2004 (i.e. top of scale mechanic rate goes to $23.84). Wage rates will increase by 2% on July 1 of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 and will increase by 5% in 2008.
Scope changes
Changes will be made to the collective bargaining agreement to permit outsourcing of work as necessary.
Receipt and dispatch duties will be performed by Fleet Service employees at all but 7 stations.
Utility work will be performed by Fleet Service employees at all but 7 stations.
In addition to these terms, the 1113 proposal includes the same terms as the proposal before the membership with respect to forgoing future license increases, elimination of the paid lunch, uniform cleaning, 3% lump-sum payment, pension accrual for furloughed employees, as well as the changes to bumping and bidding, and vacation scheduling. In other words, it takes the proposal currently before the membership, pulls out the changes to vacation and holidays and substitutes changes that are much more painful in economic terms and that would seriously jeopardize our members’ job security by gutting our scope clause.
These terms clearly reflect what the company truly wants in the way of concessions and what they would prefer to have if they did not have to negotiate with the IAM – a 19% wage reduction retroactive to July 1st through April 1. 2003.
Here is the link.
http://www.iam141m.org/iam%20term%20sheet%2021.pdf
Chip you really need to research things before you make posts, post facts not your opinions and assumptions
Read this
After the company filed for bankruptcy protection on August 11th, US Airways presented District 141-M with another proposal, the 1113 proposal (also referred to as the post-petition proposal), which contained terms that are substantially worse than the proposal that is currently before the membership for ratification. This proposal is not being voted on by the membership, but is what US Airways intends to present to the bankruptcy court judge if their current proposal is rejected.
The 1113 proposal calls for the following …
Wage Rates
Wages to be cut by 19% retroactive to July 1st through April 1, 2003 (i.e. top of scale base rate for mechanics goes to $21.08). After that, the scale will be set at rates 6.8% below current rates through July 1, 2004 (i.e. top of scale mechanic rate goes to $23.84). Wage rates will increase by 2% on July 1 of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 and will increase by 5% in 2008.
Scope changes
Changes will be made to the collective bargaining agreement to permit outsourcing of work as necessary.
Receipt and dispatch duties will be performed by Fleet Service employees at all but 7 stations.
Utility work will be performed by Fleet Service employees at all but 7 stations.
In addition to these terms, the 1113 proposal includes the same terms as the proposal before the membership with respect to forgoing future license increases, elimination of the paid lunch, uniform cleaning, 3% lump-sum payment, pension accrual for furloughed employees, as well as the changes to bumping and bidding, and vacation scheduling. In other words, it takes the proposal currently before the membership, pulls out the changes to vacation and holidays and substitutes changes that are much more painful in economic terms and that would seriously jeopardize our members’ job security by gutting our scope clause.
These terms clearly reflect what the company truly wants in the way of concessions and what they would prefer to have if they did not have to negotiate with the IAM – a 19% wage reduction retroactive to July 1st through April 1. 2003.
Here is the link.
http://www.iam141m.org/iam%20term%20sheet%2021.pdf
Chip you really need to research things before you make posts, post facts not your opinions and assumptions
C
chipmunn
Guest
Darkwrench:
Thank you for posting the IAM information. The information I posted regarding the deeper cuts was obtained from the CLT Observer as stated in other threads.
The newspaper was the only public information source available until the IAM recently published more information regarding the deeper cuts that will be sought if the S.1113 hearing is held.
Chip
Interestingly, since the CLT Observer article the company appears to be seeking even greater cuts plus the damages. It will be interesting to hear the results of tomorrows meeting.
Chip
Thank you for posting the IAM information. The information I posted regarding the deeper cuts was obtained from the CLT Observer as stated in other threads.
The newspaper was the only public information source available until the IAM recently published more information regarding the deeper cuts that will be sought if the S.1113 hearing is held.
Chip
Interestingly, since the CLT Observer article the company appears to be seeking even greater cuts plus the damages. It will be interesting to hear the results of tomorrows meeting.
Chip
Dark Wrench
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Chip
Darkwrench:
Thank you for posting the IAM information.
I think you are mistaken. I did not post any iam info.
I would like to personally talk with regarding this thread.
I need that like i need a hole in the head.
But if you were to invite that moron boof1967 from the yahoo board, i would consider it. A discussion with the two of you would be very entertaining.
Darkwrench:
Thank you for posting the IAM information.
I think you are mistaken. I did not post any iam info.
I would like to personally talk with regarding this thread.
I need that like i need a hole in the head.
But if you were to invite that moron boof1967 from the yahoo board, i would consider it. A discussion with the two of you would be very entertaining.
Oliver Twist
Advanced
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/5/2002 9:53:18 AM chipmunn wrote:
Cav:
I agree it's time to stop debating because we have a fundamental difference of opinion. What I find interesting is that with 40 posts in this thread and over 2000 views, not one IAM-M member can answer any of the questions I've asked.
Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
I understand your frustration Chip. I felt it too when it took days and several 1000 views and many posts to get my original pilot pay (737-300) question answered (Question SW vs US #1).
Its very frustrating to ask a single question and get everything under the sun BUT the answer. In the thread I began about the Pilot pay question, it was not answered until post number 42 (out of 59 with 2580 views).
Its amazing how one gets everything under the sun BUT the answer, and all those extra posts come from someone who probably knows, but won't answer.
I have no doubt in my mind that hundreds of the views from my previous thread referenced above were by pilots who chose to remain silent instead of giving an honest answer to an honest inquiry. I know that had you seen my question Chip, you would have surely answered it for me. Perhaps there is one mechanic or related on here that will give you the answer you seek. It takes a while but hang in there, I finally got my answer and you will too.
----------------
On 9/5/2002 9:53:18 AM chipmunn wrote:
Cav:
I agree it's time to stop debating because we have a fundamental difference of opinion. What I find interesting is that with 40 posts in this thread and over 2000 views, not one IAM-M member can answer any of the questions I've asked.
Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
I understand your frustration Chip. I felt it too when it took days and several 1000 views and many posts to get my original pilot pay (737-300) question answered (Question SW vs US #1).
Its very frustrating to ask a single question and get everything under the sun BUT the answer. In the thread I began about the Pilot pay question, it was not answered until post number 42 (out of 59 with 2580 views).
Its amazing how one gets everything under the sun BUT the answer, and all those extra posts come from someone who probably knows, but won't answer.
I have no doubt in my mind that hundreds of the views from my previous thread referenced above were by pilots who chose to remain silent instead of giving an honest answer to an honest inquiry. I know that had you seen my question Chip, you would have surely answered it for me. Perhaps there is one mechanic or related on here that will give you the answer you seek. It takes a while but hang in there, I finally got my answer and you will too.
Oliver Twist quoted:
Cav:
I agree it's time to stop debating because we have a fundamental difference of opinion. What I find interesting is that with 40 posts in this thread and over 2000 views, not one IAM-M member can answer any of the questions I've asked.
Chip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver, let me refer you to an earlier post of mine then:
Why don't we all just take a minute and pray for the survival of USAirWays, pray the men and women who make it all happen are given divine wisdom to lead the way out of this deep dark abyss, and that all us stubborn, stupid, arrogant, sniveling, good for nothing, but necessary mechanics, be made to pay divine retribution for causing USAirWays all this terrible grief it finds itself mired in.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is how You and Chip and especially Chip, see us, the mechanics. This was proven years ago when we went on strike, only to surface when U finds itself floundering yet again. The sky bus drivers always have loathed the evil mechanics.
Cav:
I agree it's time to stop debating because we have a fundamental difference of opinion. What I find interesting is that with 40 posts in this thread and over 2000 views, not one IAM-M member can answer any of the questions I've asked.
Chip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver, let me refer you to an earlier post of mine then:
Why don't we all just take a minute and pray for the survival of USAirWays, pray the men and women who make it all happen are given divine wisdom to lead the way out of this deep dark abyss, and that all us stubborn, stupid, arrogant, sniveling, good for nothing, but necessary mechanics, be made to pay divine retribution for causing USAirWays all this terrible grief it finds itself mired in.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is how You and Chip and especially Chip, see us, the mechanics. This was proven years ago when we went on strike, only to surface when U finds itself floundering yet again. The sky bus drivers always have loathed the evil mechanics.
[blockquote]
----------------
This is how You and Chip and especially Chip, see us, the mechanics. This was proven years ago when we went on strike, only to surface when U finds itself floundering yet again. The sky bus drivers always have loathed the evil mechanics.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Officers versus NCOs, all over again.
----------------
This is how You and Chip and especially Chip, see us, the mechanics. This was proven years ago when we went on strike, only to surface when U finds itself floundering yet again. The sky bus drivers always have loathed the evil mechanics.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Officers versus NCOs, all over again.
UAL777flyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 730
- Reaction score
- 0
wrenchbender,
If you think that other airlines will fill the void created by a defunct US Airways and hire more mechanics, you're deluding yourself. While I certainly agree that other carriers would gradually fill the void if US Airways ceased to exist, I doubt they'd be in any hurry to hire a significant number of mechanics. The fact is that all airlines are making significant attempts to do more with less. That includes mechanics. So when carriers inevitably get some flexibility on work rules/staffing requirements, it's going to require fewer mechanics to do the work. Also, you're forgetting that all of these airlines ALREADY have THEIR OWN mechanics out on furlough. These folks will get recalled before any new hires are brought onto the property. So you could have a longggggggggggggg wait before you get even a nibble on an airline mechanic job application, unless you're willing to go to a regional and get significantly less pay/benefits than you enjoy now.
And don't be so quick to point to the IAM UA mechanics as not giving concessions. They're up against the same thing you are: either they reach a voluntary concession agreement outside of bankruptcy, or the company will file Ch. 11 and get the same cuts and potentially more from a judge.
Everyone loves to talk about how marketable their license and skills are. But in this environment, you're competing with thousands of people with the same skills. If you don't believe me, send out a few resumes and cover letters and let us all know the kind of responses you'd get. While I'm sure there'd be some who would happen upon a good opportunity, most wouldn't get anything better than what they've got now, or what US Airways wants in the form of concessions. But hey, why should common sense get in the way of folks who are willing to kill an airline in order to preserve their pride.
If you think that other airlines will fill the void created by a defunct US Airways and hire more mechanics, you're deluding yourself. While I certainly agree that other carriers would gradually fill the void if US Airways ceased to exist, I doubt they'd be in any hurry to hire a significant number of mechanics. The fact is that all airlines are making significant attempts to do more with less. That includes mechanics. So when carriers inevitably get some flexibility on work rules/staffing requirements, it's going to require fewer mechanics to do the work. Also, you're forgetting that all of these airlines ALREADY have THEIR OWN mechanics out on furlough. These folks will get recalled before any new hires are brought onto the property. So you could have a longggggggggggggg wait before you get even a nibble on an airline mechanic job application, unless you're willing to go to a regional and get significantly less pay/benefits than you enjoy now.
And don't be so quick to point to the IAM UA mechanics as not giving concessions. They're up against the same thing you are: either they reach a voluntary concession agreement outside of bankruptcy, or the company will file Ch. 11 and get the same cuts and potentially more from a judge.
Everyone loves to talk about how marketable their license and skills are. But in this environment, you're competing with thousands of people with the same skills. If you don't believe me, send out a few resumes and cover letters and let us all know the kind of responses you'd get. While I'm sure there'd be some who would happen upon a good opportunity, most wouldn't get anything better than what they've got now, or what US Airways wants in the form of concessions. But hey, why should common sense get in the way of folks who are willing to kill an airline in order to preserve their pride.
repeet
Veteran
Well look at this Chip. We get a second chance
9/6/2002
To the Membership of District Lodge 141-M Employed at US Airways,
IAM representatives and advisors met at the request of US Airways today at the carrier’s headquarters in Arlington, VA. US Airways acknowledges that perhaps some confusion developed while the company was meeting with employees prior to the August 28, 2002 restructuring proposal vote over what the consequences would be if their proposal was not ratified by the Mechanical and Related membership.
In a letter that US Airways is mailing to each member’s home, CEO David Siegel asks the Mechanical and Related employees to reconsider the Company’s proposal.
In today’s meeting, the IAM was informed of the following:
1. If the members reject the company’s proposal, US Airways will not ask the bankruptcy court judge to just partially modify your agreement, but will have to ask the bankruptcy court to reject, terminate, abrogate the agreement in full.
2. Once the collective bargaining agreement has been rejected/terminated, US Airways will impose terms for wages, benefits, and work rules as it deems necessary, and will be able to change those terms as it deems necessary.
The IAM is prepared to defend your agreement. However, you must understand that the judge only has the authority to rule on the motion before him, and that motion will not be for modification, but for rejection of the total agreement. The bankruptcy court cannot craft a compromise deal.
Based on these facts, District 141-M will hold a second vote on September 17, 2002. The bankruptcy court hearing to reject the Mechanical and Related agreement will be postponed until after the membership has had an opportunity to vote.
The IAM is only asking you to vote based on accurate facts, and not misleading statements and rumor. There should be no confusion going forward. The decision is yours, and the IAM will continue to vigorously represent you, whatever your choice may be.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Scotty Ford
President and Directing General Chairman
Here we go agian!
9/6/2002
To the Membership of District Lodge 141-M Employed at US Airways,
IAM representatives and advisors met at the request of US Airways today at the carrier’s headquarters in Arlington, VA. US Airways acknowledges that perhaps some confusion developed while the company was meeting with employees prior to the August 28, 2002 restructuring proposal vote over what the consequences would be if their proposal was not ratified by the Mechanical and Related membership.
In a letter that US Airways is mailing to each member’s home, CEO David Siegel asks the Mechanical and Related employees to reconsider the Company’s proposal.
In today’s meeting, the IAM was informed of the following:
1. If the members reject the company’s proposal, US Airways will not ask the bankruptcy court judge to just partially modify your agreement, but will have to ask the bankruptcy court to reject, terminate, abrogate the agreement in full.
2. Once the collective bargaining agreement has been rejected/terminated, US Airways will impose terms for wages, benefits, and work rules as it deems necessary, and will be able to change those terms as it deems necessary.
The IAM is prepared to defend your agreement. However, you must understand that the judge only has the authority to rule on the motion before him, and that motion will not be for modification, but for rejection of the total agreement. The bankruptcy court cannot craft a compromise deal.
Based on these facts, District 141-M will hold a second vote on September 17, 2002. The bankruptcy court hearing to reject the Mechanical and Related agreement will be postponed until after the membership has had an opportunity to vote.
The IAM is only asking you to vote based on accurate facts, and not misleading statements and rumor. There should be no confusion going forward. The decision is yours, and the IAM will continue to vigorously represent you, whatever your choice may be.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Scotty Ford
President and Directing General Chairman
Here we go agian!
